Claiming to be the victim of “selective and vindictive prosecution” stemming from “political and/or personal animus,” former Wood County Sheriff Jim A. Brown filed a motion in late January to quash and dismiss indictments against him.

Brown and former Wood County Deputy Miles Tucker were indicted by a county grand jury on Oct. 25, 2017, in connection with a dispute involving an oilman who wanted access to an oil well on Brown’s property. That oilman, John Winston Forrester, and Forrester’s father, John Phillip Forrester, were shot by Jerry Boone, who owns land adjacent to Brown’s, on Nov. 2, 2015.

Both men survived their wounds. Boone was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and is in prison.

The indictments against Brown allege that in late October 2015, shortly before the shootings, Brown abused his official capacity by using a deputy and a Sheriff’s Department vehicle to prevent Forrester from accessing his oil lease. Prosecutors also allege that Brown engaged in official oppression by preventing Forrester from accessing his oil lease by subjecting him to arrest and detainment. He faces two misdemeanor charges as well as a state jail felony.

In his motion, Brown argues that he had every right to refuse Forrester access to his property because the oil lease in question was invalid.

Brown claims that Forrester had engaged in trespassing and criminal mischief and was subject to arrest and prosecution. “Law enforcement officers do not give up their rights to ‘life, liberty and property’ by virtue of their employment and Brown had, and has, a right to protect his property,” his motion states.

The motion does not mention that during the time period in question, 402nd District Judge Jeff Fletcher had granted Forrester injunctive relief, which prohibited Brown or personnel under his control from blocking Forrester’s access to the lease.

The motion to dismiss argues that neither former District Attorney Jim Wheeler nor anyone else in the District Attorney’s Office had investigated whether Forrester had a right to be on Brown’s property.

In fact, after the indictments, the state furnished the defense with documents that show it had learned significant facts “that would have put it on notice that Forrester had no right to center and cross Brown’s property …,” according to Brown’s motion.

Brown claims he was “singled out for prosecution by intentional and purposeful discrimination on the part of the prosecutor(s) and members of his own department because of political and/or personal animus.”

A jury trial is scheduled for Aug. 26.