City might need to spend more for legal defense of indicted officials
Lengthy case means city needs to pay more, mayor says
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
35 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR
Victoria Police Chief Bruce Ure was accused of lying to the grand jury that investigated whether former Victoria County Sheriff Michael Ratcliff sexually assaulted a teenage boy while still sheriff.
Police Lt. Ralph Buentello and ...
- SHOW ALL »
WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR
Victoria Police Chief Bruce Ure was accused of lying to the grand jury that investigated whether former Victoria County Sheriff Michael Ratcliff sexually assaulted a teenage boy while still sheriff.
Police Lt. Ralph Buentello and former city attorney David Smith are also charged with aggravated perjury.
A grand jury indicted the three men and Mayor Will Armstrong on multiple counts last year, accusing them of plotting to interfere with an investigation of Ratcliff. The city officials maintain that they were concerned the investigation was not being handled properly and that District Attorney Stephen Tyler's prosecution of them is retaliatory.
Judge Stephen Williams dismissed the case against Ure on April 30 and barred Tyler and his office from prosecuting Smith or Buentello. Williams has not appointed a new prosecutor for those cases.
All charges against Armstrong were dropped. The only charges that remain against Smith and Buentello are aggravated perjury.
Victoria city council members might spend more public funds to defend indicted city officials.
Last year, the city council voted to pay a total of $200,000 to defend Mayor Will Armstrong, Police Chief Bruce Ure, Lt. Ralph Buentello and former city attorney David Smith against misconduct charges.
Charges against Armstrong and Ure have been dismissed. But District Attorney Stephen Tyler is appealing judge Stephen William's dismissal of Ure's aggravated perjury charges.
"This has gone on longer than anyone anticipated," Armstrong said. Although the council has not discussed allocating more money for defense, Armstrong said, the talk is inevitable during upcoming budget meetings. The city already has spent almost all of the $50,000 per-case allowance, Armstrong said.
"If it was right to pay one dollar it is right to pay the next dollar," Armstrong said.
Tyler criticized the city's earlier decision to pay for the official's legal fees.
"I would question the legality," Tyler said, citing a 2000 Attorney General's decision that said a city could not pay for council members' defense in an open records case.
Armstrong, in turn, criticized Tyler for wasting taxpayer money to prosecute the officials. He pointed to Tyler's use of outside attorneys to handle the appeal.
Tyler said his office has spent about $2,000 to hire a Corpus Christi attorney who specializes in writing appellate briefs.
"It's essentially a brief writer," Tyler said of the job. "That's a lot different than trial law."
County auditor's records show Tyler's office has spent $4,000 to hire an appellate lawyer. That money came from hot check fees generated by the DA's office.
The Victoria Advocate has requested that the district attorney and the city provide an accounting of the total funds on the case of the indicted officials.
Most council members said they were not aware of plans to set aside more defense money.
"I certainly hope that doesn't occur," newly elected councilman Joe Truman said. "But if you don't support your personnel in these situations, you won't get good personnel."
David Hagan, who cast the dissenting vote for the first round of defense spending, said he would not comment on the proposal since it has not been formally made.
"This is speculation," he said. Paying 100 percent of police and fire fighters' insurance and raising their salaries should be a bigger priority, he said.
Jeff Lyon and Denise Rangel, who are vying for a council seat in a runoff election, both said they would need more information to decide if the expense was appropriate.
Comments
Well KCi,
We'll all soon know the REST of the ruling - holding your breath are you?
July 31, 2009 at 8:58 p.m.As usual, Don Mader does not tell the whole story. The Court ruled only on one issue regarding Ure....certain documents will remain sealed. The bigger issue (the aggravated perjury case against Ure) is still before the court.
Simply a continuation of the half-truths and exaggerations Mader is well known for.
July 31, 2009 at 8:37 p.m.D.A. Tyler loses!!!
The Appeals Court has upheld Judge Williams ruling in the Bruce Ure case! Waiting for the rest of the ruling for Buentello and Smith.
Wonder what Tyler is going to do now - maybe appeal to the Supreme Court?
July 31, 2009 at 3:44 p.m.Ok, why did the Advocate delete my comment? It was no worse than Don Maders? With the exceptin that my comment was Pro Tyler and his is Anti Tyler.
June 13, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 13, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.tellitrue...you're telling it wrong. According to the Advocate stories, Ratcliff made a deal with a visting prosecutor and not Tyler and it was because the visiting prosecutor claimed that the investigation had been fouled up by local law enforcement (like many other high profile cases lately).
June 13, 2009 at 9:03 a.m.I would NOT be surprised if TYLER has charges lodged against him before his term is up.
June 13, 2009 at 7:17 a.m.STAY TUNED, FOLKS !
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 13, 2009 at 2:58 a.m.All legal jargon aside, I am not a lawyer, never wanted to be on, HOWEVER I am a taxpayer & my reply to this absolute waste of money, which means I will be taxed more, again is "Have you all down there at city hall lost your d m minds? Pay for it out of your own pockets not mine & the thousands others here in Victoria, ENOUGH ALREADY.
June 9, 2009 at 8:05 a.m.If I was investigatng someone and some loud mouth ratted to a newspaper revealing the investigation because they didn't THINK the investigation was progressing- I would file charges also. What in the worllld were they thinking exposing an investigation? And because of this exposure by the press and the individuals who exposed the inveastigation, the criminal got off with a light sentence! The whole group ought to go to jail! Keep at it Tyler
June 8, 2009 at 1:20 a.m.justataxpayer,
In the first place, the City is self-insured for employees' medical ins. and uses a T.P.A (Third Party Administrator) to process the claims.
Secondly, there is NO way in the world that the City could get away with paying the insurance cost for JUST the Police and/or Fire Dept. personnel and not the rest of the employees - and Hapless Hagan knows that! That's just a gratuitious, BS political statement trying to blow smoke - it sounds good but Hagan knows it'll never happen..
You want to see a jump in higher taxes? Good deal - support that ridiculous idea and then we'll see who's whining and moaning.
June 8, 2009 at 1:09 a.m.Tyler supporters,
You still don't get it - Tyler doesn't WANT the truth to be told. He fought to keep the defendents lawyers from having access to the Grand Jury testimony. Once they got access and shared it with Judge Williams, you saw the result - Tyler and his office got tossed off the case because the Judge recognized his actions as a personal vendetta. Did you miss the point where the judge said Tyler couldn't be both the injured party AND the prosecutor? That would hsve been the perfect scenario for a payback.
One more point. Originally Tyler tried to prove that the defendents were trying ruin his case against Ratcliff. When he couldn't get that to stick (remember all those indictments that were thrown out?), he changed his game plan to try and prove a conspiracy against him. Judge Williams didn't
think was such a great idea either.
Sooner or later all the charges WILL be dropped for lack of evidence. In the meantime, all you Tyler lovers need to think about the WASTE of time and money as well as the damage this wingnut has done to Victoria's reputation. The charges have been false from day one. Tyler will go to any lengths to get even with anyone who dares question how he's doing his job.
Thank God the election isn't that far away! I'll support whomever runs against him - even Pepper or R.M. Holy.
June 8, 2009 at 12:56 a.m.Mr Mayor, why do we need to give more money to Ure? Mr. Hagan is suggesting the city pay the police officers health premiums plus give them a pay raise similiar to the one you gave our City Manager. Unless Mr Ure already gets a better deal than the street beat guys, the savings he will get by not paying for health insurance should be sufficient to pay for a local attorney. Of course, the savings will not be enough to hire the out-of-town guru... but we all must make choices. Tough choice Mr Ure.
June 8, 2009 at 12:08 a.m.Since when is proving ones innocence stupid. I thought that was the whole point to our legal system. To ensure an innocent does not go to jail. Be it this case or any other case, the accused is still entitled to their day in court so that the truth can be told.
June 7, 2009 at 11:28 p.m.Victoria needs a new tax called the “STUPID VICTORIAN TAX”
Proving these moron’s innocence is stupid and will have no end.
June 7, 2009 at 8:27 p.m.How many of you would have voted for THAT City Charter Amendment, if the election were held today? Also, wasn't the appeal filed PRIOR to the election? If so, why didn't Ole Slick Willie mention this before the election?
Thank God for David Hagan. This would have never been a story without him on the City Council.
June 7, 2009 at 6:44 p.m.tools
June 7, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.WOW, I feel like a pigeon flying up here with you legal eagles. Anyway lets get down to brass tacks, why is Victoria gonna dish out more money to prosecute these guys? Offer them a city attorney just to make it seem legal and fare then offer them a plea deal send them to prison for a few years CALL IT A DAY! Isn't that Victoria's regulatory standard procedure and treatment for all the other career criminals of Victoria? We do want to keep it fare right? We don't want your average Joe to think we give criminal city officials better treatment right!
June 7, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 7, 2009 at 9:14 a.m.darlins64...I am well aware that no public funds were used in the Advocate's fruitless efforts to squash the subpoenas. I never said, or implied, that they were. It's their money, they can spend it as they wish. Since the Advocate, and its reporters, have played a major role in this criminal investigation since the very beginning, I just thought it would be interesting to know how much they have spent on lawyers and legal proceedings as well. You know...to be fair and balanced in their reporting. So, to answer your question...I care.
Second, I am also well aware that the prosecution is SOMETIMES responsible for delays in trials. My comment was in response to Zero's irresponsible and false blanket statement that the "Delays in prosecution are the responsibility of the prosecutor who controls the timeline and the court calendar. No excuses. None whatsoever".
Thank you for feeling the need to educate me on legal matters, but it's really not needed.
June 7, 2009 at 7:59 a.m.kc - first of all, who cares how much money the Advocate spent on attorneys --- that money didn't come out of public funds!
Next -- It doesn't matter who files continuances -- most of the time the judge will grant those motions -- but FYI, there have been instances where the Prosecution files continuances as well.
Tyler's spending of money for an appellate advisor is probably a good move. . . and yes, the DA's office does generate income from fines and such.
Finally, I'm going to say this: I don't believe that the taxpayers of Victoria should be responsible for paying any of this! I no longer CARE who's right and who's wrong!
June 7, 2009 at 6:03 a.m.I think the reasoning behind the length of time this process is taking is slightly off topic. The real question here is what possible reason other than Armstrong and his followers, could these indicted officials have for thinking they deserve any more money?
Armstrong, what in the world are you thiking?
"If it was right to pay one dollar it is right to pay the next dollar," Armstrong said.
News Flash!!! It wasn't right the first time!!!
Armstrong, if the advocate has a 10 most arrogant & self serving, you will win by a landslide.
Absolutely disgusting!
June 7, 2009 at 4:11 a.m.It took me a year and a half to get a divorce in Victoria County, if that gives you any idea how much longer something that is more complicated than a simple civil matter might take.
June 6, 2009 at 10:49 p.m.OK, I give up. There seem to be a lot of lawyers on this forum. So, please, somebody please tell me when the date of the indictment was and what todays' date is and tell me if the distance between the two dates fits the standard of prosecutorial conduct in this town for a wobbler felony.
June 6, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.KC: the ability of the prosecutor determines whether defense motions are going to be succesful. What are the grounds for a continuance? Defendant is sick? Need more time to analyze the evidence? What evidence? This case was a slam dunk that got trashed. And this has nothing to do with the merits of actually bringing it at all -- just bringing it to trial. Stop blaming the judge, the clerk, every other lawyer in town, the advocate, and anyone else. Responsibility for the costly waste of money and time rests solely with the DA. Time for him and his apologists to live up to that fact.
June 6, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.Zero - last time I checked, the trial calendars were set by the presiding judge and not the prosecution office.
June 6, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.Sorry...that last comment should have been directed at Zero, not Zorro.
June 6, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.Zero, Prosecutors don't control the court calendar or the timeline.
June 6, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.There is a term for DAs that get an indictment and then fail to convict: former DA. You aren't getting evidence in after the grand jury ... everything you have should be there and ready to go for trial. If you are still figuring out your case after the indictment it means you don't know what you are doing. No excuses for this shabby performance, none whatsoever.
June 6, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.Zorro...not true at all. The prosecution does not "control the timeline and the court calendar". Whatever gave you that idea?
Defense attorneys file motions for continuances all the time. The prosecutor does not decide whether or not to grant the continuance...the judge does. If he grants it, then prosecution is delayed...and there's not anything the DA can do about it.
And as for "controlling the court calendar"....well, I think the judges and the District Clerk have a whole lot more say so on that than the prosecution. I have never heard of a DA telling a judge when a court case will be heard....it's the other way around.
June 6, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.KC: Who cares? Delays in prosecution are the responsibility of the prosecutor who controls the timeline and the court calendar. No excuses. None whatsoever.
June 6, 2009 at 9:28 p.m.I wonder how much the Victoria Advocate has spent on their lawyers, fighting subpoenas in this case? Almost all those efforts were unsuccesful, however, but did help to lengthen the timeline of these cases somewhat.
June 6, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.Tyler: Best money spent in case so far is for other attorneys. Next step, bake sale for trial attorneys.
June 6, 2009 at 9:16 p.m.I think we should have a benefit of carne guisada plates at Mario's Ballroom to raise funds!
June 6, 2009 at 8:13 p.m.