February 27, 2024 • 33 mins
The Griggs are determined to get whatever justice they can for their son, Christian. With the help of an attorney, Robby Jessup, they file a civil lawsuit against Pat Chisenhall. The team discusses the trial and the verdict.
For more information about this and other cases we've covered, follow @ICHHstories on Instagram.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi guys, it's Hillary here. Just a quick note. This
series does deal with a lot of tough subject matter
that may be difficult for some listeners, so please keep
this in mind when and where you choose to listen
to these episodes. It's December twelfth, twenty eighteen. Closing remarks
(00:21):
have just finished in the civil case against Pat Chisenhall,
and the Hartnett County jury is advised that it is
now time to discuss whether or not Pat Chisenhall is
responsible for the wrongful death of Christian Griggs. When the
jury returns from deliberations, everyone is holding their breath. Last episode,
we discussed the only option left for Tony and Dolly
(00:44):
Griggs to file a civil lawsuit, and on this episode,
we'll discuss the civil trial against Pat Chisenhall and whether
Pat's justification of self defense holds up in a court
of law. I'm a Hillary Burton Morgan and this is
true crime story. It couldn't happen here. Hey, you guys,
(01:15):
we have our wonderful team assembled here, Dan, Poe, Andrew,
and I'm Hillary. We're all ready to jump right into
this one now. When it's clear to Dolly and Tony
Griggs that the Harnett County District Attorney's office and the
Sheriff's office are not going to do anything to pursue
criminal charges against Pat Chisenhall in the death of their son.
(01:38):
They really only have one option right and that's to
file a civil lawsuit against Pat Chisenhall. And so, just
as a reminder, in this civil case, the Griggs are
suing Pat Chisenhall for the wrongful death of their son.
And so at this point, it's not a murder trial.
You know, there's no innocence, there's no guilt. Ultimately, the
(01:58):
question that the jury has to decide is if patchisen
Hall was or was not justified in the fatal shooting
of Christian Griggs. Now it's the Griggs hope that if
the jury sides with them in this civil case, then
maybe the county will move forward in the pursuit of
criminal charges. And Dan, you talked to the Griggs about
(02:21):
some of their concerns going into this trial, particularly with
the jury. So let's just hear a little bit from
that interview right now.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Well, we knew going into the jury process that it
was going to be difficult to find people that were unbiased,
but at this point we had no choice because it
was not about us, but it was about a jury
of the peers of Pat Chisenhall. There were a few
blacks that were in the jury pool, but when it
came down to the final jury selection, there was only
like one black left in the pool. And I think
(02:50):
the attorney, mister Levin for Pat Chisenhall that defended, had
went to excuse that juror so that they were attempting
to go with an all white jury.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
To folks around Harne County a little bit, it's like
people feel like, yeah, you have a right to defend yourself,
and it just feels like a sort of a very
sort of pro sort of you know, psychonomic place that
almost seems like you have i'll pip battle with maybe
a jury around here. Is that your understanding or no.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Harna County is a Second Amendment kind of town. For
lack of a better term, you know, open carry, a
lot of open area people like to carry their firearms
and they actually shoot on their property and things like
that as long as you're outside the city. So it
is a pro gun community. It is a defend yourself
(03:42):
kind of I don't know what the term would be,
but they love they loved their guns, and they're no
problem in defending themselves or their home and their property.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
So were you nervous about that having a jury in
Harnea County.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
We were nervous all the way through it. Definitely, it
was a concern. But the one thing that we always
knew and know to this day, we got the truth
on our side. You can't have self defense when you
shoot a man in the back laying on the ground,
that's not self defense. If you think it is go
(04:18):
home tonight, lay in your bed on your belly and
envision someone standing above you with a rifle and firing
at you, and how do you defend yourself. That's not
self defense. And we knew that that that was not
self defense and it can't be termed as self defense.
So we knew coming into this battle the one thing
(04:39):
we've always had is the truth on our side.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
And then Robbie Jessup, the Griggs attorney, he kind of
affirms the worries that they have about the trial being
in Harnett County, and one of his biggest worries is
that the story of self defense is going to be
very difficult to overcome because as far as the jury goes,
I mean, these are all fair things for the Griggs
and Robbie Jessup to be concerned about. We've talked about it.
(05:03):
You know, when a narrative comes out, it's incredibly hard
to change the minds of the people who have already
accepted it.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
It very much felt like going into the lions Den
and trying this case in Hornett County. It going into it,
I very much wondered could we ever break from the
(05:33):
narrative or convince the community the jury to break from
the narrative that was put out there from the very
start about this being clear cut self defense, about Chisenhall
being justified and Christian snapping.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
I mean, this is.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
A small community. Once a community comes to believe something
like that, it doesn't want to.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
Easily let that belief go.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Now. Robbie Jessup and his legal partner, Rebecca Jugolic, they
want to combat this narrative of self defense head on.
So on December fifth of twenty eighteen, Rebecca Jugolic delivers
her opening remarks, and she says, on the morning of
October twelfth, twenty thirteen, the Reverend Pat Chisenhaal pumped six
(06:25):
shots into his son in law, his unarmed son in law,
Christian Griggs, and killed him on his front porch. The
child begins and the courtroom is full, and Tyler Dukes,
the journalist from WRAL that we talked about in our
last episode, remembers how aggressively the defense presented the self
(06:48):
defense narrative, really attacking Christian's character.
Speaker 6 (06:52):
One of the things you saw during the civil case
was the defense really tried to go through the backstory
of Christian's interactions with not just Katie, but in some
cases his own family. I mean, what we saw was
them presenting evidence of this fight that took place between
Christian Griggs and his father, Tony Griggs when Christian was
still a teenager. These are sort of the early stages
(07:14):
of his relationship with Katie, and they really did try
to paint a picture of Christian as sort of having
this history of violence to some degree, either verbal or physical.
And you know, again, the picture they want to try
to paint is of a person who would could reasonably
(07:34):
be expected to cause somebody to fear for their life
and fear for their safety on you know, in the
case of Patchisenhall at his home.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
That is a lot for the Griggs to have to
hear over and over again since their son died.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, Tony tells us how much his son's character and
the value of his life continued to be called into question.
It was really difficult for the family.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
They, as in the Harney County Sheriff Department, tried to
set a narrative that somehow Christian deserved what he got.
Christian was out of control. Christian broke in the window
that in some way, in some fashion, he had no
business being there, his presence wasn't to be there, and
(08:17):
that he was in the wrong place, that he didn't fit,
he didn't have any right to be there. This was
all about Pat chisenhal I felt during the trial that
we were spending more time trying to make Christian a
person rather than looking at what this guy had done
to Christian. There was no questions about the credibility of
(08:40):
Pet Chisenhoul and all the things that he did. It
was Christian that was on trial doing this and did
he deserve what he got. That's pretty much the way
it came across. The trial was very, very difficult.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
I cannot imagine how Tony must have felt just day
in and day out hearing his son's character constantly braided.
So Christian's dead, right, but it's his shooter, Pat Chisenhall
that's being painted as the victim. And so what does Robbie, Jessup,
and the Griggs legal team do to combat this narrative?
(09:16):
Throughout the trial?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Robbie and his team really dive into the timeline of
the nie on one calls, you know, the same way
we did on a previous episode, but even more than
the questions the nine on one calls bring about, Jessup's
team really homes in on a claim that Patchisenhall started
making shortly after the shooting and continued making throughout the
trial that.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
He's getting kind of fuzzy on the details of the morning.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
He's deposed and then testifies, and he just claims that
he's got a kind of an amnesia.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So let's recap just a few days after shooting Christian,
Pat Chisenhall does the walk through with law enforcement, and
we featured that on an earlier episode. You know, he
makes this tape and he seems to give the story
in great detail. I mean, he seems pretty clear.
Speaker 7 (09:59):
Then in the video he says a whole bunch of stuff,
you know, I got in the door the glass broke.
I was terrified. I turned around. I saw Katie. Her
face was terrible. I ran in the closet. I grabbed
the gun. I think I was standing here. But he
does start saying and then it becomes fragments. It becomes fragments,
but he doesn't say, I have no idea what happened
once I grabbed the gun.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
But that changes when Jessup interviews Pat in a pre
trial deposition, which that's when an attorney can ask questions
and try to find out what the witness will say
if and when they take the stand. Jessup tells us
Pat Chisenhall seemingly cannot remember a single thing.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
So at the time of the walkthrough, Pat has a
good recollection or seems to have a good recollection of
how he contends the shooting a current.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
We played some of the audio and discussed Pat's recreation
video in a previous episode, but I do think it's
worth hearing again because Pat sounds pretty clear.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
And then, all right, I do remember that I ran
out here. Why was this up?
Speaker 8 (11:08):
There was a twenty two riffle right there? I see
there was a twenty two there.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
I grabbed that. I just came running in here.
Speaker 8 (11:23):
And this I don't know him, don't I don't know.
My mind has just I saw. My mind is just
he saw frightened.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And uh it's just uh, I re I think I
think I fired from here.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
By the time I've taken Miss Chisenhall's deposition, he can't
remember a damn thing.
Speaker 8 (11:54):
But as far as the shooting goes, the incident itself,
anything after the glass broke, I don't remember anything.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
And then on December sixth, twenty eighteen, Pat takes the
stand and his hair is combed back. He's wearing a
striped button down shirt, and he appears somber as he's
being asked to recollect that day.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
In terms of his testimony at trial, he would remember
some things for his lawyer and other things not for me,
and blanketly claimed a general lack of recollection of anything
at all when those four bullets would have been discharged
(12:43):
into Christians back.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
So WRAL covered the trial and just listen to this
moment where Robbie Jessup questions Pat on the stand.
Speaker 9 (12:52):
I want to be very clear about this, sir. It
is your testimony that you cannot testify you are acting
in self defense at the time you shot those four
fatal shots and Christian Gregg's back. Correct, I have no
memory of it, but you cannot correct. Correct.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
This is such an important moment in the trial. You know,
we've heard this claim from Pat before that his memory
is fuzzy. But what's the difference between Pat Chisenhol's walk
through where he seems to be clear, and then being
asked similar questions in a court of law.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Yeah, I mean he in the walkthrough video days after
the shooting, he clearly says Christian burst in through the window.
His face was full of rage. I was terribly afraid,
and I stood here and I shot.
Speaker 7 (13:41):
Him, and I ran into the closet, I grabbed a gun,
and I came back and shot him.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
But here's the thing. At that point, he's not being
treated as a suspect of anything, so he has not
been read his Miranda rights, where they say anything you
say and do can be used against you in a
court of law. He's able to tell whatever story he
wants to tell and then color it with that my
brain is fuzzy. Disclaimer. However, when you are sitting in
(14:08):
that little witness stand and you're being cross examined by
an attorney in front of a judge and a jury.
If you lie, you can be charged with perjury, and
so you can't say this happened. But I'm a little
bit fuzzy. It's much safer for him to be like,
I don't remember it at all.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
Yeah, I mean, I think this really hurt him. Actually,
the whole point that he's trying to make is that
this is a justified shooting, but the jury never hears
that from past's lips. I mean, to me, this is
the most significant part of the entire trial. He says
he can't remember, so he can't say if he was
actually acting in self defense or not.
Speaker 10 (14:42):
Dan, it just played Devil's average for a second. I mean, yes,
I know what you're saying that. Basically, if he can't remember,
then of course it's up to the jury to decide
whether or not he was intentional or unintentional. But by
the same token, he does claim that he was in
fair for his life and that it was justified.
Speaker 7 (14:58):
And then he looks really bad because then he's standing
up there, right there in front of them and saying
I remember nothing, even though I gave you all that
information that is on the record and has been repeated
many times. Now I don't remember. That makes him look
worse for a jury.
Speaker 10 (15:11):
Then, or is it, as Hillary says, just a safer No,
it is safer.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
It is safer. But the jury is looking at somebody
who is claiming he killed somebody in self defense. He
has said so in the past, and now he's saying
he just doesn't remember. Safer or not. It doesn't look
good to a jury for somebody to just say, yeah,
all that I said, I actually don't remember.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
And we hear this all the time, even in criminal
cases where there may be a recorded statement from somebody
early on in an investigation where they outline their story.
But if that person, that witness isn't allowed to come
into the courtroom and be cross examined by the other attorneys,
it holds a lot less weight.
Speaker 7 (15:50):
So his chance to really prove himself in front of
a jury in a court, that's when it holds. Wait,
they say, oh, you said something in a conversation, tell
me now. Then it becomes a matter of court record.
And if you then hedge or don't remember, conveniently, you
look weak and your story looks weak. I mean, that's fodder.
That's when an attorney prosecuting or defense wants.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Yeah, I would ask, well were you lying on that tape?
And he would say, I don't know if I was
lying or not because I don't remember, you know. I
mean that it's really it's rough.
Speaker 7 (16:19):
It drives a truck through that guy's claim of being
a solid witness.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Okay. So the civil trial against Patchisenhall goes on for
a little over a week, and then on December twelfth,
twenty eighteen, Robbie Jessup, the Griggs attorney, makes his closing
statements and he says, the only people that can tell
you what happened on October eleventh and October twelfth, both
(16:53):
of those dates are Katie Griggs and patchisen Hall. But
the physical evidence is here to speak for Christian. On
October twelfth, twenty thirteen, somebody took this rifle, and it's
a rifle you have to aim and you have to
pull the trigger each time. They aimed it at Christian
(17:14):
once and shot him. I believe that was the abdomen shot.
You may come to another conclusion. They aimed it at
Christian Griggs and they shot again. I believe that was
the shoulder shot. But you might come to another conclusion.
We can't conclusively say what order they came in. Then,
when Christian Griggs' body was either paralleled to the ground
(17:38):
or completely flat on the ground, someone aimed this and
shot this rifle a third time into his back. They
then shot it a fourth time into his back. They
then shot it a fifth time into his back, and
(17:59):
they then shot it a sixth time into his back.
He then ends with the word verdict, as mister Levin says,
is to tell the truth. So what is the truth
in this action? I'd ask that each of you stand
(18:21):
by your convictions, that you all deliberate respectfully but passionately.
That's the only way our system works. And I'd ask
that you send a message with your verdict. So, after
all the closing statements are through, the jury sent off
to deliberate, and just as a reminder, what the jury
(18:42):
is deciding is whether Patchisenhall was justified in shooting Christian Griggs. Now,
if the jury sides with the Griggs family, Pat will
be fined two hundred and fifty thousand dollars which will
be put into a trust for Christian's daughter, Jayden, but
there will be no jail time. How long is the
(19:02):
jury out before they come back ninety three.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Minutes, ninety three.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Minutes, that's it, that's it. And what does the jury
of your peers come back and say they.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
Had a unanimous verdict that Pat Chisenhol did not kill
Christian in self defense of himself, his family, or his home.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
So according to a jury of residents of that community,
it's not castle doctrine. They have said this is a
wrongful death. And the same situation would play out in
a criminal trial. It would go to a jury of
twelve and they would have to make this decision. So
if you're the Griggs family and you're like, a jury
(19:45):
agrees with us. We've got this private investigator that agrees
with us, we have a medical examiner that agrees with us,
we have an attorney that agrees with us. Now we
have a jury of twelve that agrees with us. I
imagine they're feeling optimistic that all of these things could
be influential on law enforcement and that a criminal trial
(20:05):
will actually take place.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
The Griggs are hopeful that there will be a criminal
investigation reopened.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Well, we heard the verdict from the trial. I was
relieve there was hope. Again, some things are difficult to
say but not that hard to see. And this is
one of those cases I thought we might get justice.
(20:33):
Now we've proven, we've proven that it was not self defense.
We've got a jury verdict. They've got to arrest this guy. Now,
they've got to do the right thing, even if they
won't correct the narrative. It's a fact that it was
not self defense. They've got to do something.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
But that's not what happens. So the fair next day,
the Sheriff's department doesn't contact the Griggs family, they don't
reach out to the Griggs lawyer. Instead, what happens is
that there is a letter from the sheriff, Sheriff Wayne Coats,
and that is released to the press and printed in
local media. It is important to clarify the Sheriff Coats
(21:20):
was not the acting sheriff when Christian died in twenty thirteen.
He's newly elected and still in twenty twenty four is
the acting sheriff of Harnett County. But we should read
this letter, Andrew, will you take us through that.
Speaker 10 (21:34):
From Sheriff Wayne Coates. The jury is spoken in the
civil trial, and we cannot forget that the civil justice
system is a means to justice. Not every case warrants
criminal charges, especially when the suspected crime cannot be proved
to the extent that justice requires, and at those times
the civil justice aspect of our system of justice is
(21:55):
the proper place. But we must also remember that the
proof required in each aspect of the justice system is different. Also,
in a criminal case, proof must meet the highest standard
of proof known to the law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As law enforcement officers, when we do not believe the
proof reaches that highest standard, we confer with the district attorney.
(22:18):
In this matter. The opinion of both agencies is that
the highest burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot
be met. In the civil justice context. The standard of
proof is far lower, a mere preponderance of the evidence.
The evidence in this case met that standard in the
minds of the jurors that liability was more likely than not.
(22:41):
Yet that standard is not the criminal justice standard, and
all of the evidence produced in the investigation and even
in the civil trial does not meet the criminal justice
standard as applied in these circumstances, no matter how we
might think it should be, or even if some would
like for it to be different. Justice requires the same
law to be applied in each unique case, just as
(23:05):
in any other case, whether we like the result or not.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Wayne A.
Speaker 10 (23:11):
Coates, Sheriff of Harnett County, that's insane.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
You guys, we in doing this show have heard the
phrase over and over and over again. You can indict
a ham sandwich when you present information to a grand
jury and allow them to make the decision as to
whether or not something is going to move forward to trial.
You know, we've joked with defense attorneys about how little
(23:37):
it takes to send something to trial, and it feels
like we have an avalanche of material here. I mean,
I just how can the sheriff, after the result of
the civil case not say, hey, we need to seriously
take another look at this, and.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Not just the sheriff. The district attorney also says that
the result of the civil trial isn't going to change
the decision to not charge Patches.
Speaker 7 (24:04):
In all, Criminally, this is not a circumstantial case. There
are ballistics, there are forensics, there are phone calls, there
is a timeline, there are people that were there.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
You know, testimonies that don't align.
Speaker 7 (24:16):
You know who did it? There the nine to one
one calls, I mean, this is a preponderance of evidence
this case. I have seen cases where there was zero forensics,
no phone calls, no witnesses, not even an exact timeline
or cause of death that people have gotten the death penalty.
So this is the opposite of a circumstantial case.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
So for something to be brought to a criminal trial,
what are the pathways for those charges to be brought?
Speaker 7 (24:45):
They always go to the grand jury.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Yeah, well, the district attorney decides to take the case
and to file the charges, and then they usually take
that case and present it to a grand jury, who
then issues the indictment.
Speaker 7 (24:57):
And the grand jury looks at whatever the strict attorney
has placed there and says there's grounds to dig further.
Speaker 10 (25:05):
The grand jury, in theory, holds the DA's office accountable
who's bringing the charges, so.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
That they can't just willy nilly bring anything in. A
group of jurors have to say, yes, we agree with you,
this is highly suspicious. We'd like to see more.
Speaker 7 (25:19):
They don't even have to say it's suspicious. They just
have to say there's reason to look further.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
They have to say that there's enough evidence there of
guilt to at least have a trial.
Speaker 10 (25:28):
But what of a disappointment this is for the Griggs
family because the DA's office is affirming that it's not
worth pursuing at all.
Speaker 4 (25:37):
Totally, And that was pretty much how the Griggs felt.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Well, we got to the facts that it was not
self defense, but they still refused to do the right thing.
And the justification behind that was the sheriff or it
wasn't on my tenure. Oh by the way, if it's
a murder of manslaughter, it's going to be beyond a
reasonable doubt, No, sheriff. All you need is probable calls
for an arrest in an indictment. Same thing for the DA.
(26:02):
But the DA and let us know early on when
we were going through the different motions that they were
not going to be supportive.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
It's crazy because they're saying, even if you feel the
outcome should be different, this is the standard and maybe
you just don't understand it. And it's a wildly condescending letter. Yes,
and so if a jury of twelve of your residents
are saying, hold on, there is a problem here, it
would seem that law enforcement should say, you know what, yeah,
(26:31):
we'll take a look at that further. But for this letter,
from Sheriff Wayne Coates to come out the day after
a successful civil trial. You know that's law enforcement doubling down.
They're saying that they will not relook at this case,
they will not recheck their work, they will not do
any labor to allay the fears of the community that
(26:53):
something went wrong here.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
And they're saying, oh, yes, their DA and their sheriff's
office agrees, but they're a me. There me disagrees vocally
and in trial and with evidence and with written statements
based on her expertise and the evidence before her. She
disagrees with their conclusion that there is not reason to
look at this, that there are not conflicts within the
(27:16):
state's stance and the evidence.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
I believe her statement that the angle of the bullets
going into Christian's body was not consistent with the claim
of self defense.
Speaker 7 (27:26):
But all I'm saying that Emmy said she thought there
were big problems with the state's stance and the Sheriff's
department stance about it being self defense, And so they're saying.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
There's agree all aligne. That's not true. So the information,
the evidence presented at the civil trial that has never
been presented to a grand jury, the District Attorney's office refuses,
(28:00):
and it's such an abuse to the Griggs family, who
served their country. They have always been upstanding citizens, fighting
for the rights of everyone, and so to have this
right of safety in one's own community and representation by
your elected officials denied to them and their son, it
just flies in the face of what they've always fought for.
Speaker 10 (28:22):
I mean, I think the family would be satisfied if
someone said, will take a look at it again in
some way, shape or form. Even the current DA's office
will take a look again. I mean, don't they owe
that to the family.
Speaker 7 (28:38):
I think they owe that to the citizenry. I mean,
the victim of this crime was shot. We all know
who he was shot by, when he was shot, where
he was shot, and within a very tiny little time
when he was shot, all the what, where, when?
Speaker 10 (28:50):
How?
Speaker 4 (28:51):
All of it?
Speaker 7 (28:52):
We know the police decided that they were the ones
who should be the jury and the judge about whether
it was self defense or.
Speaker 10 (29:00):
But what's the right choice for the state, what's the
right choice for the sheriff's department or the DA's office.
What does it cost to take a look again?
Speaker 7 (29:08):
I mean, it costs money to do any of the work.
You're putting your man hours towards doing work.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
That happens all the time, you know. District Attorney's like, yeah,
we think we know who did it, but we just
don't have the evidence to prove it. So we're not
going to take it to trial because we're just going
to lose and it's going to waste everybody's money.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
But in those situations, have there been successful civil victories already?
Speaker 4 (29:30):
I don't know. I mean, i'd have to look for
specific examples. But the fact is that that's one aspect
that they're saying, we don't think we can win a
criminal trial against Patchisenhall. But the other end is what
Andrew is saying, they can reopen the investigation. They can
look to see if there is other evidence that can
be used.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
Okay, so what about like another agency coming in and
looking at this, like state police or the FBI.
Speaker 4 (29:54):
Right, what would the harm be in having another law
enforcement agency take a look at this case.
Speaker 10 (30:00):
I've been reevaluating it within your own agency. Unless the
investigation is just so sloppy and shoddy that it's an embarrassment,
it's a mistake, it's an error that will have great
costs to the state, great cost to the Sheriff's department,
great cost to the DA's office. That's a possibility as
(30:20):
to why you don't look at it again. It doesn't
take long to look at these facts of this case.
I doubt that this case file is that thick.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Well, if it happened at eleven o'clock in the morning
and the case was closed at five point forty five
that day and the scene turned over, you're right, there's
probably not a ton in that file, which is an
embarrassment in and of itself, given how many complicating factors
we've even discussed. You know, I'm sure there's stuff we
don't know. We can only see what we can see.
Speaker 7 (30:47):
But being that you know when, what, where, when, how?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
You know the we, when, where, how?
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Who?
Speaker 4 (30:52):
You know all the.
Speaker 7 (30:53):
Things that are usually a mystery that a detective has
to go find out, you know all of that. You
know all of it right away. It's just about justifight
or not. That's it.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
That's all right, And the hope would be that a
jury would decide that in a criminal trial. But hope
is sometimes a painful thing, and to this day, Tony
and Dolly Griggs are not only fighting to protect the
memory of Christian, but to continue their pursuit of justice.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
We love our family.
Speaker 7 (31:22):
We'll always been a very close knit family, and I'll
just continue to fight for until I don't have an
I don't until my last breath. I will always fight
for him.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
That's it for this week's episode of True Crime Story
It Couldn't Happen Here, But be sure to join us
next week as we dive deeper into the Christian Griggs case.
Speaker 7 (31:46):
A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to oversee our case,
and also the Department of Justice needs to come in
and intervene.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
That's what needs to happen there.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Join us next week as we continue to roll up
our sleeves and dig in. Thank you so much for
joining us. If you haven't watched Sundance TV's True Crime
Story It Couldn't Happen Here, you can catch all of
our episodes streaming on AMC Plus. For more information about
this and other cases we've covered, follow at ic HH
(32:20):
stories on Instagram. True Crime Story It Couldn't Happen Here
was produced by Mischief Farm in association with Bungalow Media
and Entertainment, Authentic Management Productions and Figdonia in partnership with
Sundance TV. Executive producers are me, Hillary Burton, Morgan Liz Accessor,
(32:40):
Robert Friedman, Mike Powers, and Meg Mortimer. Producers are Maggie Robinson,
Katz and Libby Siegel. Our audio engineer is Brendan Dalton,
with original music by Philip Radiotis. We want to say
a special thank you to everyone who participated, but especially
the families impacted by our cases.
Hi guys, it's Hillary here. Just a quick note. This
series does deal with a lot of tough subject matter
that may be difficult for some listeners, so please keep
this in mind when and where you choose to listen
to these episodes. It's December twelfth, twenty eighteen. Closing remarks
(00:21):
have just finished in the civil case against Pat Chisenhall,
and the Hartnett County jury is advised that it is
now time to discuss whether or not Pat Chisenhall is
responsible for the wrongful death of Christian Griggs. When the
jury returns from deliberations, everyone is holding their breath. Last episode,
we discussed the only option left for Tony and Dolly
(00:44):
Griggs to file a civil lawsuit, and on this episode,
we'll discuss the civil trial against Pat Chisenhall and whether
Pat's justification of self defense holds up in a court
of law. I'm a Hillary Burton Morgan and this is
true crime story. It couldn't happen here. Hey, you guys,
(01:15):
we have our wonderful team assembled here, Dan, Poe, Andrew,
and I'm Hillary. We're all ready to jump right into
this one now. When it's clear to Dolly and Tony
Griggs that the Harnett County District Attorney's office and the
Sheriff's office are not going to do anything to pursue
criminal charges against Pat Chisenhall in the death of their son.
(01:38):
They really only have one option right and that's to
file a civil lawsuit against Pat Chisenhall. And so, just
as a reminder, in this civil case, the Griggs are
suing Pat Chisenhall for the wrongful death of their son.
And so at this point, it's not a murder trial.
You know, there's no innocence, there's no guilt. Ultimately, the
(01:58):
question that the jury has to decide is if patchisen
Hall was or was not justified in the fatal shooting
of Christian Griggs. Now it's the Griggs hope that if
the jury sides with them in this civil case, then
maybe the county will move forward in the pursuit of
criminal charges. And Dan, you talked to the Griggs about
(02:21):
some of their concerns going into this trial, particularly with
the jury. So let's just hear a little bit from
that interview right now.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Well, we knew going into the jury process that it
was going to be difficult to find people that were unbiased,
but at this point we had no choice because it
was not about us, but it was about a jury
of the peers of Pat Chisenhall. There were a few
blacks that were in the jury pool, but when it
came down to the final jury selection, there was only
like one black left in the pool. And I think
(02:50):
the attorney, mister Levin for Pat Chisenhall that defended, had
went to excuse that juror so that they were attempting
to go with an all white jury.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
To folks around Harne County a little bit, it's like
people feel like, yeah, you have a right to defend yourself,
and it just feels like a sort of a very
sort of pro sort of you know, psychonomic place that
almost seems like you have i'll pip battle with maybe
a jury around here. Is that your understanding or no.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Harna County is a Second Amendment kind of town. For
lack of a better term, you know, open carry, a
lot of open area people like to carry their firearms
and they actually shoot on their property and things like
that as long as you're outside the city. So it
is a pro gun community. It is a defend yourself
(03:42):
kind of I don't know what the term would be,
but they love they loved their guns, and they're no
problem in defending themselves or their home and their property.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
So were you nervous about that having a jury in
Harnea County.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
We were nervous all the way through it. Definitely, it
was a concern. But the one thing that we always
knew and know to this day, we got the truth
on our side. You can't have self defense when you
shoot a man in the back laying on the ground,
that's not self defense. If you think it is go
(04:18):
home tonight, lay in your bed on your belly and
envision someone standing above you with a rifle and firing
at you, and how do you defend yourself. That's not
self defense. And we knew that that that was not
self defense and it can't be termed as self defense.
So we knew coming into this battle the one thing
(04:39):
we've always had is the truth on our side.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
And then Robbie Jessup, the Griggs attorney, he kind of
affirms the worries that they have about the trial being
in Harnett County, and one of his biggest worries is
that the story of self defense is going to be
very difficult to overcome because as far as the jury goes,
I mean, these are all fair things for the Griggs
and Robbie Jessup to be concerned about. We've talked about it.
(05:03):
You know, when a narrative comes out, it's incredibly hard
to change the minds of the people who have already
accepted it.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
It very much felt like going into the lions Den
and trying this case in Hornett County. It going into it,
I very much wondered could we ever break from the
(05:33):
narrative or convince the community the jury to break from
the narrative that was put out there from the very
start about this being clear cut self defense, about Chisenhall
being justified and Christian snapping.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
I mean, this is.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
A small community. Once a community comes to believe something
like that, it doesn't want to.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
Easily let that belief go.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Now. Robbie Jessup and his legal partner, Rebecca Jugolic, they
want to combat this narrative of self defense head on.
So on December fifth of twenty eighteen, Rebecca Jugolic delivers
her opening remarks, and she says, on the morning of
October twelfth, twenty thirteen, the Reverend Pat Chisenhaal pumped six
(06:25):
shots into his son in law, his unarmed son in law,
Christian Griggs, and killed him on his front porch. The
child begins and the courtroom is full, and Tyler Dukes,
the journalist from WRAL that we talked about in our
last episode, remembers how aggressively the defense presented the self
(06:48):
defense narrative, really attacking Christian's character.
Speaker 6 (06:52):
One of the things you saw during the civil case
was the defense really tried to go through the backstory
of Christian's interactions with not just Katie, but in some
cases his own family. I mean, what we saw was
them presenting evidence of this fight that took place between
Christian Griggs and his father, Tony Griggs when Christian was
still a teenager. These are sort of the early stages
(07:14):
of his relationship with Katie, and they really did try
to paint a picture of Christian as sort of having
this history of violence to some degree, either verbal or physical.
And you know, again, the picture they want to try
to paint is of a person who would could reasonably
(07:34):
be expected to cause somebody to fear for their life
and fear for their safety on you know, in the
case of Patchisenhall at his home.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
That is a lot for the Griggs to have to
hear over and over again since their son died.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, Tony tells us how much his son's character and
the value of his life continued to be called into question.
It was really difficult for the family.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
They, as in the Harney County Sheriff Department, tried to
set a narrative that somehow Christian deserved what he got.
Christian was out of control. Christian broke in the window
that in some way, in some fashion, he had no
business being there, his presence wasn't to be there, and
(08:17):
that he was in the wrong place, that he didn't fit,
he didn't have any right to be there. This was
all about Pat chisenhal I felt during the trial that
we were spending more time trying to make Christian a
person rather than looking at what this guy had done
to Christian. There was no questions about the credibility of
(08:40):
Pet Chisenhoul and all the things that he did. It
was Christian that was on trial doing this and did
he deserve what he got. That's pretty much the way
it came across. The trial was very, very difficult.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
I cannot imagine how Tony must have felt just day
in and day out hearing his son's character constantly braided.
So Christian's dead, right, but it's his shooter, Pat Chisenhall
that's being painted as the victim. And so what does Robbie, Jessup,
and the Griggs legal team do to combat this narrative?
(09:16):
Throughout the trial?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Robbie and his team really dive into the timeline of
the nie on one calls, you know, the same way
we did on a previous episode, but even more than
the questions the nine on one calls bring about, Jessup's
team really homes in on a claim that Patchisenhall started
making shortly after the shooting and continued making throughout the
trial that.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
He's getting kind of fuzzy on the details of the morning.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
He's deposed and then testifies, and he just claims that
he's got a kind of an amnesia.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So let's recap just a few days after shooting Christian,
Pat Chisenhall does the walk through with law enforcement, and
we featured that on an earlier episode. You know, he
makes this tape and he seems to give the story
in great detail. I mean, he seems pretty clear.
Speaker 7 (09:59):
Then in the video he says a whole bunch of stuff,
you know, I got in the door the glass broke.
I was terrified. I turned around. I saw Katie. Her
face was terrible. I ran in the closet. I grabbed
the gun. I think I was standing here. But he
does start saying and then it becomes fragments. It becomes fragments,
but he doesn't say, I have no idea what happened
once I grabbed the gun.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
But that changes when Jessup interviews Pat in a pre
trial deposition, which that's when an attorney can ask questions
and try to find out what the witness will say
if and when they take the stand. Jessup tells us
Pat Chisenhall seemingly cannot remember a single thing.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
So at the time of the walkthrough, Pat has a
good recollection or seems to have a good recollection of
how he contends the shooting a current.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
We played some of the audio and discussed Pat's recreation
video in a previous episode, but I do think it's
worth hearing again because Pat sounds pretty clear.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
And then, all right, I do remember that I ran
out here. Why was this up?
Speaker 8 (11:08):
There was a twenty two riffle right there? I see
there was a twenty two there.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
I grabbed that. I just came running in here.
Speaker 8 (11:23):
And this I don't know him, don't I don't know.
My mind has just I saw. My mind is just
he saw frightened.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And uh it's just uh, I re I think I
think I fired from here.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
By the time I've taken Miss Chisenhall's deposition, he can't
remember a damn thing.
Speaker 8 (11:54):
But as far as the shooting goes, the incident itself,
anything after the glass broke, I don't remember anything.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
And then on December sixth, twenty eighteen, Pat takes the
stand and his hair is combed back. He's wearing a
striped button down shirt, and he appears somber as he's
being asked to recollect that day.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
In terms of his testimony at trial, he would remember
some things for his lawyer and other things not for me,
and blanketly claimed a general lack of recollection of anything
at all when those four bullets would have been discharged
(12:43):
into Christians back.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
So WRAL covered the trial and just listen to this
moment where Robbie Jessup questions Pat on the stand.
Speaker 9 (12:52):
I want to be very clear about this, sir. It
is your testimony that you cannot testify you are acting
in self defense at the time you shot those four
fatal shots and Christian Gregg's back. Correct, I have no
memory of it, but you cannot correct. Correct.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
This is such an important moment in the trial. You know,
we've heard this claim from Pat before that his memory
is fuzzy. But what's the difference between Pat Chisenhol's walk
through where he seems to be clear, and then being
asked similar questions in a court of law.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Yeah, I mean he in the walkthrough video days after
the shooting, he clearly says Christian burst in through the window.
His face was full of rage. I was terribly afraid,
and I stood here and I shot.
Speaker 7 (13:41):
Him, and I ran into the closet, I grabbed a gun,
and I came back and shot him.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
But here's the thing. At that point, he's not being
treated as a suspect of anything, so he has not
been read his Miranda rights, where they say anything you
say and do can be used against you in a
court of law. He's able to tell whatever story he
wants to tell and then color it with that my
brain is fuzzy. Disclaimer. However, when you are sitting in
(14:08):
that little witness stand and you're being cross examined by
an attorney in front of a judge and a jury.
If you lie, you can be charged with perjury, and
so you can't say this happened. But I'm a little
bit fuzzy. It's much safer for him to be like,
I don't remember it at all.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
Yeah, I mean, I think this really hurt him. Actually,
the whole point that he's trying to make is that
this is a justified shooting, but the jury never hears
that from past's lips. I mean, to me, this is
the most significant part of the entire trial. He says
he can't remember, so he can't say if he was
actually acting in self defense or not.
Speaker 10 (14:42):
Dan, it just played Devil's average for a second. I mean, yes,
I know what you're saying that. Basically, if he can't remember,
then of course it's up to the jury to decide
whether or not he was intentional or unintentional. But by
the same token, he does claim that he was in
fair for his life and that it was justified.
Speaker 7 (14:58):
And then he looks really bad because then he's standing
up there, right there in front of them and saying
I remember nothing, even though I gave you all that
information that is on the record and has been repeated
many times. Now I don't remember. That makes him look
worse for a jury.
Speaker 10 (15:11):
Then, or is it, as Hillary says, just a safer No,
it is safer.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
It is safer. But the jury is looking at somebody
who is claiming he killed somebody in self defense. He
has said so in the past, and now he's saying
he just doesn't remember. Safer or not. It doesn't look
good to a jury for somebody to just say, yeah,
all that I said, I actually don't remember.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
And we hear this all the time, even in criminal
cases where there may be a recorded statement from somebody
early on in an investigation where they outline their story.
But if that person, that witness isn't allowed to come
into the courtroom and be cross examined by the other attorneys,
it holds a lot less weight.
Speaker 7 (15:50):
So his chance to really prove himself in front of
a jury in a court, that's when it holds. Wait,
they say, oh, you said something in a conversation, tell
me now. Then it becomes a matter of court record.
And if you then hedge or don't remember, conveniently, you
look weak and your story looks weak. I mean, that's fodder.
That's when an attorney prosecuting or defense wants.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Yeah, I would ask, well were you lying on that tape?
And he would say, I don't know if I was
lying or not because I don't remember, you know. I
mean that it's really it's rough.
Speaker 7 (16:19):
It drives a truck through that guy's claim of being
a solid witness.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Okay. So the civil trial against Patchisenhall goes on for
a little over a week, and then on December twelfth,
twenty eighteen, Robbie Jessup, the Griggs attorney, makes his closing
statements and he says, the only people that can tell
you what happened on October eleventh and October twelfth, both
(16:53):
of those dates are Katie Griggs and patchisen Hall. But
the physical evidence is here to speak for Christian. On
October twelfth, twenty thirteen, somebody took this rifle, and it's
a rifle you have to aim and you have to
pull the trigger each time. They aimed it at Christian
(17:14):
once and shot him. I believe that was the abdomen shot.
You may come to another conclusion. They aimed it at
Christian Griggs and they shot again. I believe that was
the shoulder shot. But you might come to another conclusion.
We can't conclusively say what order they came in. Then,
when Christian Griggs' body was either paralleled to the ground
(17:38):
or completely flat on the ground, someone aimed this and
shot this rifle a third time into his back. They
then shot it a fourth time into his back. They
then shot it a fifth time into his back, and
(17:59):
they then shot it a sixth time into his back.
He then ends with the word verdict, as mister Levin says,
is to tell the truth. So what is the truth
in this action? I'd ask that each of you stand
(18:21):
by your convictions, that you all deliberate respectfully but passionately.
That's the only way our system works. And I'd ask
that you send a message with your verdict. So, after
all the closing statements are through, the jury sent off
to deliberate, and just as a reminder, what the jury
(18:42):
is deciding is whether Patchisenhall was justified in shooting Christian Griggs. Now,
if the jury sides with the Griggs family, Pat will
be fined two hundred and fifty thousand dollars which will
be put into a trust for Christian's daughter, Jayden, but
there will be no jail time. How long is the
(19:02):
jury out before they come back ninety three.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Minutes, ninety three.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Minutes, that's it, that's it. And what does the jury
of your peers come back and say they.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
Had a unanimous verdict that Pat Chisenhol did not kill
Christian in self defense of himself, his family, or his home.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
So according to a jury of residents of that community,
it's not castle doctrine. They have said this is a
wrongful death. And the same situation would play out in
a criminal trial. It would go to a jury of
twelve and they would have to make this decision. So
if you're the Griggs family and you're like, a jury
(19:45):
agrees with us. We've got this private investigator that agrees
with us, we have a medical examiner that agrees with us,
we have an attorney that agrees with us. Now we
have a jury of twelve that agrees with us. I
imagine they're feeling optimistic that all of these things could
be influential on law enforcement and that a criminal trial
(20:05):
will actually take place.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
The Griggs are hopeful that there will be a criminal
investigation reopened.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Well, we heard the verdict from the trial. I was
relieve there was hope. Again, some things are difficult to
say but not that hard to see. And this is
one of those cases I thought we might get justice.
(20:33):
Now we've proven, we've proven that it was not self defense.
We've got a jury verdict. They've got to arrest this guy. Now,
they've got to do the right thing, even if they
won't correct the narrative. It's a fact that it was
not self defense. They've got to do something.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
But that's not what happens. So the fair next day,
the Sheriff's department doesn't contact the Griggs family, they don't
reach out to the Griggs lawyer. Instead, what happens is
that there is a letter from the sheriff, Sheriff Wayne Coats,
and that is released to the press and printed in
local media. It is important to clarify the Sheriff Coats
(21:20):
was not the acting sheriff when Christian died in twenty thirteen.
He's newly elected and still in twenty twenty four is
the acting sheriff of Harnett County. But we should read
this letter, Andrew, will you take us through that.
Speaker 10 (21:34):
From Sheriff Wayne Coates. The jury is spoken in the
civil trial, and we cannot forget that the civil justice
system is a means to justice. Not every case warrants
criminal charges, especially when the suspected crime cannot be proved
to the extent that justice requires, and at those times
the civil justice aspect of our system of justice is
(21:55):
the proper place. But we must also remember that the
proof required in each aspect of the justice system is different. Also,
in a criminal case, proof must meet the highest standard
of proof known to the law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As law enforcement officers, when we do not believe the
proof reaches that highest standard, we confer with the district attorney.
(22:18):
In this matter. The opinion of both agencies is that
the highest burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot
be met. In the civil justice context. The standard of
proof is far lower, a mere preponderance of the evidence.
The evidence in this case met that standard in the
minds of the jurors that liability was more likely than not.
(22:41):
Yet that standard is not the criminal justice standard, and
all of the evidence produced in the investigation and even
in the civil trial does not meet the criminal justice
standard as applied in these circumstances, no matter how we
might think it should be, or even if some would
like for it to be different. Justice requires the same
law to be applied in each unique case, just as
(23:05):
in any other case, whether we like the result or not.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Wayne A.
Speaker 10 (23:11):
Coates, Sheriff of Harnett County, that's insane.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
You guys, we in doing this show have heard the
phrase over and over and over again. You can indict
a ham sandwich when you present information to a grand
jury and allow them to make the decision as to
whether or not something is going to move forward to trial.
You know, we've joked with defense attorneys about how little
(23:37):
it takes to send something to trial, and it feels
like we have an avalanche of material here. I mean,
I just how can the sheriff, after the result of
the civil case not say, hey, we need to seriously
take another look at this, and.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Not just the sheriff. The district attorney also says that
the result of the civil trial isn't going to change
the decision to not charge Patches.
Speaker 7 (24:04):
In all, Criminally, this is not a circumstantial case. There
are ballistics, there are forensics, there are phone calls, there
is a timeline, there are people that were there.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
You know, testimonies that don't align.
Speaker 7 (24:16):
You know who did it? There the nine to one
one calls, I mean, this is a preponderance of evidence
this case. I have seen cases where there was zero forensics,
no phone calls, no witnesses, not even an exact timeline
or cause of death that people have gotten the death penalty.
So this is the opposite of a circumstantial case.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
So for something to be brought to a criminal trial,
what are the pathways for those charges to be brought?
Speaker 7 (24:45):
They always go to the grand jury.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Yeah, well, the district attorney decides to take the case
and to file the charges, and then they usually take
that case and present it to a grand jury, who
then issues the indictment.
Speaker 7 (24:57):
And the grand jury looks at whatever the strict attorney
has placed there and says there's grounds to dig further.
Speaker 10 (25:05):
The grand jury, in theory, holds the DA's office accountable
who's bringing the charges, so.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
That they can't just willy nilly bring anything in. A
group of jurors have to say, yes, we agree with you,
this is highly suspicious. We'd like to see more.
Speaker 7 (25:19):
They don't even have to say it's suspicious. They just
have to say there's reason to look further.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
They have to say that there's enough evidence there of
guilt to at least have a trial.
Speaker 10 (25:28):
But what of a disappointment this is for the Griggs
family because the DA's office is affirming that it's not
worth pursuing at all.
Speaker 4 (25:37):
Totally, And that was pretty much how the Griggs felt.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Well, we got to the facts that it was not
self defense, but they still refused to do the right thing.
And the justification behind that was the sheriff or it
wasn't on my tenure. Oh by the way, if it's
a murder of manslaughter, it's going to be beyond a
reasonable doubt, No, sheriff. All you need is probable calls
for an arrest in an indictment. Same thing for the DA.
(26:02):
But the DA and let us know early on when
we were going through the different motions that they were
not going to be supportive.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
It's crazy because they're saying, even if you feel the
outcome should be different, this is the standard and maybe
you just don't understand it. And it's a wildly condescending letter. Yes,
and so if a jury of twelve of your residents
are saying, hold on, there is a problem here, it
would seem that law enforcement should say, you know what, yeah,
(26:31):
we'll take a look at that further. But for this letter,
from Sheriff Wayne Coates to come out the day after
a successful civil trial. You know that's law enforcement doubling down.
They're saying that they will not relook at this case,
they will not recheck their work, they will not do
any labor to allay the fears of the community that
(26:53):
something went wrong here.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
And they're saying, oh, yes, their DA and their sheriff's
office agrees, but they're a me. There me disagrees vocally
and in trial and with evidence and with written statements
based on her expertise and the evidence before her. She
disagrees with their conclusion that there is not reason to
look at this, that there are not conflicts within the
(27:16):
state's stance and the evidence.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
I believe her statement that the angle of the bullets
going into Christian's body was not consistent with the claim
of self defense.
Speaker 7 (27:26):
But all I'm saying that Emmy said she thought there
were big problems with the state's stance and the Sheriff's
department stance about it being self defense, And so they're saying.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
There's agree all aligne. That's not true. So the information,
the evidence presented at the civil trial that has never
been presented to a grand jury, the District Attorney's office refuses,
(28:00):
and it's such an abuse to the Griggs family, who
served their country. They have always been upstanding citizens, fighting
for the rights of everyone, and so to have this
right of safety in one's own community and representation by
your elected officials denied to them and their son, it
just flies in the face of what they've always fought for.
Speaker 10 (28:22):
I mean, I think the family would be satisfied if
someone said, will take a look at it again in
some way, shape or form. Even the current DA's office
will take a look again. I mean, don't they owe
that to the family.
Speaker 7 (28:38):
I think they owe that to the citizenry. I mean,
the victim of this crime was shot. We all know
who he was shot by, when he was shot, where
he was shot, and within a very tiny little time
when he was shot, all the what, where, when?
Speaker 10 (28:50):
How?
Speaker 4 (28:51):
All of it?
Speaker 7 (28:52):
We know the police decided that they were the ones
who should be the jury and the judge about whether
it was self defense or.
Speaker 10 (29:00):
But what's the right choice for the state, what's the
right choice for the sheriff's department or the DA's office.
What does it cost to take a look again?
Speaker 7 (29:08):
I mean, it costs money to do any of the work.
You're putting your man hours towards doing work.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
That happens all the time, you know. District Attorney's like, yeah,
we think we know who did it, but we just
don't have the evidence to prove it. So we're not
going to take it to trial because we're just going
to lose and it's going to waste everybody's money.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
But in those situations, have there been successful civil victories already?
Speaker 4 (29:30):
I don't know. I mean, i'd have to look for
specific examples. But the fact is that that's one aspect
that they're saying, we don't think we can win a
criminal trial against Patchisenhall. But the other end is what
Andrew is saying, they can reopen the investigation. They can
look to see if there is other evidence that can
be used.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
Okay, so what about like another agency coming in and
looking at this, like state police or the FBI.
Speaker 4 (29:54):
Right, what would the harm be in having another law
enforcement agency take a look at this case.
Speaker 10 (30:00):
I've been reevaluating it within your own agency. Unless the
investigation is just so sloppy and shoddy that it's an embarrassment,
it's a mistake, it's an error that will have great
costs to the state, great cost to the Sheriff's department,
great cost to the DA's office. That's a possibility as
(30:20):
to why you don't look at it again. It doesn't
take long to look at these facts of this case.
I doubt that this case file is that thick.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Well, if it happened at eleven o'clock in the morning
and the case was closed at five point forty five
that day and the scene turned over, you're right, there's
probably not a ton in that file, which is an
embarrassment in and of itself, given how many complicating factors
we've even discussed. You know, I'm sure there's stuff we
don't know. We can only see what we can see.
Speaker 7 (30:47):
But being that you know when, what, where, when, how?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
You know the we, when, where, how?
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Who?
Speaker 4 (30:52):
You know all the.
Speaker 7 (30:53):
Things that are usually a mystery that a detective has
to go find out, you know all of that. You
know all of it right away. It's just about justifight
or not. That's it.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
That's all right, And the hope would be that a
jury would decide that in a criminal trial. But hope
is sometimes a painful thing, and to this day, Tony
and Dolly Griggs are not only fighting to protect the
memory of Christian, but to continue their pursuit of justice.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
We love our family.
Speaker 7 (31:22):
We'll always been a very close knit family, and I'll
just continue to fight for until I don't have an
I don't until my last breath. I will always fight
for him.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
That's it for this week's episode of True Crime Story
It Couldn't Happen Here, But be sure to join us
next week as we dive deeper into the Christian Griggs case.
Speaker 7 (31:46):
A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to oversee our case,
and also the Department of Justice needs to come in
and intervene.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
That's what needs to happen there.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Join us next week as we continue to roll up
our sleeves and dig in. Thank you so much for
joining us. If you haven't watched Sundance TV's True Crime
Story It Couldn't Happen Here, you can catch all of
our episodes streaming on AMC Plus. For more information about
this and other cases we've covered, follow at ic HH
(32:20):
stories on Instagram. True Crime Story It Couldn't Happen Here
was produced by Mischief Farm in association with Bungalow Media
and Entertainment, Authentic Management Productions and Figdonia in partnership with
Sundance TV. Executive producers are me, Hillary Burton, Morgan Liz Accessor,
(32:40):
Robert Friedman, Mike Powers, and Meg Mortimer. Producers are Maggie Robinson,
Katz and Libby Siegel. Our audio engineer is Brendan Dalton,
with original music by Philip Radiotis. We want to say
a special thank you to everyone who participated, but especially
the families impacted by our cases.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.