Collin County Commissioners vote to clawback Paxton prosecutors pay

78
Collin County Commissioners Court

The Collin County Commissioners Court voted unanimously Monday to seek repayment of more than $370,000 it has spent on the prosecution of Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Now that an appeals court has ruled that visiting District Judge George Gallagher exceeded his authority in ordering the commissioners to pay a $205,000 invoice, the commissioners are asking the court to invalidate two prior payments to the special prosecutors and their counsel totaling about $370,000.

Since state law requires compensation to fit a preset schedule, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas ruled that Gallagher had no authority to invoke unspecified special circumstances in order to exceed the $3,000 permitted for cases like Paxton’s.

“The law should apply equally to everyone, no matter who is being prosecuted or defended,” Commissioner Susan Fletcher said Monday.

The appellate court decision marks the second time in the case where a higher court has rapped the knuckles of Gallagher; the judge was also found to have exceeded his authority in trying to retain jurisdiction of the case after transferring it to Harris County.

Just before the commissioners’ regular meeting ended, Commissioner Chris Hill introduced a two-part motion, asking the appeals court to invalidate the first payment and directing counsel to begin proceedings to “disgorge” the $370,000.

The motion passed 5-0.

“A plain reading of the opinion… makes it very clear that these fees were unjust enrichment of the special prosecutors, and both (trial) judges relied on local rules that went beyond their statutory limits,” Fletcher said. “The local rules also clearly state that attorneys are not to be paid until the end of the trial, and I don’t see anywhere in the local rules that allows for more than one special prosecutor overall.”

Special prosecutors Kent Schaffer, Brian Wice, and Nicole DeBorde have said they will appeal the decision cutting off their pay to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

“It’s not over yet,” Schaffer said.

There has been some comment this week from both experts and bloggers that the appeals court’s decision would prevent courts from being able to afford qualified private attorneys to serve as special prosecutors in future cases.

However, special court-appointed prosecutors of the sort employed in the Paxton case are no longer permitted under state law. A law that took effect a few weeks after Paxton was indicted changed the procedure to follow when a district attorney recuses himself after the Texas Rangers refer a case.

“The prosecutor for an offense against public administration must represent another county within the same administrative judicial region,” the law now states.

That could create a peculiar situation if Judge Robert Johnson allows the special prosecutors to withdraw from the case because they’re not being paid. If he interprets the law as requiring replacement prosecutors from a district attorney’s office somewhere in north Texas, he will have an extraordinarily impractical trial on his hands.

That trial is scheduled for Dec. 11.

Previous articleWeek in Review: Ken Paxton, Adrian Heath, and the Texas State Corruption Score
Next articleHurricane Harvey help or just “hogwash”
Jon Cassidy is a reporter for The Texas Monitor and a contributing editor for The American Spectator. He has been an investigative reporter for Watchdog.org and an editor and reporter for The Orange County Register. His work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, City Journal, The Federalist, Fox News, Chronicles, Reason, and other publications. He was a 2014 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow, and is a graduate of the University of Southern California. He and his wife Michelle live just outside Houston with their two children.

78 COMMENTS

  1. So let me get this straight. You paid for a political witch hunt and when you didn’t get the outcome you wanted you want your money back? You libtards never cease to amaze me. Pretty funny watching your circus.

    • Charlie Dickerson indicted yes. What was the result of the indictment? I had a lawyer tell one time that just because a person is indicted doesn’t mean they are guilty of a crime. The trouble with liberals is they have things backwards. Innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. Maybe you should read the constitution.

  2. Whose Justice? Yours? Paxton has NOT been convicted of anything except by the liberals who have commented here. Get on your knees and pray that YOUR not the target of political persecution someday.

    • He has not been convicted of anything. You are correct. But the HAS been indicted by a Colin County Grand Jury and the people of this state are entitled to their day in court to bring out the evidence for a finding of Guilt or not guilt. And the people as the defendant deserve competent counsel which the Commissioner’s Court is attempting to deny the people. It ain’t fair. But then the Republican controlled appellate court will probably overturn the conviction as they did Tom DeLay.

    • Republican controlled? Oh… like the Democratic controlled Prosecutors Office that went after Rick Perry? Another waste of taxpayer dollars on a politically motivated Failed Prosecution… Republicans know these tactics very well as we have defended against them for YEARS!

    • As a former Judge I am surprised at your obvious prejudices. I am neither a Democrat nor Republican as both in my view have caused this country far too much damage. I am a consitutionalist libertarian who calls corruption out when seen. Your insults toward me only shows the weakness of your stance. We must agree to disagree.

    • Concerning Tom Delay.. On September 19, 2013, a Texas appeals court overturned Delay’s convictions, ruling the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. The Travis County District Attorney’s office issued a statement that it would appeal the decision before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which it did. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to review the case and ruled, 5-4, to affirm the lower courts’ dismissal on October 1, 2014. This is the history. Your objection is overruled.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here