S

Saying Tullahoma Alderman Kurt Glick should have recused himself when he voted to suspend city HR Director Casta Brice last year, prosecutors spelled out their official misconduct case against the alderman with the defense maintaining the state’s case won’t hold water when it goes before a jury later this year.

The revelation came in an answer to the defendant’s motion for bill of particulars (the legal point when the defense finds out the specifics of the prosecutor’s allegations against the defendant). The prosecution, in answering the defense query, pointed to Glick’s vote to place Brice on paid administrative leave.

“The defendant’s other votes made against Casta Brice and/or Jennifer Moody may serve as a basis for the state’s evidence of motive, intent, modus operandi or a common scheme or plant at the jury trial of this case,” said Special Prosecutor Christopher Stanford, noting that Glick had “an ethical duty to recuse himself from the vote due to a clear conflict of interest.”

The duty Stanford spoke about was brought by his lawsuit against the city of Tullahoma claiming age discrimination. Glick maintains he was pressured to take early retirement and is seeking remedy against the city. He was subsequently elected city alderman in 2022 while suit is still in federal court. The federal lawsuit has been placed on hold until his criminal case is finished.

As for the prosecution in the case, Stanford was named special prosecutor after the local DA’s office recused itself from the case after Glick’s indictment. Stanford serves the 31^st Judicial District which includes Warren and Van Buren counties. Circuit Court Judge Bart Stanley of the 31^st District will serve as special judge after the local judgeship was also recused given Glick is an elected official in Tullahoma.

Glick’s defense refutes the allegations in count two of the indictment, calling into question his votes when it came to Brice and Moody.

“Count two fails to assert a crime,” the defense maintains in calling for the court to dismiss the case outright against Glick. “Even if it did, Mr. Glick, in his act of voting as an elected official, would be immune from prosecution under the speech or debate clause of the Tennessee Constitution.”

The defense went on, in addressing count two concerning his vote on the Board of Mayor and Aldermen as it applied to Brice.

“Counsel is unaware of any laws that criminalize voting or otherwise required Mr. Glick to recuse himself,” the defense maintained in its request to dismiss charges.

The defense also aims to have the first count of the indictment dismissed because it was beyond the statute of limitations. While the exact nature of the allegation in court one has not been made clear, the defense pointed out count one was indicted in July 2023 but the crime that alleged reportedly took place before his retirement from parks and rec on May 7, 2021, putting it beyond the two-year statute of limitations for Class E felonies.

Glick is presently set to face trial on the official misconduct charges on Sept. 4. However, the defense is wanting the judge to delay the case until at least Oct. 14 so their legal expert, Lucian Pera can be present to testify. Pera presently has a conflict with the Sept. 4 trial date and the defense maintains his expertise in such matters will be important to their case.