AUSTIN (Talk1370.com) -- Travis County District Attorney José Garza is actively seeking to overturn a judge’s order that would pay 14 jurors nearly $27,000 each for a trial that only involved three days of testimony before stalling out for two years.
The unprecedented payout stems from the recently dismissed evidence-tampering case against former Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody and former county attorney Jason Nassour. The two were facing charges related to the destruction of "Live PD" reality television footage capturing the in-custody death of Javier Ambler in 2019.
The trial began, but on its third day, prosecutors accused presiding Judge Karen Sage of "gutting" their case and abruptly announced their intention to appeal to a higher court. Following the state's move, Judge Sage ordered a recess, telling the panel of 12 jurors and two alternates that they were on a "little hiatus" and needed to be prepared to return to court at any time.
That hiatus ultimately lasted nearly two years, but jurors were never officially dismissed from their civic duty.
When prosecutors finally dropped the criminal case last week, attorneys for Chody and Nassour successfully argued that the jurors deserved compensation for the years they spent on standby. Judge Sage agreed, ordering the county to pay each juror and alternate roughly $27,000.
"They have been in limbo a long time, so I think it is fair," the judge reasoned.
District Attorney Garza vehemently disagreed, calling the six-figure total payout out of the county's jury fund "absurd". On Thursday, the DA's office filed a motion asking the court to revoke the payment order.
Garza's office argues that under Texas law, jurors are only entitled to be compensated for the days they physically report to the courthouse — a sum that would total roughly $175 per juror for their three days of service, rather than $27,000. Furthermore, the DA’s office contends that Judge Sage lost the jurisdictional authority to issue the compensation order once the underlying criminal case was formally dismissed.
Defense attorneys have pushed back against the DA's motion, stating that the jurisdictional argument is factually untrue because the order dismissing the indictment and the jury compensation order were signed simultaneously.
