Episode 21: The Civil Lawsuit

Published Feb 27, 2024, 6:00 AM

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.

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 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 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, 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. 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

So were you nervous about that having a jury in Harnea County.

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 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 we've always had is the truth on our side.

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. You know, when a narrative comes out, it's incredibly hard to change the minds of the people who have already accepted it.

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 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.

I mean, this is.

A small community. Once a community comes to believe something like that, it doesn't want to.

Easily let that belief go.

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 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 defense narrative, really attacking Christian's character.

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 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 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.

That is a lot for the Griggs to have to hear over and over again since their son died.

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.

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 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 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.

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? Throughout the trial?

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.

He's getting kind of fuzzy on the details of the morning.

He's deposed and then testifies, and he just claims that he's got a kind of an amnesia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And then, all right, I do remember that I ran out here. Why was this up?

There was a twenty two riffle right there? I see there was a twenty two there.

I grabbed that. I just came running in here.

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.

And uh it's just uh, I re I think I think I fired from here.

By the time I've taken Miss Chisenhall's deposition, he can't remember a damn thing.

But as far as the shooting goes, the incident itself, anything after the glass broke, I don't remember anything.

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.

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 into Christians back.

So WRAL covered the trial and just listen to this moment where Robbie Jessup questions Pat on the stand.

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.

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.

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.

Him, and I ran into the closet, I grabbed a gun, and I came back and shot him.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Then, or is it, as Hillary says, just a safer No, it is safer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It drives a truck through that guy's claim of being a solid witness.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 jury out before they come back ninety three.

Minutes, ninety three.

Minutes, that's it, that's it. And what does the jury of your peers come back and say they.

Had a unanimous verdict that Pat Chisenhol did not kill Christian in self defense of himself, his family, or his home.

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 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 will actually take place.

The Griggs are hopeful that there will be a criminal investigation reopened.

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. 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.

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 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.

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 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. 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. 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 in any other case, whether we like the result or not.

Wayne A.

Coates, Sheriff of Harnett County, that's insane.

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 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.

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.

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.

You know, testimonies that don't align.

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.

So for something to be brought to a criminal trial, what are the pathways for those charges to be brought?

They always go to the grand jury.

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.

And the grand jury looks at whatever the strict attorney has placed there and says there's grounds to dig further.

The grand jury, in theory, holds the DA's office accountable who's bringing the charges, so.

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.

They don't even have to say it's suspicious. They just have to say there's reason to look further.

They have to say that there's enough evidence there of guilt to at least have a trial.

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.

Totally, And that was pretty much how the Griggs felt.

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. 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.

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, 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 something went wrong here.

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 state's stance and the evidence.

I believe her statement that the angle of the bullets going into Christian's body was not consistent with the claim of self defense.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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?

How?

All of it?

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.

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?

I mean, it costs money to do any of the work. You're putting your man hours towards doing work.

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.

But in those situations, have there been successful civil victories already?

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.

Okay, so what about like another agency coming in and looking at this, like state police or the FBI.

Right, what would the harm be in having another law enforcement agency take a look at this case.

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 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.

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.

But being that you know when, what, where, when, how?

You know the we, when, where, how?

Who?

You know all the.

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.

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.

We love our family.

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.

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.

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to oversee our case, and also the Department of Justice needs to come in and intervene.

That's what needs to happen there.

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 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, 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.

True Crime Story: It Couldn't Happen Here

The tight knit fabric of a small town can be torn apart when a violent crime happens. Join host a 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 25 clip(s)