TOPEKA — One of the special prosecutors tasked with reviewing the actions of law enforcement officers who raided the Marion County Record says more details will become public as criminal and civil cases proceed. But for now, Riley County Attorney Barry Wilkerson would prefer to let the report that he and Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett released earlier this month speak for itself. Their report cleared former Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody and other officers of criminal wrongdoing in planning or carrying out the raid, even though the officers had imagined a nonexistent crime, and ignored state and federal laws and constitutional protections.
But Wilkerson charged Cody with obstruction of justice, accusing the chief of telling a woman to delete text messages the two had exchanged. In his first interview since that report was released, Wilkerson answered questions about the special prosecutors’ conversations with Marion County Attorney Joel Ensey immediately after the raid, the decision to present evidence against Cody through testimony from a Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent rather than an affidavit, and the public interest in more transparency surrounding the case. But he was cautious about saying anything that could affect his criminal case or any of the five federal civil lawsuits that have been filed.
Wilkerson said he doesn’t expect to reexamine the evidence or bring other charges — unless new evidence surfaces, “or something that was brought to our attention.” Following is a Q&A from the interview with Wilkerson, which has been edited for length and clarity. Bennett declined to speak with Kansas Reflector.
I imagine that your life has been a lot more interesting in the past couple of weeks and past year. I’m not sure I’d call it exciting, you know? I’ve got to keep doing my regular job here, and then for some reason, I agreed to take on another task that I probably won’t do again. But I did it this time.
Here we are. Why did you take this case? Well, I got involved early on. Somebody told me about what was going on down in Marion County.
Mark and I talked that Saturday somehow, and then he got ahold of Joel Ensey. We had both been active on the state level, we’d both been members of the (Kansas County and District Attorneys Association). And so that’s kind of how it all started.
Do you think there’s any conflict of interest in having had those conversations with Ensey initially and then being the ones to take over the investigation? I don’t think so. It’s mentioned in the report, and it was so minimal. Are there things that you would hope that the public would learn or take away from reading this report? We tried to do the best we could to condense a lot of information and just relay what we were able to glean from all the reports and all the witness statements and apply it to the law.
Are there things we as Kansas Reflector or just the media in general have gotten wrong or overlooked or haven’t included that you think are important? No, not really. Obviously, we’ve got a charge pending, criminal matter, and we don’t want to say anything at this point that could taint that process. And there may be more information that will come out in that proceeding that will shed a little more light on it.
That’s really about all I can say. I think there’ll be more information, or at least different information, will come out. Are you talking about the Oct.
7 first appearance? If there are evidentiary hearings in this case, then perhaps more information will come out. I’m being really vague, but I just I can’t disclose matters that are likely to come out in court that could in any way interfere or impede a trial. I’m respectful of that process.
One of the things that has occurred to me is that if there’s a diversion agreement or something along those lines, a plea that’s entered that resolves this quickly, it’s possible that that evidence wouldn’t necessarily be disclosed in a court hearing. Right? (Eighteen-second pause.) You know, maybe.
There are civil suits that are involved as well. The civil suits are going to shed light on this as much as the criminal case will. Are you able to say whether there’s consideration for a diversion in this case? We can’t talk about any of that at this point.
It’s not that I’m withholding anything from you. We just haven’t had any discussion. So I can’t talk about that at all.
I can’t comment on it. I am curious if there was a message that you would hope that law enforcement would take away from the report that you produced? I guess the message I would say for everybody is: Proceed with caution. You know, I better be careful.
I better stay away from that for now. Kind of let the report speak for itself. Would you say there’s a need for legislative reform regarding any of the laws that are referenced in that report? I don’t want to comment on that at this time either.
Is that something you would anticipate, you know, having some thoughts on after this is all resolved? Yes. And it’s not that I’m trying to withhold things. I’ll be a lot more open to discussions on this when these cases, and not just our case, but even I don’t want to impact any civil cases either with what I would say to the press.
So when they’re all resolved, I would certainly be able to provide more insight, perhaps, ideas, suggestions, moving forward. Is there any consideration for reexamining the evidence or recommending criminal charges, or is this a closed deal at this point? If evidence continues to come in, I would never say never. But it would have to be new evidence? New evidence, or something that was brought to our attention.
Can you talk about how the charging information was presented in this case — the decision to do it through testimony and not an affidavit? Statute allows us to do it either through a written statement or testimony. I know that you’re allowed to do it, but you have a choice of how you were going to do it. And I’m curious why you chose this path.
Because the officer was from Colorado, and he had not been trained on Kansas. So that’s why we did it. The testimony that he gave is available just as an affidavit would be available to the press or the public.
But the exhibits with an affidavit would be made available to the public. And in this case they’re not. The court said the exhibit that you presented during the hearing was returned to you, and so the court doesn’t even have a copy of it to provide, according to the court clerk.
If it were something that were presented with an affidavit, it wouldn’t be either. Typically, I’ve gotten that with an affidavit request. We don’t always attach them to affidavits.
Would you have any objection to the court releasing that? It’s not up to me. You know, I’m probably about done. There’s not a whole lot I can say, OK? I mean, I’m trying to be as upfront with you as I can and not get myself in a jam.
I’m interested in the transparency of this, in the public interest in the case, and I’m just wondering whether the person who actually has the information is going to present any hurdles to releasing it. You mean the court? I mean are you going to object to the public seeing these texts? Or is there any assurance that this is going to come out through hearings? I think there is an overwhelming public interest in knowing what the charge is based on? I understand your question. It’s going to come out as evidence.
I can’t talk about it until court. I mean, the rule is something that’s going to be admitted as evidence is what I’m prohibited from disclosing. Do you have anything that you want to say or clarify or add here? I said I really wouldn’t talk about this case because we have to be — there’s gonna be a lot of scrutiny on this case, from everybody.
And I just don’t want to make a misstep and taint a case. I appreciate giving me a call and having this conversation. I’m not gonna say that I wasn’t a little nervous, but you know, it’s just kind of the times we’re living in right now.
And I also understand what’s at stake, and I’m trying to be very mindful. Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence.
Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: [email protected] . Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and X .
Former Clark County Sheriff Jamey Noel pleaded guilty to 27 of 31 felony charges in court Monday as part of a plea deal in a massive corruption case that could land him in prison for more than a decade. Noel, a prominent Hoosier Republican , was charged with more than two dozen felonies for allegedly misusing money from the fire and EMS departments which he oversaw. A plea agreement submitted to the Clark County Circuit Court shows Noel agreed to plead guilty to charges of theft, money laundering, corrupt business influence, official misconduct, obstruction of justice and tax evasion.
Four charges of ghost employment were dismissed as part of the agreement. Noel faces a 15-year prison sentence but with three of those years suspended to probation if the deal is approved by the judge, according to the plea agreement. He would get credit for time served, beginning June 8.
Special Judge Larry Medlock, of Washington County, said Monday he wants to hear from victims affected by Noel’s actions before making a decision. Special Prosecutor Ric Hertel, of Ripley County, said in a news briefing after the plea hearing that a sentencing hearing could take more than a day to allow for victims to testify in open court. “I think that an agreement to 15 years of sentence — at least proposing to the court and the judge — we’ve come a long way since the initial hearing back in November of 2023,” Hertel said.
“I feel like there’s been a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of heartache, trying to take into consideration the folks in Clark County, the victims in Clark County ...
,” Hertel continued. “I think that (Noel) going to prison for 12 years, if the judge accepts this agreement, should be a pretty big deterrent for a guy who lived a lifestyle that he lived leading up to this. .
. It’s about to be a wake up call if the judge accepts this agreement.” Additionally included in the plea deal is an agreement for Noel to pay back more than $3.
1 million in public funds: $2,870,924 to the Utica Volunteer Firefighters Association; $61,190 to the Clark County Sheriff’s Department; $173,155 to the Indiana Department of Revenue; and $35,245 to the Indiana State Police. Noel agreed to the plea deal nearly a year after he was arrested and Indiana State Police investigators raided his home in southern Indiana. Noel posted a $75,000 bond in November, but has been held in the Scott County jail since April after Medlock raised his bond to $1.
5 million. The case was originally scheduled to go to trial in November. Using findings from a long-term Indiana State Police investigation , state prosecutors alleged Noel used millions of taxpayer dollars from the Utica Volunteer Firefighters Association and New Chapel EMS to buy cars, planes, vacations, clothing and other personal luxury purchases.
Investigators said public funds were also used to pay for college tuition and child support. The disgraced former sheriff is additionally accused of tasking county employees with jobs related to his personal collection of classic cars. At least 40 vehicles were confiscated by law enforcement, including a bevy of classics, such as two 1970 Plymouth Superbirds, a 1959 Corvette and 1966 and 1968 Chargers, according to search warrant returns.
Court documents further point to at least $33,000 worth of public funds used by Noel to make contributions to various Republican candidates and campaigns between 2020 and 2023. Noel’s wife, Misty – who has since filed for divorce from her husband — and daughter, Kasey, separately face charges of theft and tax evasion. Both have pleaded not guilty.
On Monday, the judge set a trial date of Oct. 28. Medlock said the trials can be combined if the two sides can agree on how to handle the jury pool.
Earlier this year, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita lodged two civil cases in an effort to force Noel to pay back the state agencies he allegedly took public funds from to pay for personal spending. In one lawsuit, Rokita said Noel should be required to reimburse the Clark County jail commissary fund more than $900,000 for “funds misappropriated, diverted, or misapplied”, which were cited in an audit report filed by the State Board of Accounts in February. Rokita also requested a restraining order that would temporarily restrict Noel from selling real estate properties, stocks and bonds, vehicles, firearms, clothing and jewelry while the attorney general’s legal challenges are pending.
A May court ruling prohibited the Noel family from selling any assets. The civil cases are still ongoing. Medlock said Monday the “job is not finished.
” Although he would not say for certain, the prosecutor seemed to leave the door open for other charges to be filed against additional individuals associated with Noel. Clark County councilperson John Miller and former councilperson Brittney Ferree, who Noel shares a child with, are the latest to face charges in relation to the corruption case. Both are accused of voting in favor of funding appropriations for the fire and EMS service while they received personal benefits paid for by the service’s funds.
Miller and Ferree were arrested last week and both pleaded not guilty in court Monday morning. Medlock set a pretrial hearing for February. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: [email protected] .
Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on Facebook and X . In the month since President Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have made a combined four campaign stops to North Carolina. Both candidates have focused their visits on the seven battleground states that are crucial for the path to the White House : Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Of those seven states, North Carolina was the only one Trump won in 2020 — and he did so by a narrow margin of 1.3 percent. Since Biden’s withdrawal on July 21, Trump has stumped in Charlotte on July 24, Asheville on Aug.
14, and Asheboro on Aug. 21. It’s a sign that the Republican Party is more concerned about winning North Carolina with Biden out of the race.
Trump had visited the Tar Heel State only twice earlier this year, in March and May — an April rally in Wilmington was canceled because of weather. The Trump campaign did not directly address a request for comment on the increased focus in North Carolina. Harris has made just one trip to North Carolina since officially entering the race, an invite-only event in Raleigh on Aug.
16 where she unveiled her economic agenda . But it marked her eighth visit to the state this year, including two that took place in the weeks preceding Biden's withdrawal — in Greensboro on July 11 and Fayetteville on July 18. A scheduled Aug.
8 event in Raleigh that was to include with running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as part of a swing state tour was canceled because of Tropical Storm Debby, as were stops in Raleigh and Oakboro for Republican vice presidential nominee U.S.
Sen. JD Vance. Recent polls show a surge toward Democratic candidates with Harris leading or tied in swing states and Attorney General Josh Stein up by 14 percentage points over Lt.
Gov. Mark Robinson in the North Carolina gubernatorial race. Experts say the surge for Harris has put some states that had been thought to be out of reach for Democrats back into play .
Last week, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper predicted a strong turnout in November from voters who he said would be motivated to prevent “extreme” right-wing candidates from winning office. “I think there’s going to be a rising up that will end up helping Vice President Harris in this race, from some people who may not have gone to the polls even in a presidential year,” because these races are so important,” he said at a Q&A event at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
He specifically referred to Robinson, U.S. Rep.
Dan Bishop, and Michele Morrow, the Republican nominees for governor, attorney general, and superintendent, respectively. Dory MacMillan, North Carolina communications director for the Harris-Walz campaign, said Trump is “scrambling” in the Tar Heel State. “While Trump barely has any organization and shares a ballot with MAGA extremists like Mark Robinson, we have built a campaign to win close races,” MacMillan said.
The Harris-Walz ticket recently unveiled digital billboards in the state following Harris’ remarks at the Democratic National Convention. As for the other battleground states, candidates at the top of the ticket have made five stops to Arizona, four each to Nevada and Michigan, and three to Georgia since Biden dropped out. Additional events in Georgia by Harris, Walz, and Vance were canceled due to Tropical Storm Debby.
The nominees have made six campaign stops in Wisconsin since Biden’s withdrawal, subsequent to the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Pennsylvania, with the most electoral votes out of the swing states at 19, is clearly a top priority for both campaigns. Harris announced Walz as her running mate at a rally in Philadelphia on Aug.
6 before the pair kicked off a tour of the swing states and Vance has campaigned in the commonwealth’s largest city twice since joining the ticket, on Aug. 6 and Aug. 19.
All told, Pennsylvania has received a total of eight campaign visits from the top of the Democratic and Republican tickets since July 21. Harris and Trump are set to return to the City of Brotherly Love on Sept. 10 for a debate airing on ABC — although the campaigns have reportedly hit an impasse over whether the candidates’ microphones will be muted when it’s not their time to speak.
The upcoming week features more events in swing states. Trump and Vance are appearing separately in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, while the Harris-Walz ticket embarks on a bus tour of southern Georgia. NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
NC Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Rob Schofield for questions: [email protected] .
Follow NC Newsline on Facebook and X . HOUSTON — A Democratic candidate for the Texas House on Monday dismissed as “nonsense” a state vote harvesting investigation that led authorities to confiscate her phone and search the homes of a legislative aide and elderly Latino election volunteers. Cecilia Castellano, who is running to succeed state Rep.
Tracy King , D-Uvalde, made the remarks during a news conference that featured some of the South Texans who were served search warrants last week. Latino civil rights leaders and state lawmakers also said on Monday they will ask the federal government and Texas Senate to investigate the raids. League of United Latin American Citizens leaders have said authorities s earched the homes of elderly Latino election volunteers pre-dawn with guns drawn and scant information about their probe.
They have blasted the raids executed by Attorney General Ken Paxto n’s office as an effort to intimidate Latino voters. Without naming him, Castellano said the state’s top Republicans had publicly endorsed her opponent, former Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin Jr. “Do not get distracted by this nonsense,” Castellano said.
“Despite the challenges, I refuse to be silenced.” McLaughlin, in an interview with The Texas Tribune, denied that the investigation was politically motivated to help him win, adding that he did not know about the probe until Saturday when he learned about it through a press release. "I have not had any conversation with the Attorney General's Office or the attorney general," he said.
"To point fingers at me? I don't play that way. I didn't play that way when I was mayor and I won't play that way now." McLaughlin said that Castellano is innocent until proven guilty but he doesn't believe a judge would allow a warrant to be issued haphazardly.
"Usually, where there's smoke, there's fire," he said. [ Warrants detail allegations that led to search of Democratic candidate for Texas House ] Paxton’s office has said little about its investigation aside from an announcement last week about the search warrants that his investigators executed in Frio, Atascosa and Bexar Counties. However, affidavits for search warrants obtained by The Texas Tribune show that agents were investigating allegations that a longtime Frio County political operator had illegally harvested votes for multiple local races.
They do not include the warrants for Castellano’s phone or for the home of one of her aides, Manuel Medina, a former chair of the Bexar County Democratic Party and chief of staff to state Rep. Elizabeth "Liz" Campos , D-San Antonio. Among the races was Castellano’s, according to the documents.
An investigator from Paxton’s office claimed in the sworn affidavit that Medina was recorded discussing a scheme to collect votes for Castellano with the operator during the 2024 primary. Republicans hope to flip the South Texas seat Castellano is running for as they aim to secure enough votes to pass a school voucher bill next legislative session. Republican Gov.
Greg Abbott carried the House district by 6 percentage points in 2022. King, one of the most moderate members of the House, ran unopposed. Both Medina and Castellano have previously condemned the probe as a politically-motivated attack.
At Monday’s news conference, Castellano did not directly address the allegation in the affidavits and Medina did not speak. Paxton’s office did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment. LULAC officials plan to file formal complaints with the U.
S. Justice Department, seeking a federal review of the state’s investigation and raids, said Gabriel Rosales, LULAC’s Texas state director. “We didn't break any law,” Rosales said.
“All we did was go out there to increase the political participation of the Latino community.” State Sen. Roland Gutierrez , D-San Antonio, said he and another lawmaker planned to request a state inquiry from Lt.
Gov. Dan Patrick . Such a review is unlikely to be granted by Patrick, a staunch Republican who presides over the Senate.
James Barragán contributed. TribFest Keynotes Announced! Be there when Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Virginia Gov.
Glenn Youngkin take the keynote stage at The Texas Tribune Festival ! Whitmer will talk with Texas Tribune co-founder Evan Smith about her memoir, her key victories in Michigan and the importance of every vote. Youngkin and Smith will close out TribFest with a conversation about his record, the state of his party and a conservative policy agenda for America. Explore the full program of 300+ speakers and 100+ events .
Get tickets today. This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.
org/2024/08/26/texas-latino-leaders-ken-paxton-voter-fraud/ . The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.
org..
