Court Opinion

ID: 9726926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:12:55.841423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:31.890513
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The mix of events disclosed in the majority opinion leads me to the conclusion that the decision of Judge Miller to appoint Mr. Knight as special prosecutor and to order his compensation paid were within the bounds of his authority, and as a consequence the judgment of Special Judge Apple upholding the mandate should be affirmed.
Judge Miller declared before the commencement of the production of proof, that the regular prosecutor was removed from the case. The prosecutor present at the time and fully aware of the progress of events acceded to this judicial act. Thereupon Mr. Knight was left in charge of the prosecution of the case under his former appointment as special prosecutor. Mr. Knight did then actually prosecute the case. I would agree with the majority that the appointment of Mr. Knight in its inception was of questionable validity, however these subsequent events served to render that appointment regular.