Introduction to the Case
Attorneys for former Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg are seeking to avoid a contempt trial after she was accused of violating a gag order in the capital murder case of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray. Ogg’s lawyers hope to bypass the trial following a status conference in court.
Background of the Case
Ogg was ordered to appear in court to show cause as to why she should not be held in contempt for failing to abide by a gag order issued in the case on September 11, 2024. The gag order was issued to ensure a fair and impartial jury trial for Johan Jose Martinez-Rangel and Franklin Peña, the two Venezuelan men accused of raping and killing Nungaray.
The Alleged Contempt
Prosecutors and defense attorneys for Martinez-Rangel and Peña sought the legal precedent against Ogg after she appeared on local TV station FOX 26, alleging that Peña was formerly accused of sexually assaulting a woman in Costa Rica. Ogg’s comments were seen as a violation of the gag order, which was put in place to prevent parties involved in the case from discussing it publicly.
Court Proceedings
During the court proceedings, Ogg’s attorney, Mitch Little, raised questions about the constitutionality of the gag order and said that attorneys will work together on a briefing schedule to discuss free speech issues. Little stated that Ogg is innocent of any contempt and that there are constitutionality issues that affect all Texans that need to be determined.
Potential Recusal of the Judge
Discussions on the question of contempt were delayed, and attorneys weighed whether Judge Josh Hill of the 232nd District Court should be recused in the case. Whenever a criminal contempt issue is raised against an officer of the court, the judge would need to be changed out to determine guilt or innocence, according to Little.
Possible Outcomes
Prosecutors for the current Harris County District Attorney’s Office sought a quicker remedy by suggesting that Ogg should be admonished by the court. However, Hill stopped short of that, stating that if Ogg is held in contempt, she has an immediate right to appeal.
Defense Arguments
Defense attorneys for Ogg also raised questions about whether an evidentiary hearing took place before the gag order was entered last year. Little previously asserted that Ogg is entitled to the same protection of her right to free expression under the Texas Constitution as every other private citizen.
Conclusion
The case against Ogg is ongoing, with attorneys working to determine the constitutionality of the gag order and whether Ogg’s comments violated it. The outcome of the case will have implications for the capital murder trial of Martinez-Rangel and Peña, as well as for the rights of public officials to free speech. As the case continues to unfold, it will be important to consider the balance between the need for a fair and impartial trial and the right to free expression.
