Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

May 10th, 2017:

Harris County will continue to fight bail lawsuit

Stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Harris County has appealed a federal civil rights lawsuit that challenged the county’s bail system, despite rising legal costs that have neared $3 million.

After a heated discussion and a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Harris County Commissioners Court voted 4-1 to appeal the suit and to ask for a delay to a May 15 start date that would require the county to consider an inmate’s ability to pay when setting bail.

The stay was filed after the meeting and Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal promptly issued an order giving all parties until 5 p.m. Wednesday to respond to the defendants’ request for a stay.

Elizabeth Rossi, an attorney from Civil Rights Corps, who represents indigent defendants held in jail because they cannot afford their bail rates said her clients “are disappointed to learn that the county and the judges are appealing Chief Judge Rosenthal’s thorough and comprehensive decision but we are confident that every judge to review it will agree with her and uphold it.” Rossi said her team would “vigorously” oppose a motion for a stay.

County leaders also urged their legal representatives to continue trying to settle the lawsuit, which had led to an order from Rosenthal declaring the county’s system unconstitutional.

“We believe the system she wants to implement is arguably not legal,” County Attorney Vince Ryan said.

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, who has pushed for settlement, cast the the lone vote against the decision to appeal.

“This is really asking the court to give you the funds to appeal,” he said.

Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who is a named defendant in the lawsuit, also opposes the appeal. He declined to join the other defendants Tuesday in appealing the order, explaining after the Commissioners Court meeting, “We’re just going to move forward to implement it the best way possible and see what all these other proceedings lead to.”

I’m angry about this. It is a huge waste of time and money in pursuit of an unjust resolution. Everyone who supports this needs to be voted out. I don’t know what else to say.

First anti-“sanctuary cities” lawsuit filed

That was quick.

Senate Bill 4 has drawn its first lawsuit.

The League of United Latin American Citizens, Maverick County and the city of El Cenizo sued the state of Texas on Monday, claiming that SB 4 has failed to properly define a “sanctuary city,” and that the city and county — both on the border with Mexico — have kept their residents safe by choosing to operate as sanctuaries since 1999.

El Cenizo, in Webb County, has about 3,300 residents, many of whom are undocumented immigrants. The lawsuit claims that “Plaintiffs are safer when all people, including undocumented immigrants, feel safe when their local law enforcement officers can be trusted for reporting crimes or just speaking with them about issues in the community.”

[…]

El Cenizo and Maverick County’s lawsuit, filed in a San Antonio federal court, argues that the new law violates both the Texas and U.S. constitutions.

A copy of the lawsuit is here. As the story notes, this came one day after the pre-emptive lawsuit filed by Ken Paxton to get SB4 declared constitutional. That lawsuit named Travis County and the city of Austin as defendants, while this one was filed against Texas by Maverick County and the city of El Cenizo, which as KSAT notes has had a “safe haven” ordinance in place since 1999, which by some miracle has not put the entire state into mortal jeopardy. I am sure there will be more lawsuits to come, and I won’t be surprised if there are some conflicting rulings. It’s going to take some time to sort all this out.

Special prosecutor to be appointed in David Temple case

Seems like the right call.

Kim Ogg

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg is asking for a special prosecutor to handle the murder case against former Alief Coach David Temple, adding new scrutiny to a decades-old case that continues to stir controversy.

Ogg filed court papers Friday to withdraw from the case because of potential conflicts of interest with her office and sought appointment of a special prosecutor.

The news left the family of Belinda Lucas Temple in grateful tears, holding out hope that Temple will once again stand trial for the 1999 killing.

“We recognize that we’re right back where we were in 1999,” victim’s advocate Andy Kahan said, standing next to Belinda’s brother, Brian Lucas, after a court hearing Friday. “But that’s the hand we’ve been dealt and, considering the circumstances and alternatives, we’re ready to move forward.”

[…]

“We’re withdrawing from the case and urge the court to appoint someone with no dog in the fight,” said David Mitcham, head of the DA’s trial division. “The tentacles of this case are just so extensive that we don’t want to create even the appearance of any impropriety.”

Ogg, who took office Jan. 1, said in court filings that two members of her office have possible conflicts. Former judge David Mendoza, who previously overruled Temple’s motion for a new trial, is now chief of Ogg’s Professional Integrity Bureau. And Steve Clappart, Ogg’s chief investigator, chased down leads on alternative suspects while working as an investigator for a previous district attorney. Clappart then stood with Temple’s lawyers as a private investigator in 2015 when they declared Temple was innocent.

Ogg reviewed the file for four months before deciding to seek a special prosecutor.

“Our duty is simply to do justice, not just to win,” Ogg said in a statement after the court hearing.

Temple’s defense attorney disagreed with the move, saying neither Mendoza nor Clappart were witnesses in the case.

“David is innocent and we look forward to our day in court,” attorney Stanley Schneider said.

State District Judge Kelli Johnson will appoint a special prosecutor, who will then decide whether to re-try Temple or dismiss the case.

See here and here for some background. This case is messy enough that having a fresh set of eyes on it, belonging to someone who has no connection to it or political ambitions that could be affected by it, is a good idea. I just hope that our Commissioners Court is less jerky about paying for the ad litem prosecutor than those jokers in Collin County have been. The Press has more.

Weird taproom bill passes the House

I don’t understand this at all.

The Texas House on Saturday voted overwhelming to place new constraints on craft breweries that grow beyond a set size or become acquired by a larger beer company.

Supporters of House Bill 3287 also fought back efforts to amend the legislation to give craft brewers the right to sell some beer on site for consumers to take home – something the smaller brewers have tried to secure for years.

HB 3287, blasted as anti-competitive by critics, is opposed by the Texas Craft Brewers Guild and Anheuser-Busch InBev as well as pro-business groups and a conservative Texas think tank.

“Now we prepare for the Senate battle,” guild executive director Charles Vallhonrat said after the vote.

A 2013 package of laws gave breweries that produce less than 225,000 barrels of beer annually to sell up to 5,000 barrels directly to customers, who must drink the beer in the taproom before they leave.

As originally written, House Bill 3287 would have extended the prohibition against on-site sales to any brewery that is acquired by another company that collectively exceeds that limit.

That group includes Houston’s Karbach Brewing Co., acquired last fall by A-B InBev, which makes many of millions of barrels of Budweiser and other products across the globe.

A revision to the bill allows Karbach and the other larger breweries to continue to operate taprooms, but it would force them to sell their beer to a distributor and then buy it back for sale to the public.

The brewers say the bill would discourage investors and will hurt their ability to grow.

The only beneficiary, they say, are the distributors who already exert near-total control over how beer gets from producers to retailers.

Here’s an earlier version of this story from before the House vote and here for a story from two weeks ago when this was in committee. I can only presume the distributors were behind this bill, which should tell you all you need to know. I guess this should remind us all that despite the 2013 bill that allowed on-premises beer sales at microbreweries, the big beer distributors can still throw their weight around when they want to.