Filing alleges prosecutors interfered with central defense witness; judge has not ruled on misconduct claims
CULLMAN, Ala. – A Cullman County murder trial ended in a mistrial after a central defense witness invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, prompting the defendant’s attorneys to accuse the Cullman County District Attorney’s Office of improperly interfering with her testimony.
Jamarion Allen Harrison’s attorneys are now asking the Cullman County Circuit Court to dismiss his murder indictment with prejudice, which would prevent the State from trying him again in the July 2024 shooting death of 29-year-old Dylan Bomberry-Wright.
The allegations are contained in a 22-page motion filed Sept. 3 by attorneys James L. Golden III and Erik D. Fine. The filing is titled “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for Deliberate State Interference with a Central Defense Witness and Bar Retrial.”
The District Attorney’s Office has not yet filed its response, according to the court records reviewed by The Tribune. No judge has determined that prosecutors committed misconduct, and the court has not ruled on whether Harrison may be retried.
In a report by CBS 42 investigative reporter Scott Minshall, District Attorney Champ Crocker said he was limited in what he could discuss because the prosecution remains pending. Crocker told CBS 42 that his office planned to file a strongly worded response to the defense’s motion.
The Tribune is not identifying the witness because the defense filing says her related case resulted in a youthful-offender adjudication. Alabama law generally prohibits public inspection of youthful-offender records.
What happened during the trial
According to the defense motion, a jury was empaneled and sworn Aug. 25. Prosecutors presented their case before resting on the morning of Aug. 31 without calling the witness.
The witness was the only other person allegedly present for the events surrounding the confrontation between Harrison and Bomberry-Wright. The defense does not contend that she saw the shooting itself but says she possesses unique firsthand knowledge of what happened immediately before it.
Harrison’s attorneys say the witness could testify about Bomberry-Wright’s alleged intoxication, aggression and unwanted sexual conduct toward her, as well as messages she sent Harrison before the confrontation. The defense says that testimony was essential to its planned arguments that Harrison acted in self-defense or in defense of another person.
Those descriptions are defense allegations and have not been established as facts by a jury.
After the State rested, Harrison’s attorneys attempted to locate the witness and serve her with a defense subpoena. The motion alleges the defense then learned that representatives of the District Attorney’s Office had accused the witness of harming the State’s case and told her or her family that she could lose her youthful-offender disposition, face a renewed murder charge and be incarcerated.
The defense informed the court of those allegations and moved for a mistrial. According to the motion, prosecutors denied that anyone from the District Attorney’s Office had spoken with or threatened the witness.
The filing says prosecutors also told the court their actions were intended to protect the witness because she allegedly was in danger from Harrison. The defense claims prosecutors did not identify a specific protective measure when questioned by the court.
Those accounts represent the defense’s characterization of the courtroom exchange. A transcript of the proceeding was not among the records reviewed by The Tribune.
The defense successfully served the witness with a subpoena later Aug. 31, requiring her to appear Sept. 1. Harrison’s attorneys told the court they intended to question her outside the jury’s presence about her communications with the District Attorney’s Office.
The motion alleges that immediately before that examination, Crocker announced in the witness’s presence that the State intended to seek withdrawal of her youthful-offender disposition and reinstatement of her original murder charge because she allegedly had failed to cooperate with prosecutors.
When the court asked how the witness had failed to cooperate, the motion says Crocker declined to identify the factual basis and said it would be included in a forthcoming motion.
The court recessed the proceedings so an independent attorney could be appointed for the witness. After consulting that attorney, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right and declined to testify for either side.
Court finds mistrial necessary
A Sept. 2 mistrial order, as quoted and described in the defense motion, states that the State’s announcement concerning the witness’s youthful-offender status became a factor in her attorney’s advice. The attorney reportedly told the court that the announcement “governed his advice to her.”
The order also reportedly recognized “the unique nature” of the witness’s firsthand knowledge and the defense’s position that no other witness could present the material events from her perspective.
According to the defense filing, the court determined that no remedy short of a mistrial would allow Harrison to proceed without the evidence the defense expected to obtain from the witness. The court found that “manifest necessity” required the jury to be discharged.
The defense asked that the mistrial be entered with prejudice. The court declined to decide at that time whether Harrison could be prosecuted again.
The defense motion quotes the order as stating that the court “does not reach or decide in this Order whether retrial is barred and makes no determination concerning the effect of the mistrial upon future proceedings.”
The filing also acknowledges that prosecutors opposed the defense’s request for a mistrial.
Dispute over witness’ plea agreement
The motion says the witness originally was charged with murder in a companion case arising from the same shooting.
On Nov. 12, 2025, according to Harrison’s attorneys, the court accepted an agreement under which she received youthful-offender treatment and pleaded guilty to third-degree assault. The agreement reportedly called for a 12-month sentence in the Cullman County Detention Center, suspended for 24 months of unsupervised probation.
The cooperation provisions quoted in Harrison’s motion required the witness to provide truthful, complete and accurate information. The agreement also warned that the State could seek to reinstate charges or set aside her youthful-offender adjudication if it determined she had not provided truthful cooperation or had violated another provision.
Harrison’s attorneys argue that nothing in the agreement prohibited the witness from speaking with the defense, complying with a defense subpoena or giving truthful testimony favorable to Harrison.
The defense also maintains that prosecutors could not unilaterally cancel an accepted plea agreement. Any alleged breach, the attorneys argue, would require a motion, notice, representation by counsel and a judicial determination.
The State has not presented its interpretation of the agreement in a response included among the records reviewed by The Tribune.
Court records show Harrison’s attorneys had repeatedly requested disclosure of witness agreements, incentives, threats or pressure, including through motions filed Nov. 4, 2025, and Aug. 12. The provided records do not show how the court resolved those requests.
In another potentially significant filing, Assistant District Attorney Michael R. Burleson notified the defense July 16 that the State intended to offer evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence alleging Harrison previously committed “an act of violence” against the same witness.
The notice did not identify the alleged act, and the records reviewed do not establish whether the evidence was admitted during the trial.
Defense seeks dismissal or evidentiary hearing
Harrison’s attorneys argue that prosecutors deliberately caused the witness to become unavailable after learning her testimony could support the defense.
The motion asks the court to find that the State violated Harrison’s rights to due process, compulsory process and a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. It also asks the judge to dismiss the murder indictment with prejudice under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
If the judge finds the existing record insufficient, the defense alternatively requests an evidentiary hearing to examine communications involving the witness, her family and representatives of the District Attorney’s Office.
The defense also asks the court to order the preservation and disclosure of relevant communications and to refer any intentional misrepresentation or improper witness interference established through the proceedings to the Alabama State Bar’s Office of General Counsel.
Because Harrison requested the mistrial, its declaration does not automatically prevent another prosecution. A defendant who successfully requests a mistrial ordinarily may be tried again. Retrial could be barred, however, if the court determines that prosecutors intended their conduct to provoke the defendant into seeking a mistrial.
Harrison’s attorneys contend that the timing and foreseeable effect of the State’s actions provide sufficient evidence of that intent. Prosecutors’ opposition to the mistrial could weigh against that argument, but the defense maintains the opposition is not conclusive.
Former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Catherine Crosby reviewed the court documents for CBS 42 and questioned the timing of the State’s actions.
“Without ever, ever hearing what she’s going to say, pull the deal and tell her they’re going to reinstate the murder charge,” Crosby told CBS 42 investigative reporter Scott Minshall.
Crosby described the timing as suspicious and out of the ordinary.
The court will have to determine whether the evidence supports the defense’s allegations, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary and whether Harrison may be tried again.
The underlying case
A Cullman County grand jury indicted Harrison on one count of murder on Aug. 2, 2024. The indictment alleges Harrison intentionally caused Bomberry-Wright’s death by shooting him with a firearm on or about July 1, 2024, at a residence on County Road 1126.
The Tribune reported at the time that the Cullman County Sheriff’s Office said Harrison, Bomberry-Wright and another person were together at the residence when a confrontation occurred. Bomberry-Wright was transported to a hospital, where he died from his injuries. Harrison, who was 20 at the time, allegedly left before deputies arrived.
WBRC later reported that Harrison was captured by the U.S. Marshals Service. The station also reported that authorities, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, recovered a potential murder weapon.
Harrison has pleaded not guilty. A criminal charge is an allegation, and Harrison is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
