The Flynn Doctrine, Part 8: The Black Journalist Flynn Couldn’t Silence

Facebook X Reddit LinkedIn

The only Black reporter trying to cover the exoneration of two Black men wrongfully prosecuted by John Flynn’s uncle was barred at the door.

Two months later, Flynn would prosecute her.

He would lose in court.

And the bar would discipline him for it.

But first, he would commit the same ethics violations—nine days apart—against two different targets. One was a 73-year-old journalist and civic leader named Betty Jean Grant. The other was his political enemy, Steve Pigeon.

The Buffalo Five and Uncle Cosgrove

In 1977, five Black teenagers were implicated in the death of William Crawford in Buffalo. Two of them—John H. Walker Jr. and Darryl A. Boyd—were convicted and spent more than two decades in prison.

The prosecutor who put them there was Edward Cosgrove. John Flynn’s uncle.

For years, advocates fought to prove Walker and Boyd were innocent. Betty Jean Grant, a former Erie County Legislator and chairwoman of the Erie County Legislature, wrote approximately 40 articles about the case for the Challenger Community News, a newspaper serving Buffalo’s African American community.

On August 18, 2021, State Supreme Court Justice Christopher J. Burns set aside the convictions. Walker and Boyd were exonerated.

It was a vindication for the men—and an embarrassment for the Cosgrove legacy.

John Flynn called a press conference. He wanted to tell reporters he was “confused” by the ruling, that he would not retry the two men, and that his uncle’s office “would never have railroaded” the defendants.

John Flynn - Frank Report — DA John Flynn

The Only Black Reporter Barred at the Door

Minutes before Flynn’s press conference began, two of his investigators—Mark J. Vaughn and Michael Nigrelli—waded into the gathering of about ten reporters. They started asking for credentials.

The demand was unusual. The email notifying reporters of the event said nothing about credentials. Still, the reporters complied.

In an era when police departments no longer issue press passes and formal credentials have largely ceased to exist, the demand itself seemed a pretext to exclude a specific journalist from a specific story.

Betty Jean Grant showed her identification but had no press ID issued by the Challenger. Flynn’s aides told her to leave.

Grant called her editor, Alnisa Banks. Banks would vouch for her. One of Flynn’s investigators refused to take the call, saying Grant “could be talking to anyone.”

When Grant asked if she could wait outside the office near the elevators—to interview reporters as they left—Vaughn sent her away entirely.

Grant recorded the scene and posted it on Facebook.

Flynn’s press aide, Kaitlyn Munro, later explained that the office had requested credentials because it anticipated that “non-reporters might try to disrupt the proceedings.”

Munro said: “People in the DA’s office knew Grant was an advocate for the parolees but did not know she wrote for the Challenger.”

They knew who she was. They knew she had advocated for the men Flynn’s uncle had wrongfully imprisoned. They removed her.

“The press conference was for members of the media only,” Munro said, “not advocates.”

The only Black journalist who had spent years covering the wrongful conviction of two Black men was excluded from the press conference announcing the district attorney’s “confused” position on the exoneration.

Two Months Later: The Polling Place Video

Two months later, on October 23, 2021, Betty Jean Grant went to vote at the Delavan Grider Community Center in Buffalo during early voting.

She saw a woman—not a poll worker, not a Board of Elections employee—helping a voter complete her ballot.

grant flynn voter - Frank Report — Grant films a woman illegally assisting a voter

The helper was a supporter of Byron Brown, the incumbent mayor, who was running a write-in campaign after losing the Democratic primary.

Under New York Election Law §8-306, voters may only receive assistance completing their ballots under four specific conditions:

The voter cannot read

The voter cannot see the ballot even with glasses

The voter is physically unable to mark the ballot

The voter cannot enter the voting booth without aid

Legally, not knowing how to fill in a write-in vote is not a qualifying condition.

The law requires that poll workers administer oaths to both the voter requesting assistance and the person providing it. The person assisting the voter must swear she is not trying to influence the voter’s choices and to not reveal how the voter voted.

This did not happen. The woman assisting the voter (and possibly other voters) appeared to be carrying a rubber stamp with Byron Brown’s name to facilitate the write-in process.

Election law prohibits anyone assisting voters from marking or influencing ballots.

Grant did what journalists do. She recorded. She went live on Facebook, narrating what she observed:

“The woman in the blue jacket is a private citizen who is being allowed by the polling inspectors to compromise the voting process. Why is she being allowed to tell a voter who to vote for? Why is she having contact with voters if she is not voting or she has finished voting? Why is she still in the room? She does not work for the Board of Elections. This is voter intimidation!”

Grant was documenting what appeared to be election irregularities—irregularities that benefited the candidate supported by Democratic Party Chairman Jeremy Zellner.

The Political Machine Responds

But Zellner is not only the Chairman of the Erie County Democratic Committee—the head of the local Democratic Party—but also an Erie County Democratic Election Commissioner. He is a public official responsible for ensuring fair elections. And that person responsible for ensuring fair, nonpartisan elections is simultaneously the head of a political party that benefits from specific election outcomes.

Two days after Grant posted her video, Zellner appeared on WGRZ television demanding an investigation. Not of the election law violations Grant had documented. But of Grant herself.

“The Erie County Board of Elections asked the District Attorney’s Office to investigate,” news reports stated.

District Attorney John Flynn was ready to oblige Elections Commissioner Zellner.

It was only fair, since Flynn had twice been endorsed by Democratic Party Chairman Zellner to run for District Attorney and might need his support in future endeavors.

On December 6, 2021, Flynn’s office charged Grant with one count of Misdemeanor in Relation to Elections under New York State Election Law and one count of Harassment in the Second Degree. If convicted, Grant faced a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Flynn didn’t wait for the arraignment to announce his case.

Flynn Tries the Case on the Radio

On November 23, 2021—two weeks before Grant was arraigned, Flynn appeared on WBEN radio to discuss it.

What followed was a violation of Rule 3.6 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct—the rule governing trial publicity.

Rule 3.6 prohibits lawyers from making extrajudicial statements that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” a proceeding. Prosecutors are barred from publicly opining on a defendant’s guilt or innocence, discussing inadmissible evidence, or failing to note the presumption of innocence.

Flynn opined on Grant’s guilt. He discussed evidence. He characterized the case in ways that could prejudice potential jurors or the judge.

He revealed something about his standards.

“It’s not the crime of the century,” Flynn admitted.

Then why prosecute a 73-year-old civic leader and journalist?

“When I have a victim who was outraged by this, it’s a no-brainer,” Flynn explained, referring to the voter and possibly Zellner.

Flynn prosecuted Grant based on feelings. “Outrage” doesn’t establish the elements of a crime.

Flynn also declared the innocence of the poll workers who did not follow the law, and the Brown supporter who happened to be on hand to help a voter who did not know how to fill in the write-in part of the ballot.

“No crimes were committed by any of those voters,” Flynn said.

This was a legal conclusion that contradicted the plain text of Election Law §8-306. The person providing illegal voter assistance—and apparently carrying a stamp with Brown’s name—committed no crime, according to Flynn. Only the journalist who documented it would be charged.

John Flynn Pigeon press conference - Frank Report — At his Dec 2 2021 press conference John Flynn where he declared Pigeon should be imprisoned for life

Nine Days Later: “Big Boy Rape”

On December 2, 2021—nine days after the WBEN interview—Flynn held a press conference to announce charges against Steve Pigeon.

Pigeon was Flynn’s political enemy. In 2007, Pigeon arranged endorsements that helped Frank Sedita win the Democratic nomination for District Attorney over Flynn, forcing Flynn to drop out. In 2015, when Flynn ran again, Pigeon backed his opponent.

Now, Flynn had Pigeon where he wanted him.

The charges were predatory sexual assault against a child, carrying a potential life sentence.

Flynn stood at the podium and declared:

“This is a he-said, she-said case… and I believe the child.”

“I stand with the child.”

He explicitly said he did not need corroborating evidence.

He called it “big boy rape.”

He said Pigeon “should be in jail for the rest of his life, quite frankly.”

The same Rule 3.6 violations Flynn had committed against Grant: opining on guilt, prejudicing the proceeding—he now committed against Pigeon, but magnified.

Flynn didn’t tell the public that the accuser had a documented history of fabrications. He didn’t mention that the accuser’s mother had a record of making false accusations against family members. He didn’t disclose that suicide notes written by the accuser before her outcry addressed her older brother and a “very special relationship”—but never mentioned Pigeon.

He did not say that the accuser was under pressure to explain a sexual video she made about the same older brother when she ‘out of the blue’ named her uncle, Steve Pigeon.

None of that reached the podium.

The case against Pigeon would eventually collapse. What began as “big boy rape” with a potential life sentence ended with a plea offer of a single molestation count and eight months in jail.

Pigeon faced risking a life sentence if he lost at trial, and life would mean being locked in a New York state prison. He took the plea deal.

The damage was done. Pigeon lives with a sex offender status based on a case so weak it imploded under its own weight.

The Charges Against Grant

Four days later, on December 6, 2021, Flynn’s office issued a press release on Grant:

“Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn announces that 73-year-old Betty Jean Grant of Buffalo was arraigned this morning before Buffalo City Court Judge Andrew C. LoTempio on one count of Misdemeanor in Relation to Elections under New York State Election Law and one count of Harassment in the Second Degree (violation).”

The press release stated: “No charges will be filed against any other person involved in the alleged incident.”

Translation: The woman with the Brown stamp who illegally assisted voters? No charges. The election inspectors who allowed it? No charges. Only the journalist who documented it.

The release concluded: “DA Flynn commends the Erie County Board of Elections for their assistance in the investigation.”

Flynn was publicly thanking the entity whose failures Grant had documented—the entity run by his political patron, Zellner.

Peter Reese - Frank Report — Attorney Peter Reese took on this election law issue

The Amicus Brief

Attorney Peter A. Reese, a veteran election law practitioner, filed an amicus brief in Grant’s defense.

Reese obtained canvass sheets through a Freedom of Information request and found no documentation of the oaths required by Election Law §8-306. The Board hadn’t even provided a place on its forms for such documentation.

“Obviously, neither of the Commissioners nor their duly certified employees performed their legislatively mandated tasks properly in the case at bar,” Reese wrote. “However, this did not prevent them from publicly asking for a criminal investigation of Ms. Grant to deflect attention from their failures to fulfill their sworn legal obligations.”

Reese argued that Grant’s video recording was constitutionally protected free speech—the documentation of facts necessary for petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

He cited the political relationship between Flynn and Zellner.

He noted Flynn’s public hostility to Grant, having barred her from the Buffalo Five press conference two months earlier.

He called for Flynn’s recusal: “Mr. Flynn’s close political relationship to and dependence on Democratic Election Commissioner, Jeremy Zellner, has been described above. Flynn has twice been endorsed to run for District Attorney by Zellner and needs his support in his future endeavors. Furthermore, Mr. Flynn has previously forcibly removed Ms. Grant, a regular contributor to a local newspaper, The Challenger, from his press conference.”

Reese raised the specter of federal civil rights violations, citing 18 U.S.C.A. §241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) and §242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).

The brief argued that Election Law §17-130(7)—the statute under which Grant was charged—was unconstitutional. The law prohibits entering a “voting booth,” but New York hasn’t used voting booths for more than a decade. The term “privacy booth” appears 38 times in election law but is never defined. Reese argued Grant was being prosecuted under an antique and unenforceable statute.

Flynn Loses

On July 21, 2022, Judge Andrew C. LoTempio granted the defense motion to dismiss the Election Law misdemeanor charge.

Flynn didn’t drop it. He lost it. The judge rejected his case.

The harassment charge was resolved with an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal—what prosecutors offer when they want to save face but can’t win at trial.

Flynn’s press release announcing the outcome used the same line he’d used in December:

“DA Flynn commends the Erie County Board of Elections for their assistance in the investigation.”

After losing the case, Flynn was still thanking Zellner.

The Bar Acts

The Frank Report has learned that the New York bar sustained an ethics complaint against John Flynn for his conduct in the Grant prosecution. Flynn was privately admonished and ordered to attend ethics classes.

Prosecutors are rarely disciplined. But Flynn created a record the bar couldn’t ignore—recorded statements, public press conferences, his own words declaring guilt before trial.

The bar discipline proved the Grant prosecution wasn’t just politically motivated. It was professionally improper. Flynn’s licensing authority said so.

The Pattern

Betty Jean Grant was not Flynn’s only target. She was part of a pattern.

Grant: Prosecuted for documenting election violations. Judge dismissed the main charge. Bar disciplined Flynn.
Steve Pigeon: Political enemy. “Big boy rape” press conference. Case collapsed from life sentence to eight months.
Ryan Flynn: Flynn’s cousin. Accused Flynn of childhood sexual abuse. Held without bail on a screenshot.
Seminarian protesters: Charged for protesting clergy abuse cover-ups. Dismissed.
Diocese of Buffalo: 900+ abuse claims. Zero priests prosecuted in seven years. Uncle Cosgrove was employed by the diocese.

The doctrine is clear: Enemies get prosecuted. Allies get protected. Critics get silenced.

Flynn will prosecute at the behest of political patrons—and thank them publicly after losing.

Flynn will target journalists who embarrass his family.

Flynn will violate ethics rules in pursuit of his targets—the bar sustained the complaint.

Flynn will protect actual lawbreakers while prosecuting those who document lawbreaking.

He remained District Attorney until 2024. Now he’s in private practice with the prominent law firm Lippes Mathias, telling reporters he’s making so much money he wouldn’t take a pay cut to run for office again.

That’s the Flynn Doctrine.