A judge granted two witnesses immunity to testify against school board member Amy Word
EVANSVILLE — A judge granted two state witnesses limited immunity on Monday to testify about their knowledge of alleged illicit drug activity at Lamasco Bar & Grill and any involvement by Evansville school board member Amy Word.
Monday's hearing was the second time in one week prosecutors attempted to have a judge approve a narrow form of immunity to witnesses Bryan Biggs and Dylan Wallace. At the first hearing on Thursday, Biggs failed to appear, and Circuit Court Magistrate Judge Ryan C. Reed declined to grant Biggs immunity in absentia.
But Biggs and Wallace were both in court Monday and the hearing concluded without any hiccups. Lead prosecutor James Doyle said the witnesses would undergo depositions in the near future.
In an interview with the Courier & Press, Word said she has never met Wallace and didn't know who he was.
Word, who owns Lamasco Bar & Grill and the popular, upscale restaurant Amy's on Franklin, has been on an unpaid leave of absence from the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp. school board since her July 2022 arrest. Word has pleaded not guilty to one count of maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony.
In recent weeks, Word and her defense attorney have publicly disputed several key allegations put forth by investigators that would link the school board member to drug use and dealing at Lamasco Bar & Grill.
More: Ahead of trial, Amy Word and her attorney go on the offensive against witnesses, police
According to court filings, prosecutors aim to use Biggs' and Wallace's testimony to show Word's bar constituted a common nuisance under Indiana law between Jan. 1, 2022, and July 30, 2022. Word's lead defense attorney, Bob Canada, told the Courier & Press on Monday that he "welcomes their testimony."
Biggs and Wallace both admitted to Evansville police that they sold drugs along Franklin Street at varying times, public records show, and that they delivered the drugs to multiple businesses, including Sportsman's Grille & Billiards. According to a sworn affidavit, Biggs told detectives he acted as a "middleman" during cocaine deals that took place at Lamasco Bar & Grill.
Biggs pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic drug in October 2022, but a final judgment in his case was withheld, and he was transferred to the county's pre-trial diversion program.
The police described Biggs as a former Lamasco employee in his arrest affidavit. Word told the Courier & Press Biggs worked as a light and sound engineer on a contract basis and was not on the bar's payroll.
With regard to Wallace, Word said she had "no clue" who he was and added, "I've never met the kid."
In October 2022, prosecutors charged Wallace with dealing in a narcotic drug — 10 or more grams, a Level 2 felony, and dealing in a narcotic drug between 1 and 5 grams, a Level 4 felony. As of Monday, court records listed the case as “pending.”
Wallace's arrest affidavit in that case makes no mention of him delivering drugs to Lamasco Bar & Grill. It does say Wallace admitted to purchasing one ounce of cocaine for $1,700 from a dealer he met up with at Sportsman's Grille and Billiards.
Wallace reportedly told detectives he was on his way to deliver cocaine to a Taco Bell employee when police pulled him over and ultimately seized a sizeable stash of cocaine and other drugs from his vehicle and a passenger riding with him.
Immunity will help prosecutors secure otherwise difficult-to-obtain testimony
Biggs and Wallace can now more freely answer prosecutors' questions under what Indiana Trial Procedure classifies as "grant of use immunity."
But this specific form of legal immunity comes with a major caveat: Witnesses forgo their right not to answer questions put to them by the state.
According to Article 37 of Indiana Criminal Law and Procedure, a witness afforded grant of use immunity is protected from prosecution for testimony and evidence they provide at the explicit request of prosecutors. Prosecutors can utilize the arrangement to coax testimony from witnesses who would otherwise decline to answer questions on the basis that they would incriminate themselves.
"The court shall instruct the witness that the witness must answer the questions asked and produce the items requested," Indiana's trial procedures state. "A grant of use immunity does not prohibit the use of evidence the witness has given in a prosecution for perjury."
Biggs and Wallace could be found in contempt of court if they refuse to answer prosecutors' questions, and the scope of immunity afforded to them is limited. If either describes criminal conduct unrelated to Word's case, they could face prosecution.
Word is due to appear in court herself on Aug. 31 to be advised of an amended charging document prosecutors filed in July. The school board member's trial is scheduled to begin March 4 at 8 a.m.
Due to intensive coverage of the case in both news and social media, the trial will be held outside Vanderburgh County. As of Tuesday, the court had not yet decided where Word's case will go before a jury.
Houston can be contacted at houston.harwood@courierpress.com
This article originally appeared on Evansville Courier & Press: Witnesses granted limited immunity to testify against Amy Word
