Fannin County, Texas -- Attorneys for four people who were possibly indicted under false pretenses in regard to restoration of the 1888 Fannin County Courthouse have been given a green light to go forward with an effort to clear their clients' names.
In a hearing on Thursday, October 1, 2026, in 336th District Court, visiting judge Fred Duncan Thomas, Jr. ruled against Fannin County Judge Newt Cunningham's motion to quash the proceedings, and instead allowed the 202 hearings to go forward.
The 202 hearings will allow broad investigatory powers that can force witnesses to give sworn testimony before an actual lawsuit is filed.
Cunningham has managed to dominate the conversation on this subject during meetings of Fannin County Commissioners Court, but his overbearing tactics didn't fare as well in district court. At times, an apparently exasperated Judge Thomas put his head in his hands as he listened to Cunningham's litany of complaints about the 202 hearings going forward.
When Cunningham called it "harassment" that petitioners were trying to have their day in court, Thomas bluntly rejected that idea.
Thomas repeatedly reminded Cunningham that Thursday's hearing was not the place to discuss the eventual civil case.
"We are here to determine whether or not they can go forward with their petition," Thomas explained to Cunningham.
When Cunningham complained that former DA Richard Glaser didn't appear for Thursday's hearing, Thomas said he would take that as an indication that Glaser wasn't protesting the 202 hearings going forward.
At the heart of the matter is Cunningham's testimony before a grand jury that may have played a prominent role in the decision to indict six people involved in restoration of the courthouse. All six indictments were dismissed for Lack of Probable Cause, which would seem to indicate that the actual facts were insufficient to warrant indictments.
Cunningham's testimony will now come under close scrutiny to see if the opinions he presented to the grand jury can be backed up by evidence.
"Provide me with an order and I will release the testimony," Thomas told the attorneys for former county commissioner Dean Lackey, current commissioner A.J. Self, and architects David Chase and Ann Stimmel.
An Order filed at 2:48 p.m. on Thursday declares that "Petitioners and their civil counsel can obtain the grand jury testimony and transcripts and can use the grand jury testimony and transcripts in the investigation, filing and prosecution of a civil case."
Possible federal lawsuit looms over Fannin County (previous article published in July 2026)
Fannin County, Texas -- For years, people watching Fannin County politics have wondered when the other shoe would fall.
It hit the floor Tuesday, July 14, 2026, when Allen (A.J.) Self, Ann Stimmel, David Chase and Dean Lackey filed a 202 petition to investigate possible fraudulent claims that led to grand jury indictments on December 19, 2024 for theft of currency by deception.
After 18 months of accusations without actual evidence, the indictments were dismissed for lack of probable cause.
A Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 hearing allows potential plaintiffs to investigate claims or preserve testimony before filing a lawsuit.
The petition filed by Self, Stimmel, Chase and Lackey states that the investigation was conducted by former Fannin County Criminal District Attorney Richard Glaser and Fannin County Judge Newt Cunningham. Glaser would conspicuously retire on December 31, 2024, 12 days after the indictments were handed down.
The petition goes on to say that Glaser and Cunningham initiated the investigation without the involvement of police or the Fannin County Sheriff's Office and, despite 18 months of slanderous accusations in Fannin County Commissioners Court that spawned a local gossipfest, no offense report or prosecution report was ever created.
However, the individuals under indictment endured a year and a half of intense scrutiny, including testimony by Self, Stimmel and Chase under oath at Rule 202 hearings and Lackey was subpoenaed to testify under oath in front of the grand jury.
Now the shoe is on the other foot.
Glaser and Cunningham will likely be compelled to testify under oath in the next set of 202 hearings. The petitioners are also permitted to depose any Fannin County employee who potentially has relevant information.
Where is this headed
After the 202 process plays out, it would appear that the end result may eventually be a federal lawsuit against Glaser, Cunningham and Fannin County for malicious prosecution. At the heart of the matter are the accusations made by Glaser and Cunningham in front of a grand jury. A malicious prosecution would require proof that arrests were made without probable cause and with malice, and grand jury testimony would be the primary source of evidence necessary to prove those two components.
Although grand jury testimony is generally sealed and confidential, in civil law, disclosure of grand jury testimony can be ruled to be proper if a particularized need can be established.
In this case, since no arrest report or prosecution report is available, the grand jury testimony is the sole source of evidence necessary to determine if representatives of the county intentionally presented false information that resulted in criminal charges.
In addition, the transcript will provide insight into just how much the grand jury may have been misled by either Glaser or Cunningham.
