SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
8,856
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 31:
Line 31: − + + + +
→Securities Fraud Issue
*The originally assigned judge in Collin County recused himself; a judge from neighboring Tarrant County (a fairly conservative county) was reassigned by agreement;
*The originally assigned judge in Collin County recused himself; a judge from neighboring Tarrant County (a fairly conservative county) was reassigned by agreement;
*The prosecution then successfully argued that it could not get a fair trial in Collin County due to Paxton's popularity among the residents; the judge agreed. The judge offered three options for transfer: Dallas County (which the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure required absent agreement), Harris County (another notoriously liberal county), or Tarrant County (which had more space available than the others). The parties agreed to move the trial to Harris County as most of the attorneys were based there, though Paxton's attorneys reserved the right to challenge the motion that granted the change of venue.
*The prosecution then successfully argued that it could not get a fair trial in Collin County due to Paxton's popularity among the residents; the judge agreed. The judge offered three options for transfer: Dallas County (which the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure required absent agreement), Harris County (another notoriously liberal county), or Tarrant County (which had more space available than the others). The parties agreed to move the trial to Harris County as most of the attorneys were based there, though Paxton's attorneys reserved the right to challenge the motion that granted the change of venue.
*Paxton's attorneys argued that the motion was improper (on the basis that the judge's assignment had expired and was not renewed), and on appeal the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the United States Fifth Court of Appeals) agreed, ruling that the trial should be returned to Collin County.
*Paxton's attorneys argued that the motion was improper (on the basis that the judge's assignment had expired and was not renewed), and on appeal the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the United States Fifth Court of Appeals) disagreed, ruling that Collin County lost jurisdiction when the judge moved the case.
*However, afterwards the newly assigned judge did not have the consent of all parties to continue to hear the case, it was reassigned again to a Harris County district judge, who upon a motion by Paxton's attorneys set aside the change of venue as void, returning the case to Collin County.
*The state appealed the decision, and the Harris County district judge recused himself; another district judge then ruled that Harris County lost jurisdiction when the prior judge transferred the case to Collin County (though he also ruled that, if he had jurisdiction, he too would have ruled the same way).
*The Texas First Court of Appeals upheld the decision in a split vote, and denied en banc hearing.
*The state appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal matters; all nine justices are elected statewide and all nine are Republicans), which ruled in June 2023 that the judge had the authority to change venue, ruling that the trial should be moved to Harris County.
*The state appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal matters; all nine justices are elected statewide and all nine are Republicans), which ruled in June 2023 that the judge had the authority to change venue, ruling that the trial should be moved to Harris County.