I was in municipal court the other day for a client who had a commercial driver's license and had received a speeding ticket. My client was supposed to be in court at 8:00 a.m. I made it about 15 minutes later.
I called my client's name. There was no answer from the audience. Our first sign of trouble.
Then Judge Mihoa Vo took the bench. Ms. Vo had been a defense attorney practicing in the municipal courts when I first started. Then, a couple of years ago, she was hired as a municipal court judge.
Now this is important because as an attorney she would have had to deal with clients who came in late whether that be because of traffic or because they slept in. There are some judges who will hold off on issuing a warrant if the defendant's attorney answers the docket and there are others who will issue a warrant if the defendant walks in right after the call of the docket.
The first call of the docket took place before I arrived. The judge gave her speech about being on time and proceeded to make the late call. Sure enough, when she got to my client's name there was no answer. So I answered that counsel was present.
I immediately sent a test message to my client asking him where he was. He replied that he was downstairs at the metal detectors (and don't get me started on why we need metal detectors in the municipal courthouse) and that he would be right up.
After the late call I approached the bench and informed the judge that my client was on his way upstairs and she told me that we were more than welcome to try to work the case out but that he was still late. In other words our choice was either to plead or post a bond. We were both there. The officer may or may not have been there. There was no reason to force everyone to do it all over again.
Except, of course, the money. Make it difficult. Make it inconvenient. Anything to coerce the defendant to enter a plea of no contest and take his deferred probation to keep the ticket off his record. Collect that money and move on to the next case.
Trials are time consuming and cost money. It's best to head them off at the pass
Downtown at the criminal courthouse things work a bit differently - and, of course, it all depends on who's sitting behind the raised desk in the black robe. Miss the docket call in misdemeanor or felony court and you may be asked to sit in the jury box all morning. You might be asked to sit there until your attorney arrives. The judge may tell you not to be late again or your bond will be forfeited. Hell, I've had clients who just flat out never showed up on their court date and we were able to reinstate their bonds if they appeared before the judge the next morning.
It's just another example of the maxim that the less significant the piece of turf, the more tyrannical the overseer. Judge Vo didn't have to issue the warrant. I was there. My client was on his way up the stairs. But she wanted my client to know that she had the authority to issue a warrant. She had to keep up appearances - after all, it would never do for people to look upon the municipal courts as a cash collection agency for the city, would it?
Showing posts with label Houston municipal courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Houston municipal courts. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
HPD's dirty little ticket secret
We all know that it's hard to win in traffic court. The officer has his shiny gadget that tells him how fast you may or may not have been driving - a readout that no one but him ever sees. And what about when he asks you for your driver's license and insurance? Chances are there's no one else in the car to contradict a word he says.
As far as the prosecutor andcashier judge are concerned he's got you on three grounds. Maybe you've got your insurance card to prove you had coverage at the time of the stop. Okay, that's one for you.
But what about that driver's license. There's no question it was valid at the time of the stop. But were you carrying it with you? Remember, it's your word against his.
Maybe they offer to dismiss the no driver's license charge if you take a deferred on the speeding case. Or maybe they offer you deferred on one and defensive driving on the other. All works out the same in the end - the city gets what it wants and you get screwed.
Happens every day in every court in the Municipal Courthouse.
But now there's a little twist.
What if the police officer has already preset his ticket-writing computer to issue citations for speeding, no insurance and no driver's license? Sounds crazy, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, that's exactly what's been happening in Houston.
According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, Shirley Simmons was pulled over for speeding in a school zone near her grandson's school. What she didn't realize at the time was that the officer also cited her for failing to display a driver's license and for not having proof of insurance.
There is no doubt that there are a great number of drivers in our fair city who don't have a valid driver's license or insurance. I've had quite a few as clients of mine. But until Sgt. Robert Gonzales opened up his mouth without thinking, I had no idea that it was standard practice to have certain charges pre-set into the computer to save time.
Of course Sgt. Gonzales doesn't see it as a problem. And why should he? The traffic division is a fundraising unit for the City of Houston. The police aren't trained to look at people as being innocent unless proven otherwise. That kind of thinking is anathema to a police officer.
The problem, Sgt. Gonzales, is that no ticket spit out of a ticket-writing computer can be trusted anymore. We don't know if those charges were pre-set defaults or violations the officer actually observed. Hell, we don't even know if the ticket really tells us why the driver was stopped in the first place.
If a motorist is cited for speeding, failure to display a driver's license and not having proof of insurance - but they come to court with a valid driver's license and insurance card, wouldn't it be more likely that the motorist is being truthful when he says he wasn't speeding?
But, in a land in which judges are happy to sign check-the-box and fill-in-the-blank search warrant forms authorizing forcible blood draws in DWI cases, why should it surprise us that the police have rigged the ticket-writing computers?
And why, by the way, wasn't the officer who issued the ticket to Ms. Simmons not charged with filing a false government document? He pre-set the information. He knew it was pre-set. He printed out the ticket and handed it to Ms. Simmons. Then he filed a copy with the court.
Oh, but it was an accident. He didn't mean to do it. He was really sorry about it. Not that he did anything wrong, though.
As far as the prosecutor and
But what about that driver's license. There's no question it was valid at the time of the stop. But were you carrying it with you? Remember, it's your word against his.
Maybe they offer to dismiss the no driver's license charge if you take a deferred on the speeding case. Or maybe they offer you deferred on one and defensive driving on the other. All works out the same in the end - the city gets what it wants and you get screwed.
Happens every day in every court in the Municipal Courthouse.
But now there's a little twist.
What if the police officer has already preset his ticket-writing computer to issue citations for speeding, no insurance and no driver's license? Sounds crazy, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, that's exactly what's been happening in Houston.
According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, Shirley Simmons was pulled over for speeding in a school zone near her grandson's school. What she didn't realize at the time was that the officer also cited her for failing to display a driver's license and for not having proof of insurance.
When she got home, put on her glasses and closely read the ticket, she discovered two incorrect charges: failure to display a valid Texas driver's license and lack of insurance. She went to two nearby Houston Police Department stations, but was directed to the traffic division downtown.
After a supervisor spoke with her and the officer, the two extra violations were removed. She still must go to court later this month for driving 5 miles-per-hour over the limit. But Simmons, a disabled 61-year-old grandmother, wonders if officers are pre-setting tickets with violations in certain communities, like the crossroads of Sunnyside and South Acres, where she was stopped.
There is no doubt that there are a great number of drivers in our fair city who don't have a valid driver's license or insurance. I've had quite a few as clients of mine. But until Sgt. Robert Gonzales opened up his mouth without thinking, I had no idea that it was standard practice to have certain charges pre-set into the computer to save time.
Of course Sgt. Gonzales doesn't see it as a problem. And why should he? The traffic division is a fundraising unit for the City of Houston. The police aren't trained to look at people as being innocent unless proven otherwise. That kind of thinking is anathema to a police officer.
The problem, Sgt. Gonzales, is that no ticket spit out of a ticket-writing computer can be trusted anymore. We don't know if those charges were pre-set defaults or violations the officer actually observed. Hell, we don't even know if the ticket really tells us why the driver was stopped in the first place.
If a motorist is cited for speeding, failure to display a driver's license and not having proof of insurance - but they come to court with a valid driver's license and insurance card, wouldn't it be more likely that the motorist is being truthful when he says he wasn't speeding?
But, in a land in which judges are happy to sign check-the-box and fill-in-the-blank search warrant forms authorizing forcible blood draws in DWI cases, why should it surprise us that the police have rigged the ticket-writing computers?
And why, by the way, wasn't the officer who issued the ticket to Ms. Simmons not charged with filing a false government document? He pre-set the information. He knew it was pre-set. He printed out the ticket and handed it to Ms. Simmons. Then he filed a copy with the court.
Oh, but it was an accident. He didn't mean to do it. He was really sorry about it. Not that he did anything wrong, though.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Predicting the future
Last week the Houston Chronicle ran a heartwarming story of how the City of Houston Municipal Courts were giving folks a few extra days to take care of their tickets due to the torrential rains last Thursday.
But then there's the incompetent side of the Municipal Court. Last Friday I had a client who was due to traffic court over a speeding ticket. Imagine my surprise when I arrived, looked through the docket sheet and couldn't find his name. I went deep into the bowels of the courthouse to find a computer I could look up his case to see what was going on.
It turns out his case wasn't on the docket for July 13 because he had been charged with failure to appear. Take a look at the Clerk's Certificate of Defendant's Failure to Appear and see if you can spot the problem...
Clerk's Certificate of Defendant's Failure to Appear
So we have a robo-signed affidavit in which a deputy court clerk is perjuring herself when she claims she was present when the matter was called on the docket. She perjures herself when she says my client didn't appear in the courtroom. She perjures herself further when she claims his name was "called in accordance with the law." Finally, she perjures herself when she claims he failed to answer after a reasonable period of time.
Oh, and did I fail to mention that a warrant was processed as well?
Will anyone have to face the music for this monumental screwup at 1400 Lubbock Street? What do you think?
But then there's the incompetent side of the Municipal Court. Last Friday I had a client who was due to traffic court over a speeding ticket. Imagine my surprise when I arrived, looked through the docket sheet and couldn't find his name. I went deep into the bowels of the courthouse to find a computer I could look up his case to see what was going on.
It turns out his case wasn't on the docket for July 13 because he had been charged with failure to appear. Take a look at the Clerk's Certificate of Defendant's Failure to Appear and see if you can spot the problem...
Clerk's Certificate of Defendant's Failure to Appear
So we have a robo-signed affidavit in which a deputy court clerk is perjuring herself when she claims she was present when the matter was called on the docket. She perjures herself when she says my client didn't appear in the courtroom. She perjures herself further when she claims his name was "called in accordance with the law." Finally, she perjures herself when she claims he failed to answer after a reasonable period of time.
Oh, and did I fail to mention that a warrant was processed as well?
Will anyone have to face the music for this monumental screwup at 1400 Lubbock Street? What do you think?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Is this thing on?
Would you try a DWI case without a court reporter? What about an assault case? A dope case? A burglary case?
Would you even consider trying a case without a court reporter present?
That's what two legislators from Houston have in mind for the municipal courts in Houston. State Senator Joan Huffman and State Representative Beverly Woolley have filed bills (SB1879 and HB3807) that would allow the Houston Municipal Courts to conduct trials with a tape recorder taking the place of a court reporter.
What's the big deal, you might ask.
A court reporter can ask an attorney, the judge or a witness to repeat a question, an answer or a ruling from the bench. A tape recorder can't. (Take a look at an ALR hearing transcript and count the number of times the transcript says "unintelligible" for an answer.)
A court reporter can ask an attorney or a witness to speak slower or to speak louder. A tape recorder can't.
A court reporter can ask the attorneys, the judge or a witness not to talk over one another. A tape recorder can't.
A court reporter takes down everything that is said while "on the record." A tape recorder only records if it's turned on.
An attorney can obtain a transcript of a hearing by contacting the court reporter. If it's a recording -- you've got to go through the court.
An attorney or the judge can ask the court reporter to pull up specific testimony for review on a motion or for cross examination. No can do with the tape recorder. (Do you really think a municipal judge is going to play back an entire tape to get the answer to one or two questions on a motion for directed verdict?)
In the justice of the peace courts if you don't get a favorable decision your client can post an appeal bond and you get a fresh bite at the apple in county court. No such luck in municipal courts of record.
The purpose of these bills is to reduce the expense of running the municipal courthouse in Houston. It was the same rationale used to tell officers they could wait until 1pm to come to court even though the citizen accused of speeding had to appear at 8am.
Revenues are down because officers are writing fewer tickets and fewer cases are being cleared because it doesn't make sense to plead out a case if you don't know if the officer will appear after lunch. Now the city's taking aim at the due process rights of the accused by axing the court reporters.
I agree that it's only a Class C misdemeanor. But it was important enough for that motorist to hire an attorney to handle the case. In Texas, that motorist has the same rights to a trial by jury as does the man accused of capital murder.
Sacrificing due process to balance a budget is inexcusable.
Would you even consider trying a case without a court reporter present?
That's what two legislators from Houston have in mind for the municipal courts in Houston. State Senator Joan Huffman and State Representative Beverly Woolley have filed bills (SB1879 and HB3807) that would allow the Houston Municipal Courts to conduct trials with a tape recorder taking the place of a court reporter.
What's the big deal, you might ask.
A court reporter can ask an attorney, the judge or a witness to repeat a question, an answer or a ruling from the bench. A tape recorder can't. (Take a look at an ALR hearing transcript and count the number of times the transcript says "unintelligible" for an answer.)
A court reporter can ask an attorney or a witness to speak slower or to speak louder. A tape recorder can't.
A court reporter can ask the attorneys, the judge or a witness not to talk over one another. A tape recorder can't.
A court reporter takes down everything that is said while "on the record." A tape recorder only records if it's turned on.
An attorney can obtain a transcript of a hearing by contacting the court reporter. If it's a recording -- you've got to go through the court.
An attorney or the judge can ask the court reporter to pull up specific testimony for review on a motion or for cross examination. No can do with the tape recorder. (Do you really think a municipal judge is going to play back an entire tape to get the answer to one or two questions on a motion for directed verdict?)
In the justice of the peace courts if you don't get a favorable decision your client can post an appeal bond and you get a fresh bite at the apple in county court. No such luck in municipal courts of record.
The purpose of these bills is to reduce the expense of running the municipal courthouse in Houston. It was the same rationale used to tell officers they could wait until 1pm to come to court even though the citizen accused of speeding had to appear at 8am.
Revenues are down because officers are writing fewer tickets and fewer cases are being cleared because it doesn't make sense to plead out a case if you don't know if the officer will appear after lunch. Now the city's taking aim at the due process rights of the accused by axing the court reporters.
I agree that it's only a Class C misdemeanor. But it was important enough for that motorist to hire an attorney to handle the case. In Texas, that motorist has the same rights to a trial by jury as does the man accused of capital murder.
Sacrificing due process to balance a budget is inexcusable.
Friday, October 8, 2010
How many prosecutors does it take to... ?
A table full of "volunteer" prosecutors in the City of Houston Municipal Court. That's right, an entire army of prosecutors in traffic court.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Collapsing under its own weight
The City of Houston Municipal Courts handled 1.2 million cases in 2009. Of those 1.2 million cases, defendants requested jury trials in 415,297 of them. The Houston Chronicle reported that there were 415,297 jury trials at 1400 Lubbock Street last year; Houston's "leading information source" was wrong. There are seven municipal courts that handle jury trials. In those seven courts, one case, at most, will go to trial each afternoon. Not taking holidays into account, there are approximately 260 working days in a year. If we are to believe the number reported, that means each of those seven courts conducted an average of 228 jury trials a day, every weekday, for the entire year.
The number reported by the Houston Chronicle is not the number of jury trials conducted, but, instead, the number of cases set on the courts' jury trial dockets. That means each court averaged approximately 228 cases on its docket each day.
And with our city attorney doing his best to make Governor Perry look like a genius and declaring that police officers needn't bother with showing up at 8:00 a.m. and making folks sit around the courthouse all day long, the Municipal Courthouse will soon collapse under its own weight.
Now just imagine what would happen if none of those 228 cases plead out during the morning session and that every defendant in that courtroom demanded a jury trial. Imagine 227 cases having to be reset in every court every day. Sure, the new policy is ridiculous and it attempts to coerce pleas by making people sit in a courtroom all day long but to watch the entire system come crashing down is priceless.
Now if you are offended by David Feldman's latest dumb idea and think that it's just plain wrong that you are expected to be in court at the time shown on your summons but that the police can show up whenever they damn well please, then give your mayor and city councilmembers a piece of your mind:
Mayor Annise Parker
(832) 393-0800 or (832) 393-1013
Brenda Stardig
(832) 393-3010
Jarvis Jordan
(832) 393-3009
Anne Clutterbuck
(832) 393-3004
Wanda Adams
(832) 393-3001
Mike Sullivan
(832) 393-3008
Al Hoang
(832) 393-3002
Oliver Pennington
(832) 393-3007
Ed Gonzalez
(832) 393-3003
James Rodriguez
(832) 393-3011
Stephen Costello
(832) 393-3014
Sue Lovell
(832) 393-3013
Melissa Noriega
(832) 393-3005
Clarence Bradford
(832) 393-3012
Jolanda Jones
(832) 393-3006
You might even want to drop Mr. Feldman a line at david.feldman@houstontx.gov.
The number reported by the Houston Chronicle is not the number of jury trials conducted, but, instead, the number of cases set on the courts' jury trial dockets. That means each court averaged approximately 228 cases on its docket each day.
And with our city attorney doing his best to make Governor Perry look like a genius and declaring that police officers needn't bother with showing up at 8:00 a.m. and making folks sit around the courthouse all day long, the Municipal Courthouse will soon collapse under its own weight.
Now just imagine what would happen if none of those 228 cases plead out during the morning session and that every defendant in that courtroom demanded a jury trial. Imagine 227 cases having to be reset in every court every day. Sure, the new policy is ridiculous and it attempts to coerce pleas by making people sit in a courtroom all day long but to watch the entire system come crashing down is priceless.
Now if you are offended by David Feldman's latest dumb idea and think that it's just plain wrong that you are expected to be in court at the time shown on your summons but that the police can show up whenever they damn well please, then give your mayor and city councilmembers a piece of your mind:
Mayor Annise Parker
(832) 393-0800 or (832) 393-1013
Brenda Stardig
(832) 393-3010
Jarvis Jordan
(832) 393-3009
Anne Clutterbuck
(832) 393-3004
Wanda Adams
(832) 393-3001
Mike Sullivan
(832) 393-3008
Al Hoang
(832) 393-3002
Oliver Pennington
(832) 393-3007
Ed Gonzalez
(832) 393-3003
James Rodriguez
(832) 393-3011
Stephen Costello
(832) 393-3014
Sue Lovell
(832) 393-3013
Melissa Noriega
(832) 393-3005
Clarence Bradford
(832) 393-3012
Jolanda Jones
(832) 393-3006
You might even want to drop Mr. Feldman a line at david.feldman@houstontx.gov.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Who's burden is it?
Memo to: Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman
From: Paul B. Kennedy
Date: 7/29/2010
I'm not sure if y'all realize this but when a police officer stops a motorists and issues a citation for speeding, that motorist is being charged with a criminal offense. I understand it's only a Class C misdemeanor - but that motorist may still have to pay a fine and deal with DPS surcharges.
The motorist is presumed innocent unless the state can prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. That's right, the prosecution has the burden of proof. The motorist has a right to a trial before a jury of his peers - no matter how inconvenient that may be. The motorist also has a right to confront the witnesses against him - even if the City of Houston is going to have to shell out some overtime money for the officers.
The motorist is issued a notice informing him of where and when he is to appear for his trial. The officer who issued the citation is served with a summons to appear at the same time in the same place. If the motorist is not sitting in the courtroom when his name is called, the judge will have a warrant issued for his arrest. If the officer isn't present, the case is dismissed. But now y'all have decided that the law doesn't apply to the city and that officers don't have to be in court for the morning docket call.
It's the government who's attempting to take money out of the motorist's pocket. It's the motorist's money. It's the motorist's time. If the government wants to infringe on someone's liberty then it's the government who needs to deal with these messy inconveniences of our criminal justice system, not the motorist. Yet it's the government who decides to make innocent people sit in a courtroom for hours waiting for their accusers to show up in court. The state may have the burden of proof, but I guess the citizenry have the burden of exercising their rights.
It seems to me that the government is taking offense at the notion that a motorist dare stand up and proclaim himself not guilty. We've already seen the city proclaim red light camera violations to be civil violations in order to avoid dealing with due process and confrontation issues. How long until y'all declare all traffic offenses to be civil violations, too?
What's going to happen when nobody pleads out their cases in the morning and the courtroom remains full at 1:00 pm? What's going to happen when everyone in the courtroom demands their right to trial by jury and the Municipal Courthouse grinds to a halt?
From: Paul B. Kennedy
Date: 7/29/2010
I'm not sure if y'all realize this but when a police officer stops a motorists and issues a citation for speeding, that motorist is being charged with a criminal offense. I understand it's only a Class C misdemeanor - but that motorist may still have to pay a fine and deal with DPS surcharges.
The motorist is presumed innocent unless the state can prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. That's right, the prosecution has the burden of proof. The motorist has a right to a trial before a jury of his peers - no matter how inconvenient that may be. The motorist also has a right to confront the witnesses against him - even if the City of Houston is going to have to shell out some overtime money for the officers.
The motorist is issued a notice informing him of where and when he is to appear for his trial. The officer who issued the citation is served with a summons to appear at the same time in the same place. If the motorist is not sitting in the courtroom when his name is called, the judge will have a warrant issued for his arrest. If the officer isn't present, the case is dismissed. But now y'all have decided that the law doesn't apply to the city and that officers don't have to be in court for the morning docket call.
It's the government who's attempting to take money out of the motorist's pocket. It's the motorist's money. It's the motorist's time. If the government wants to infringe on someone's liberty then it's the government who needs to deal with these messy inconveniences of our criminal justice system, not the motorist. Yet it's the government who decides to make innocent people sit in a courtroom for hours waiting for their accusers to show up in court. The state may have the burden of proof, but I guess the citizenry have the burden of exercising their rights.
It seems to me that the government is taking offense at the notion that a motorist dare stand up and proclaim himself not guilty. We've already seen the city proclaim red light camera violations to be civil violations in order to avoid dealing with due process and confrontation issues. How long until y'all declare all traffic offenses to be civil violations, too?
What's going to happen when nobody pleads out their cases in the morning and the courtroom remains full at 1:00 pm? What's going to happen when everyone in the courtroom demands their right to trial by jury and the Municipal Courthouse grinds to a halt?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
What's next? Waterboarding?
So you think sitting on the wooden benches at the City of Houston Municipal Courthouse is a long, painful experience now -- it just got longer. City of Houston Attorney David Feldman, who apparently has never met a bad idea he didn't love, sent out a memo instructing officers not to show up in court until 1:00 p.m. -- regardless of the time listed on the summons. Motorists accused of violating traffic laws will still be required to show up on time, however.
Why the change, you may ask? According to Mr. Feldman it has to do with cutting overtime hours since someone has to pay the officers for showing up (nevermind that many officers sign in and leave after telling the bailiff they are "on call"). Of course I think there's a more insidious reason. Make enough people sit in the courtroom long enough and you can wear them down and coerce a plea. Does Feldman not understand the basic principles of criminal law or does he just not give a rat's ass?
Feldman's latest hare-brained scheme (click here for his last "great" idea) will do nothing but clog the dockets further because instead of clearing cases in the morning and picking a trial case in the afternoon the courts will be trying to clear cases in the afternoon.
So what's the solution? Refuse to plead traffic cases. They're all on the trial docket anyway. We can bring the city's ATM machine to a grinding halt by refusing to go along.
Why the change, you may ask? According to Mr. Feldman it has to do with cutting overtime hours since someone has to pay the officers for showing up (nevermind that many officers sign in and leave after telling the bailiff they are "on call"). Of course I think there's a more insidious reason. Make enough people sit in the courtroom long enough and you can wear them down and coerce a plea. Does Feldman not understand the basic principles of criminal law or does he just not give a rat's ass?
Feldman's latest hare-brained scheme (click here for his last "great" idea) will do nothing but clog the dockets further because instead of clearing cases in the morning and picking a trial case in the afternoon the courts will be trying to clear cases in the afternoon.
So what's the solution? Refuse to plead traffic cases. They're all on the trial docket anyway. We can bring the city's ATM machine to a grinding halt by refusing to go along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)