Travis County DA files motion to revoke $27K payout to jurors over dropped case

AUSTIN, Texas - The Travis County District Attorney's office is filing a motion to revoke payouts to jurors in the dropped evidence tampering case against former Williamson County officials Robert Chody and Jason Nassour.

The 299th District Court approved a juror compensation order proposed by Nassour's defense team that would have paid 12 jurors and two alternates nearly $27,000 each.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Jurors to receive nearly $27K payout from Travis County after case was dropped

What they're saying:

The DA's office is arguing that the Court has a ministerial duty to revoke the July 13 order, saying that the Court lacked jurisdiction and acted outside the provisions of law.

The July 13 order came after the evidence tampering case against Chody and Nassour was dismissed. 

The case was in connection with the 2019 in-custody death of Javier Ambler, whose arrest and death were recorded during a taping of the reality show "Live PD." He was tased while going through heart failure.

After the dismissal order was signed, Nassour's defense team proposed an "Order of Juror Compensation" directing the county treasurer to pay each juror for the three days they reported for service, as well as the 457 days from the time the court was recessed to when the order of dismissal was signed.

The DA's office argues that the Court's jurisdiction over the case was terminated after the order of dismissal was signed, meaning the Court did not have the authority to approve the compensation order. 

The office also says that the Court is not authorized to compensate jurors for days they did not report to and attend court in person, per Texas Government Code.

The other side:

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."