Help Our Publisher Fight Back! Contribute to the Defense Fund >>
Jeff Davis County’s pursuit of Big Bend Times publisher David Flash is now backed by three Texas Attorney General’s Office attorneys—more than double the typical staffing of the county attorney’s office—and taxpayers may ultimately foot a bill reaching $200,000 or more.
The latest addition is Matthew Campbell, an Assistant Attorney General hired in November 2023 with a $138,832 salary. Campbell joins Assistant Attorneys General Geoff Barr and Ian Martin, both previously assigned to the case. All three have worked extensively on the ongoing harassment charge against Flash—a charge filed after he began formal civil claims against the county. A related charge of “terroristic threat” was dropped in March 2025.
Though the charge is a misdemeanor and the allegations have been widely questioned, the state’s investment is ballooning. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has already assigned at least four staff members to the case, including a paralegal, with taxpayer-funded travel, hotel stays, mileage reimbursement, and state salaries all accumulating.
Legal observers note that the OAG, unlike individual defendants, can deploy unlimited public resources, even when a case appears thin or retaliatory. Adding attorneys may signal a strategy to overwhelm a pro se defendant who has struggled to find legal counsel willing to take a remote, politically charged case. Flash says he has contacted more than 20 law firms outside the area and has not found a single attorney willing to take the case. Several firms declined based on the distance from Midland or El Paso, citing travel and resource limitations. Even the current Jeff Davis County Attorney was the only qualified attorney willing to take the job when appointed.
Meanwhile, the state pays these attorneys to prepare filings, make appearances, and assist local officials—expenses that will ultimately be borne by taxpayers either through the state or county. Questions remain over which entity is paying for specific costs such as a visiting judge brought in from San Antonio after local judges recused. In many cases involving the OAG, either the state general fund or the requesting local entity can be responsible.
Flash maintains that the case stems from his journalism, which has exposed misconduct in Jeff Davis County. He was arrested after the complainant, Justice of the Peace Mary Ann Luedecke, filed a sworn statement later contradicted by video. Flash has filed four judicial conduct complaints against her and claims the allegations against him are retaliatory and demonstrably false.
The prosecution has continued despite Luedecke refusing to recuse herself from Flash’s unrelated traffic ticket case and her involvement in multiple procedural irregularities. She falsely reported contempt proceedings, fabricated quotes later disproven by video, and even used Flash’s name in a warrant training exercise she claimed was a “mistake.”
Documents show that eight previous investigations against Flash resulted in no charges. Despite this, the county hired outside legal counsel to block open records requests and retained law firms to defend against Flash’s pending civil tort claims.
Flash, who posted bond on both charges, has not yet secured trial counsel due to the remote nature of the case and reluctance of attorneys to get involved. In contrast, the state’s team can remain on the public clock, receive per diem and lodging, and recruit more staff as needed. Their numbers now outpace the entire Jeff Davis County Attorney’s regular staff of two.
Now, with three attorneys, a visiting judge, and potentially a full trial ahead, the case could cost taxpayers over $200,000. Critics have questioned whether such resources should be spent prosecuting a journalist with strong First Amendment claims.
Flash has called the effort a misuse of public funds and an attempt to silence journalism. “They could be fixing broken systems, building real solutions. Instead, they’re building a case against me.”
Big Bend Times will continue tracking the use of public resources in this case and the broader implications for local government accountability.
