Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hamblen County declines to object to magistrate—s fee recommendation in federal bail lawsuit; will not contest plaintiffs' refiling of costs
Summary
Facing a federal case alleging Sixth Amendment violations in pretrial practices, commissioners voted not to object to a magistrate—s report on attorney fees and likewise did not object to plaintiffs' refiled bill of costs; the mayor and county attorney described insurance coverage limits and potential exposure.
The commission addressed two votes tied to a federal lawsuit challenging the county's pretrial bail and right‑to‑counsel practices. The case, brought with participation from an external law group, resulted in a ruling that the county had violated Sixth Amendment rights with respect to timely access to counsel, the chair summarized.
County counsel explained the insurers provided a defense but do not pay plaintiffs' attorney fees; the magistrate—s recommended award reduced the plaintiffs' initial demand (which had been higher) but still left a substantial fee exposure to the county. The mayor told commissioners that voting "no" on the procedural motion before them would accept the magistrate's award while voting "yes" would mean appealing and risking a larger fee award on remand.
After taking public comment (the board temporarily suspended rules to accept comments on the special‑call items), the commission held a roll‑call vote on whether to object to Magistrate Warrick's report and recommendation on attorney fees. The recorded roll call on the motion to object returned a unanimous "No," which the chair explained as the commission choosing not to object and therefore not to pursue appeal of the magistrate—s narrowed award.
A subsequent roll call asked whether the commission would object to an order allowing the plaintiffs to refile their bill of costs (the filing in the record referenced approximately $14,000). That vote also recorded a unanimous "No," meaning the commission did not object to the refiling.
Members of the public criticized the county's position and the expense of the litigation during the suspended‑rules public comment period. "That is ridiculous ... it is about half a million dollars," one commenter said in reference to the fee exposure. Commissioners and counsel referenced prior corrective steps taken to comply with injunctions and process changes since the underlying events.
Both procedural outcomes mean the county will not pursue further objections at the magistrate stage and face the fee/cost obligations as determined and documented in the court record unless a later procedural step is taken by other authorized parties.
