When John Bujak leaves a Friday hearing in his felony misuse of public funds case, he could be headed back to jail.

One of several motions to be discussed at that hearing is Special Prosecutor Bill Thompson’s request to revoke Bujak’s bond because of new charges connected to the case.

“The defendant’s conduct not only constitutes new felony violations of Idaho law, but also ... was directly intended to subvert the integrity of the trial process,” Thompson wrote in his motion.

“The defendant’s conduct is not only criminal in nature but was also clearly intended to compromise the legal process,” Thompson wrote in the motion.

If bond is not revoked, Thompson asks Senior District Judge G.D. Carey to increase the amount and impose more conditions, including electronic monitoring and a requirement that Bujak break no further laws.

Investigators contend Bujak falsified evidence, then faxed it anonymously to the special prosecutor, in an attempt to bolster his defense against the charge he took $236,000 in county funds before he resigned in September 2010. A grand jury indicted Bujak July 12 on felony charges of preparing false evidence and computer crime.

The new charges are expected to be prosecuted in tandem with the initial charge of felony misuse of public funds. Bujak acknowledges using the money from a Nampa prosecution contract for his personal expenses and debts but contends it was his to use as he saw fit. County leaders and the special prosecutor say the money was clearly the county’s and Bujak was aware of that.

The evidence Bujak is accused of falsifying consists of old emails purportedly exchanged between the Canyon County Commission chairman and a watchdog blogger who died last winter. The emails appear to support Bujak’s contention that county leaders approved of his plan to profit from the Nampa contract.

Also on Friday, Carey will be asked to decide whether Bujak can represent himself in the felony cases against him. The ex-prosecutor, who now has two county-paid public defenders, filed a motion to serve as his own attorney after Carey ruled last month that he should contribute $1,000 a month toward the cost of his defense.

Thompson questions whether Bujak’s motion to represent himself meets the legal requirements that it be voluntary, since Bujak states he wants to keep his attorneys but can’t afford to help pay for them.

Bujak argues that his recent arrests — on the evidence charges and an unrelated grand theft charge — took him away from work and reduced his income. He was jailed briefly both times and says he also lost work time pursuing public records lawsuits against the county to help with his defense.

Bujak also has complained that the bonds in those cases — $50,000 for the theft charge and $75,000 for the evidence charges — were unreasonably high. Both were paid by his parents, he said. When Bujak was initially arrested last December in connection with taking public money, he was released on $5,000 bond.

The county had asked for scrutiny of Bujak’s eligibility for a publicly funded defense, arguing that his bank records and spending habits show he is not indigent and that his deposits increased dramatically after he was initially granted a public defender last year for a contempt issue in his divorce case.

Kristin Rodine 377-6447