Ex-DA wants a change of venue on criminal charges
Casey Hall wants a change of venue for her trial on criminal charges in Montague County.
The former 97th Judicial District Attorney says she cannot get a fair trial in Montague County because of media coverage and her 'high profile status' while she held public office.
The ex-DA is accused of stealing money from the county while she was in office, according to court documents.
Anyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the change of venue request, Hall's attorney claims her reputation has been 'relentlessly tarnished by widespread and inflammatory media coverage.'
The filing includes affidavits from Montague County residents that defense attorney Heath Hyde contends 'describe an environment in which news articles, televised segments, and numerous social media posts have irreversibly tainted public opinion.'
Hyde asks that her trial be moved to a county where Hall can have a fair and impartial trial.
Hall was initially indicted for theft of property in July 2024 and maintains she is not guilty.
On Feb. 11, a grand jury enhanced the indictment to theft by a public servant and misapplication of fiduciary property.
Theft of property is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and misapplication of fiduciary property is punishable by up to two years in a state jail facility.
Her trial was scheduled to start March 17, but Hyde requested a continuance because of the new indictment.
Grand jury indictments accused her of illegal activities from May 2022 until October 2022.
The indictments claim she took between $2,500 and $30,000 of county money and put it into her own bank account. A court petition filed in July 2024 claimed the actual amount was just over $18,000 in two vouchers.
Hall served two terms as DA for the 97th Judicial District that includes Montague, Clay and Archer counties.
She was defeated for reelection in the 2024 Republican primary by Henrietta attorney Katie Woods Boggeman.
Hall left office voluntarily in August 2024 after former 97th Judicial District Attorney Tim Cole filed a petition to remove her. Boggeman replaced her at that time.
More: Former North Texas DA faces new charge in amended indictment
More: City Council OKs deals with Winco, 7 Brew
This article originally appeared on Wichita Falls Times Record News: Ex-DA Casey Hall wants a change of venue on criminal charges
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here are the Broome County primary candidates on the ballot June 24
Broome County Republicans will have the chance to vote to appoint five nominees for local government positions in late June. This year, only Republican primary elections will take place in Broome County, and only registered Republican voters in designated towns are eligible to vote, with no other parties holding primary elections within Broome County. Voters will have the chance to decide their party's nominee for Broome County clerk, Windsor town council member, Windsor town justice and two Johnson City trustees. More: When is the first day of summer? Events, rituals to celebrate solstice in Binghamton Voting will take place on Tuesday, June 24, with poll sites open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. The winners of each primary race will become the Republican candidate on the ballot in the general election, held in November. Here are the Republican primary races in Broome County on June 24. Candidates: Aaron M. Martin, Richard C. David Candidates: James E. Conrad, Daniel H. Colwell Candidates: Paula A. Hashem, Richard R. Blythe Candidates (vote for any two): John J. Walker, Clark A. Giblin, Tim Bidwell, Jeanine Bowers Early voting for primary elections will take place June 14-22. Registered Broome County voters can vote early at the Broome County Public Library in Binghamton or George F. Johnson Memorial Library in Endicott. This article originally appeared on Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: Broome County NY primary election: Who's on the ballot
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British investors face £5bn blow from Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
British investors are facing a $7bn (£5bn) tax blow from Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill', analysts have warned. The UK Government alone could have to pay $400m a year as part of the 'revenge' tax outlined in the Republican tax and spending bill that has recently been passed by the House of Representatives. Mr Trump's bill is set to charge a retaliatory tax on some foreign investments made by entities from countries that the US deems to have 'unfair' tax systems – which includes the UK. The tax, known as Section 899, would levy a 5pc rate on gains made by UK investors – a rate that will increase by five percentage points each year up to a maximum rate of 20pc. Crucially, analysts have warned the wording of the policy documents open the door to taxing interest earned on holdings of US Treasuries, which are usually tax-exempt. The UK will be hit particularly hard if America starts charging a new tax on yields from US Treasuries because of its vast ownership of this debt. Britain recently overtook China as the world's second largest holder of US Treasuries, behind only Japan. UK entities, such as pension funds and private investors, hold a total of $779bn in US government bonds. The UK receives about $35bn a year in earnings, assuming an average interest rate of 4.5pc, according to analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr). If these yields are taxed at 5pc, this will cost $1.8bn – rising to $7.2bn as the tax rate increases to 20pc in the fourth year. Duncan Hardell, international tax specialist at NYU's Tax Law Centre, said that although it was unclear whether exemptions on Treasuries would still apply, there is a risk the tax rate will go up. 'The statute itself is not clear on this point,' he said. Section 899 has triggered widespread fear across Wall Street and prompted a huge lobbying drive, with dozens of international executives travelling to Washington DC to meet with members of Congress earlier this month to discuss the measure. The UK Government alone holds $55bn in US Treasuries. Niesr estimates yields on these holdings would be liable for a $100m tax charge in the first year, rising to $400m in the fourth year. Stephen Millard, Niesr's deputy director, warned that if this measure was imposed it would likely trigger a fire sale. He said: 'The big thing, of course, is how people would respond if it becomes clear that this income was taxable. You might expect to see holders of US Treasuries try to get out of them as much as they possibly can.' This would mean market turmoil, as a sell-off would drive down the value of the bonds dramatically. In turn, this would trigger a surge in US government borrowing costs as investors demanded higher returns to cover their costs. 'That whole idea of the US as being a safe currency or US Treasuries as being safe assets suddenly changes,' Mr Millard said. Even if Section 899 does not apply to holdings of US Treasuries, economists have warned the measure risks turning the president's trade war into a capital war and would trigger enormous market disruption. Mr Hardell added: 'It could cause chaos. The risk is you're creating a new front in the ongoing tariff war and extending that to taxes and investment. 'There's a real possibility that the US will be fighting the rest of the world all at once, on multiple fronts. Investment, business and talent could just flee to other countries.' Kim Clausing, a tax academic at the UCLA School of Law, said: 'What we're going to do is tax foreign investors at an accelerating rate based on things beyond their control, and we're going to be doing that in a context where we're issuing a lot of debt, erecting trade barriers and eroding a lot of sources of US strength. 'I find it deeply disturbing. It's a big overreach, and it's one that will backfire. We're basically going to shoot ourselves in the foot by making the US a much less attractive place to invest.' The bill is being scrutinised by the Senate and Mr Trump has set a deadline of July 4 to get a finalised version. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
