By Juan Montoya
The continuing saga of accused child killer John Allen Rubio has taken another turn, and the money meter keeps running and county taxpayers continue to pay the bill, now nearing the $1 million mark.
The cost for Rubio's first trial has not been released by the auditor's office, but it is e
stimated to have been more than $500,000. The retrial, after his conviction was reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals September 2007 has been climbing well past $226,000, according to the Cameron County Auditor's Office.
Rubio's trial was being heard before Cameron County State District Judge Arturo C. Nelson. However, Nelson recused himself from hearing the trial earlier this week amid charges by both the defense and prosecution that Nelson had favored one over the other.
Rubio, a former Porter graduate, is accused of murdering his three children in Brownsville on March 2003. The children were smothered, stabbed and mutilated, according to investigators. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity during the trial, but a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to death.
A former prosecutor said Nelson had held conferences and hearings in chambers without notifying the lead prosecutor. He said that when prosecutors protested, Nelson disregarded the protest and continued.
So far, auditor figures indicate that defense attorney Ed Stapleton and Nat Lopez have each earned more than $150,000. As the trial continues to the next step, it is almost impossible to estimate what the costs incurred as a result of Nelson's recusal will be.
"If the costs keep on climbing, we will have to bear the expenses for Rubio's defense because he is an indigent defendant," said the former prosecutor. "That's you and me."
1 comment:
By implication, blame seems to be thrown in the direction of the DA or the original trial judge for the reversable error. There was no reversable error at the time of the original trial.
The Federal Rules of Evidence that allowed Camacho's prior statements into evidnce had been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court under the "Ohio v. Roberts" case.
After Rubio, the Court then overruled the holding in "Roberts" and held that the prior statments should have been excluded (re: Crawford v. Washington).
Outside of the control of the county or the state, the new ruling applies to all cases under review or not yet final, and Rubio's case was under appeal at the time.
Post a Comment