UPDATED

Speaker Names Panel To Study Costs In Brian Nichols Case; Will Weigh Possible Sanctions Against Judge - Including Impeachment

Related Story: Chairman Of Study Committee Says "Poor Handling Of Public Funds" Is An Issue That Needs To Be Addressed. Click here.

(Update at 12:30 p.m. includes Speaker confirming at news conference that impeachment is an option. New material highlighted.)

By Dick Pettys
InsiderAdvantage Georgia

(10/25/07) The judge in the Brian Nichols case may have more than just angry words coming his way from the Georgia Legislature if we are correctly reading between the lines of a comment made last night by House Speaker Glenn Richardson.

During a fundraiser at the Cobb Energy Center, Richardson announced to the crowd of something over 200 people that he’s appointed a special committee to look into the costs of the Nichols trial and the dollars that have been poured into it. It will be chaired by a trusted lieutenant, House Whip Barry Fleming.

Here’s the bottom line: while Richardson spoke only in very general terms, it was understood by some in the group that he doesn’t intend to limit the committee’s scope, which means it potentially could explore a range of options by which the Legislature might be able to sanction Senior Judge Hilton Fuller – up to and including impeachment, if a senior judge - one who already is retired - can be impeached. That's one question some expect the committee to consider.

Again, he didn’t say that specifically Wednesday night, but the possibility of such a step has been mentioned from time to time at the statehouse in recent weeks.

And here is an update: the Speaker was asked about our report by other reporters at a news conference at the Capitol this morningl. He confirmed that he is appointing the committee and that impeachment is one of the options he is looking at.

Top lawmakers like Richardson and Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson have fumed for more than a year about the escalating bills for Nichols’ state-paid defense.

Johnson, for instance, said two weeks ago: "Taxpayers should not be required to pay millions of dollars to defend a guy who killed a judge, a court reporter, and two law enforcement officers. Let's be honest. This isn't about justice. This is a backdoor attempt to end the death penalty by bankrupting the public defenders budget. Judge Fuller has found the taxpayers guilty without a trial."

That came after the judge issued an order warning the state it will have to pony up still more. He’s since ordered a hearing to determine if the state Public Defender Standards Council should be held in contempt for refusing to write more checks.

Richardson didn’t comment specifically at the time but did issue this comment through a spokeswoman:

“With all due respect to the judicial branch, we do not take direction from that branch of government on what to fund. We never have and we don't intend to start now."

But Richardson has spoken directly about the case before. Last March, he offered these comments to reporters after Fuller put the arm on the state for more money for the defense:

“He’s way out of his league in telling us what we should or should not be funding. He’s handicapping a handicapped system ... It’s just not helping any,” Richardson said.

“If he’ll just leave it alone, I’m committed to fixing the process, but it doesn’t help whenever he’s throwing fuel on a fire to run up those costs without justifying it ... He’s got people mad. The General Assembly, if I didn’t put a stabilizing hand on this - they might abolish the system. Just start over,” Richardson said.

That’s also when Richardson announced he planned to have a study committee took a long look at the public defender system. One idea they might look at, he said, is a rule stipulating that senior judges can’t order the public defenders council to spend specific sums of money on a case but would have to recommend it, perhaps, to the chief judge of the circuit.

“We need publicly elected officials accountable for the funds,” he said.