Former ADA Back at Work in Union Parish, but for a Short Time Only

Shawn Alford, a former Assistant District Attorney in the Third Judicial (Lincoln, Union Parishes) District is back at work, at least for enough time to qualify for state retirement, according to Mark Rainwater’s 4/2/15 article in The (Farmerville, LA) Gazette.

The time of service needed to qualify for the retirement is five months, Rainwater wrote.

From the article:

“Shawn was an excellent assistant who needs just a short time of service to become eligible for retirement,” Belton said in remarks to the Farmerville Lions Club in February. “Her return to the staff, though, was contingent upon her resigning from the case she has against this office.”

Belton was referring to State v Griffin, 2nd Circuit Court decision that sets limitations regarding how district attorneys and sheriffs can collect payments for investigation and prosecution costs from persons convicted of DUI.

See here the court decision.

The costs assessed to Griffin included a $100 cost-of-prosecution amount payable to the District Attorney’s office and another $100 for cost of investigation, payable to the sheriff’s office.

In the appeal, Alford argued that the prosecution and investigation costs assessed were traditional government functions, and he could not legally be required to pay them. To further bolster this point, Alford pointed out that the costs were not itemized and were assessed to everyone who pled guilty, even on minor traffic offenses.

Going forward, attorney Chris Bowman will handle the case on behalf of Griffin.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Former ADA Back at Work in Union Parish, but for a Short Time Only”

  1. Oldman Says:

    The system takes care of its own. Belong to the system.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    How much is this going to cost us?

  3. Dan Burson Says:

    REMEMBER LOL I TRIED TO TELL YOU PEOPLE THE TRUTH AND ALL I GOT WAS BASHED.

    Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 20:42:30 +0000 To: dannymb52@hotmail.com

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Wow to this.

    What all did you say Mr. Burson? I must have missed it.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    Am I reading this correctly? Did the DA allow a previous employee to be rehired in order to receive retirement in exchange for withdrawing from a case that was simply asking the appeal court, via a writ, to decide whether a fee charged by the DA’s office and the Sheriff’s Office followed State law?

    I really hope that I am not.

  6. Bob Sherunkel Says:

    The lawsuit would have been cheaper but since John Belton has virtually no trial experience, he opted to pay off the plaintiff with a job that will have a HUGE salary and a retirement paid for by the taxpayer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: