As readers of Liberty Dispatch will remember, there is a case in the 253rd Judicial District Court of Liberty County concerning charges by a black prisoner that Liberty County DA, Mike Little sexually abused him by sodomizing him. Michael Lynn Blue filed his case against Liberty County DA, Mike Little on 11/09/2010.
The charges go on to state that DA Little used or traded the sexual contact as an unwanted barter for a reduced sentence. The case filed in Liberty County is filed under case number #CR24373.
The problem with this case beyond the obvious charge of homosexual abuse and official oppression of a prisoner is another fact- which places Liberty County taxpayers and State of Texas taxpayers in a position of abuse by DA Little.
The abuse occurring is county and state taxpayers having to effectively pay for Liberty County DA, Mike Little’s legal representation. Furthermore, in addition to county and state taxpayers having to pay for DA Little’s representation is the outrage of someone from his own office representing him. His first assistant Liberty County DA, Anne Streit is the one who county and state taxpayers are paying to represent Liberty County DA, Mike Little on a criminal based charge.
Texas Law* clearly states a Criminal District Attorney is NOT entitled to legal cost reimbursement.
County/State Law** clearly states the county does not have a duty to provide legal counsel for a criminal charge involving a County Criminal District Attorney.
Apparently, the Liberty County District Attorney, Mike Little has publicly suppressed the criminal charge made against him and his use of county funds for his defense. The unauthorized use of county assets for his legal defense also rises to the charge of illegal use of county assets.
Liberty County has come a long way but this lingering injustice and corruption has stalled the progress and strides made in the recent past elections and has created a victim out of Liberty County and State of Texas taxpayers.
*State of Texas: A criminal district attorney is not a covered person under section 104.001, a criminal district attorney is not entitled to be defended by the attorney general or receive reimbursement of defense costs under that chapter. (Criminal charges, DA) See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 104.001-.005
**County of Liberty: As a court has determined, however, a county does not have a general duty to provide for the criminal defense of any of its officers and employees. See White v. Eastland County, 12 S.W.3d 97, 102 (Tex. App.--Eastland 1999, no pet.). A pertinent statute, section 157.901 of the Local Government Code, requires a county to employ and pay for private counsel to represent a county official or employee in an action arising out of the performance of public duties. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. 157.901 (Vernon 1999). The court in White determined that section 157.901 creates a duty to provide for a defense in civil cases, but does not create a duty to defend an official or employee against a criminal charge. See White, 12 S.W.3d at 102. The court in White also determined that the common law does not impose a duty on a county to pay for the criminal defense of its officers and employees. Id. at 103. Consistently with the opinion in White, we conclude that a county does not have either a statutory or common-law duty to provide for criminal defense expenses of an officer or employee.