Former WilCo sheriff, attorney demand $35M settlement in new civil lawsuit

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, Texas - The legal battle over the death of Javier Ambler is taking another turn.

Just days after the felony case against former Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody and former County Attorney Jason Nassour was dismissed, they are now demanding $35 million from Williamson County to settle a new civil lawsuit.

What they're saying:

"This is one of the worst malicious prosecution cases that we've come across," Chody & Nassour’s attorney, Ryan Johnson, said.

Chody and Nassour faced felony charges for tampering with evidence. 

Prosecutors accused them of allowing producers for the reality TV show "Live PD" to destroy raw video of the March 2019 in custody death of Javier Ambler. 

It was later revealed Chody and Nassour never possessed or controlled the video and the footage had never been legally obtained before it was erased. The defense argued that is because prosecutors failed to use the proper legal process to obtain it.

"They basically failed what a first-year law student would understand how to do and so that's embarrassing, and they tried to blame the county attorney, and they tried to blame a sheriff for doing their job and ultimately, it didn't hold up, and their case fell apart as it should," Johnson said.

About a week-and-a-half ago. A judge dismissed all charges with prejudice.

"When the charges were dismissed, I think that the main feeling was relief, some vindication, but they want to hold these people responsible because not only did they ruin their lives, they wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer money on a case that had absolutely no foundation," Johnson said.

Dig deeper:

Now, they are suing Travis and Williamson Counties, including District Attorneys Jose Garza and Shawn Dick.

In a formal demand letter, it estimates Nassour and Chody’s economic damages combined amount to around $15 to $16 million with an additional $40 million in non-economic damages before attorney’s fees. 

They are offering a $35 million settlement with Williamson County.

Meanwhile, listed on next week’s Williamson County Commissioners Court agenda, Williamson County District Attorney Shawn Dick and Williamson County Assistant District Attorney Michael Waldman are asking for money for their legal defense.

What's next:

Nassour and Chody’s attorneys said the settlement offer is on the table until August 12. 

If it is not accepted, they will continue to fight this and seek at least $60 million. This offer does not apply to Travis County.

Williamson County said they do not comment on current or pending litigation.

Motion to revoke juror payouts

Dig deeper:

There is also a separate dispute about money regarding paying the Travis County jurors who were originally there for the trial last August and ordered to remain available after it was put on hold.

After the charges against Chody and Nassour were dismissed, the judge ordered each juror and alternate be paid nearly $27,000 for their service.

On Thursday, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office asked the court to throw out that order, arguing the judge no longer had the authority to issue it after the case was dismissed, and Texas law only allows jurors to be paid for the days they actually report to court.

Nassour's attorney issued a statement on the DA's motion, saying:

"The State's memorandum makes two arguments. One is jurisdictional and the other involves the construction of the jury compensation statute. Its jurisdictional argument is premised on the idea that this Court signed the order dismissing the indictment on some date after it signed the jury compensation order. The premise is untrue as a matter of fact. The orders were signed at the same time. Accordingly, the State's jurisdictional argument fails.

The State's argument that this Court lacked authority to order juror compensation is based on its construction of the governing statute, Section 61.001. It relies on Section 61.001 of the Government Code. That provision simply states: ‘In this chapter, the term ’person who reports for jury service' means a person who reports in person for duty on a grand jury or a petit jury, regardless of whether the person is selected to serve on the jury.' There is no dispute that the jurors in question reported for service. Hence, this provision is a distracting red herring that does not support its argument regarding this Court's authority.

This Court did not abuse its discretion. Through no fault of this Court, the jurors in this case were effectively sentenced to jury service, probated for two years. When they commenced their service after three days of testimony, none of them could have anticipated their lives would be uprooted for such an unprecedented period of time. They deserve compensation greater than the mere $58 a day for three days the State now urges.

While it's an open question whether this Court now have jurisdiction, counsel will not object to whatever course of action, if any, this Court would take."

Crime and Public SafetyWilliamson CountyTravis County