Oh, campaign season is all around us. The other day I got a mailer from the Republican Party of Texas promoting Republican judges. I suppose for the ordinary person who hasn't the slightest clue how the criminal (in)justice system works, the mailer might have an effect.
But not really. You see, the results in most judicial races mirrors that of the races at the top of the ballot. There might be a difference of a couple percentage points but, in general, the results are pretty much in line in Harris County.
The mailer tells us that "Republican judges follow the law" and implore folks to "Keep Harris County safe by voting for Republican judges."
Those tag lines are horridly misleading because many judges on the ballot have absolutely nothing to do with criminal law and the average citizen hasn't a clue as to who sits on a civil bench and who sits on a criminal bench.
The mailer states that upwards of 95% of the judges endorsed by police organizations are Republican. I don't doubt that - considering that the Republicans have pretty much owned the county criminal benches for 20 years or more. And many of these judges have track records of being friendly to the state (since too many to count went right from the DA's office to the bench) - they will give the police the benefit of the doubt when it comes to suppression issues.
The mailer also tells us that some criminals have been released from jail (on bond) or have been given probation (through plea bargains made between defense attorneys and prosecutors) and then later committed other crimes.
But, wait a second. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be stingy with the purse strings? Locking up more folks when the jails are already at capacity means building new jails or paying other counties to house folks awaiting trial. How on earth is that being fiscally responsible?
Then, of course, there is this whole matter of the 8th Amendment and the lawsuit challenging the way bonds are set in Harris County. The county has continually lost at every step of the process yet 14 of the 15 Republican judges have continued the fight to defend an unconstitutional system at a cost of several million dollars.
I guess, what the hell, it's not their money so another round of briefs and depositions all around.
So, if you want judges who will continue to spend taxpayer money defending a bad system who use the old bond schedule as a way to coerce pleas from the poor, and if you want judges who are going to spend taxpayer money housing inmates who haven't been convicted of anything, then, yes, by all means, vote for the Republican candidates on the November ballot.
Showing posts with label bonds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bonds. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Fighting for injustice
Once again the Republican misdemeanor judges in Harris County have their panties in a wad. And, once again, it has to do with a federal judge telling them that the little bail bond scheme they followed for years is unconstitutional and must be changed.
The judges are upset because US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's revised order will force the county to release certain non-violent offenders within a certain time period. The judges claim this will endanger the public's safety.
Bullshit. What it will do is remove the coercive power the state had on criminal defendants to force them to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
The way Harris County operated for years was to follow a bail bond schedule that didn't take the defendant's financial circumstances into effect when setting bail. The only things that mattered were the type of offense and whether the defendant had any prior convictions. Bond was set automatically by a piece of paper and thousands of folks were held in custody until they resolved their cases -- usually by pleading guilty in a mass plea for time served or some other token sentence.
Prosecutors got their convictions. Judges got cases off their dockets. And since those accused of criminal acts don't have an effective lobby - no one gave a fuck.
Anyone who has spent any time in this racket knows that it is a hell of a lot easier to fight one's case if one is not behind bars. When you're behind bars you're not working, not earning money, not seeing your family and all you can do is think about how many more days this hell is going to last.
When you're out on bond you can work and earn money. You sleep in your own bed. You see your friends and family. You can speak with you attorney face to face without a thick sheet of plexiglass between you. You're also not under the pressure to resolve the case quickly because you are able to resume your normal life.
And the misdemeanor judges in Harris County hate this. They hate the fact that defendants out on bond are able to fight their cases. They hate the fact that the state doesn't have the same coercive hold on them as they do on the defendants in the jumpsuits.
Well, let's be straight about one thing. It's unfair to lump all of the misdemeanor judges into the same pile. Darrell Jordan, a Democrat, and Michael Fields, a Republican, aren't part of the ongoing lawsuit. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are the only two black judges on the misdemeanor bench in Harris County.
Most of the defendants in the misdemeanor courts are black and Latino. These are the folks that conservative white voters in the suburbs have been taught to hate. As anyone who understands Harris County politics knows, Republican candidates rely on those suburban voters to get elected because they don't have a chance within the Houston city limits.
The judges who continue to spend our tax money to defend an unconstitutional bail bond system are spreading fear and hatred among their suburban supporters in a desperate measure to build up some sort of support for Republican candidates in what could very easily be a bloodbath for the wingnuts.
The Republican judges (minus Judge Fields) are furiously blowing on their dog whistles. And they are doing it, not to maintain public safety, but to maintain a criminal (in)justice system that targets the poor and those with dark skin.
And for those keeping tabs, the current bill for fighting the lawsuit is $6.6 million. How's that for financial responsibility?
The judges are upset because US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's revised order will force the county to release certain non-violent offenders within a certain time period. The judges claim this will endanger the public's safety.
Bullshit. What it will do is remove the coercive power the state had on criminal defendants to force them to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
The way Harris County operated for years was to follow a bail bond schedule that didn't take the defendant's financial circumstances into effect when setting bail. The only things that mattered were the type of offense and whether the defendant had any prior convictions. Bond was set automatically by a piece of paper and thousands of folks were held in custody until they resolved their cases -- usually by pleading guilty in a mass plea for time served or some other token sentence.
Prosecutors got their convictions. Judges got cases off their dockets. And since those accused of criminal acts don't have an effective lobby - no one gave a fuck.
Anyone who has spent any time in this racket knows that it is a hell of a lot easier to fight one's case if one is not behind bars. When you're behind bars you're not working, not earning money, not seeing your family and all you can do is think about how many more days this hell is going to last.
When you're out on bond you can work and earn money. You sleep in your own bed. You see your friends and family. You can speak with you attorney face to face without a thick sheet of plexiglass between you. You're also not under the pressure to resolve the case quickly because you are able to resume your normal life.
And the misdemeanor judges in Harris County hate this. They hate the fact that defendants out on bond are able to fight their cases. They hate the fact that the state doesn't have the same coercive hold on them as they do on the defendants in the jumpsuits.
Well, let's be straight about one thing. It's unfair to lump all of the misdemeanor judges into the same pile. Darrell Jordan, a Democrat, and Michael Fields, a Republican, aren't part of the ongoing lawsuit. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are the only two black judges on the misdemeanor bench in Harris County.
Most of the defendants in the misdemeanor courts are black and Latino. These are the folks that conservative white voters in the suburbs have been taught to hate. As anyone who understands Harris County politics knows, Republican candidates rely on those suburban voters to get elected because they don't have a chance within the Houston city limits.
The judges who continue to spend our tax money to defend an unconstitutional bail bond system are spreading fear and hatred among their suburban supporters in a desperate measure to build up some sort of support for Republican candidates in what could very easily be a bloodbath for the wingnuts.
The Republican judges (minus Judge Fields) are furiously blowing on their dog whistles. And they are doing it, not to maintain public safety, but to maintain a criminal (in)justice system that targets the poor and those with dark skin.
And for those keeping tabs, the current bill for fighting the lawsuit is $6.6 million. How's that for financial responsibility?
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Harris County Chief Public Defender under fire
Alex Brunin is the Chief Public Defender for Harris County. His clientele consists of those who haven't the money to hire an attorney to defend themselves in criminal court.
He is now being accused by Steve Radack, a Harris County Commissioner, of leaking confidential records to attorneys fighting the county on the way bonds are set for defendants. Prior to Federal District Judge Lee Rosenthal's finding that both the misdemeanor and felony bond schedules were unconstitutional as they did not take into account a defendant's ability to pay, a magistrate would ask the prosecutor what the defendant was charged with, whether there were any enhancements and whether the defendant had a prior record. Based on the answers to the those questions, the magistrate traced his or her finger on a chart and set the defendant's bond.
The result was that almost three-quarters of the people held in the Harris County Jail on any given day hadn't been convicted and were awaiting resolution of their cases. That is a mind-blowing number. And totally fucked up.
As head of the Public Defender's Office, Alex Bunin finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. The office is funded by a grant. And, as I know I've written before, once that grant money starts to run out the case loads for everyone in the office will rise as will the pressure to plead out defendants. Mr. Bunin knows he will get no favors from Commissioner's Court. He's a thorn in the side of those who want to return to the days of the plea mill.
His position depends upon the whims of politicians from outside the Houston city limits - in other words, politicians who represent wealthy white suburbanites who want nothing to do with guaranteeing the constitutional rights of those accused of crime. Mr. Bunin has little or no political capital as indigent defendants don't have a voice in Harris County politics.
Make no mistake about it, this isn't about whether or not Mr. Bunin passed on information, confidential or otherwise, to attorneys fighting about the Harris County bond schedule, this is about a man who is doing his best to give voice to those who don't have one. That, in a nutshell, is Alex Bunin's sin. He dared to provide a vigorous defense for those who had nothing.
Thus far Harris County has spent in the neighborhood of $6 million fighting to preserve a bail system that a conservative federal judge and the most conservative appellate court have found to be unconstitutional. And yet the county continues to fight to preserve a system that led to coerced mass pleas.
Two judges, Mike Fields and Darrell Jordan, have urged the county to drop the fight and to work on finding a solution. Thus far their words have fallen on deaf ears.
But now Mr. Radack has a scapegoat. Instead of defending the money spent on defending the indefensible, he can hold Alex Bunin up to the conservative mates and blame him for the lawsuit and the changes to the bail system. But there's even more to it.
If Mr. Radack and his cabal can get rid of Alex Bunin they can replace him with someone who isn't as committed to defending the indigent. He can install someone who is more interested in the appearance of "fairness" than in actual reform. He can install someone who will be more than happy to carry his water bucket, increase case loads and pressure his staff to plead more cases out.
After a testy meeting yesterday, Mr. Bunin wasn't fired, but the matter was referred to the county public defender board for further recommendation. As was to be expected, the county commissioners who represented mostly white suburbanites were most critical of Mr. Bunin's actions.
And that's what this is ultimately all about -- a return to the days when court-appointed attorneys were more than happy to team up with the judge and prosecutor to work cases out without much effort or cost.
He is now being accused by Steve Radack, a Harris County Commissioner, of leaking confidential records to attorneys fighting the county on the way bonds are set for defendants. Prior to Federal District Judge Lee Rosenthal's finding that both the misdemeanor and felony bond schedules were unconstitutional as they did not take into account a defendant's ability to pay, a magistrate would ask the prosecutor what the defendant was charged with, whether there were any enhancements and whether the defendant had a prior record. Based on the answers to the those questions, the magistrate traced his or her finger on a chart and set the defendant's bond.
The result was that almost three-quarters of the people held in the Harris County Jail on any given day hadn't been convicted and were awaiting resolution of their cases. That is a mind-blowing number. And totally fucked up.
As head of the Public Defender's Office, Alex Bunin finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. The office is funded by a grant. And, as I know I've written before, once that grant money starts to run out the case loads for everyone in the office will rise as will the pressure to plead out defendants. Mr. Bunin knows he will get no favors from Commissioner's Court. He's a thorn in the side of those who want to return to the days of the plea mill.
His position depends upon the whims of politicians from outside the Houston city limits - in other words, politicians who represent wealthy white suburbanites who want nothing to do with guaranteeing the constitutional rights of those accused of crime. Mr. Bunin has little or no political capital as indigent defendants don't have a voice in Harris County politics.
Make no mistake about it, this isn't about whether or not Mr. Bunin passed on information, confidential or otherwise, to attorneys fighting about the Harris County bond schedule, this is about a man who is doing his best to give voice to those who don't have one. That, in a nutshell, is Alex Bunin's sin. He dared to provide a vigorous defense for those who had nothing.
Thus far Harris County has spent in the neighborhood of $6 million fighting to preserve a bail system that a conservative federal judge and the most conservative appellate court have found to be unconstitutional. And yet the county continues to fight to preserve a system that led to coerced mass pleas.
Two judges, Mike Fields and Darrell Jordan, have urged the county to drop the fight and to work on finding a solution. Thus far their words have fallen on deaf ears.
But now Mr. Radack has a scapegoat. Instead of defending the money spent on defending the indefensible, he can hold Alex Bunin up to the conservative mates and blame him for the lawsuit and the changes to the bail system. But there's even more to it.
If Mr. Radack and his cabal can get rid of Alex Bunin they can replace him with someone who isn't as committed to defending the indigent. He can install someone who is more interested in the appearance of "fairness" than in actual reform. He can install someone who will be more than happy to carry his water bucket, increase case loads and pressure his staff to plead more cases out.
After a testy meeting yesterday, Mr. Bunin wasn't fired, but the matter was referred to the county public defender board for further recommendation. As was to be expected, the county commissioners who represented mostly white suburbanites were most critical of Mr. Bunin's actions.
And that's what this is ultimately all about -- a return to the days when court-appointed attorneys were more than happy to team up with the judge and prosecutor to work cases out without much effort or cost.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Constructing the plea mill
Documents obtained by the Houston Chronicle cast new light on the ways Harris County judges systematically refused to grant personal bonds to defendants for years. Many district judges instructed magistrates not to grant personal bonds to any defendant - regardless of the offense and the ability of the defendant to post bond. This is Step One in created a plea mill.
Today, after US District Judge Lee Rosenthal declared Harris County's misdemeanor bond schedule to be unconstitutional, three-quarters of the county's 8,700 inmates are in jail awaiting trial. Think about that for a second. There are more than 6,000 people behind bars who haven't been convicted of anything.
This process came to light when three Harris County magistrates, Eric Hagsteette, Jill Wallace and Joseph Licata III, during disciplinary hearings before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The complaints were filed by State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston). During the hearings the magistrates told commissioners that they were instructed by judges not to grant PR bonds.
The following district court (felony) judges instructed magistrates not to grant PR bonds on cases assigned to their courts:
Each of these judges systematically deprived defendants of bond. Yes, in some cases, individual decisions to deny PR bonds - or bond in general - was correct given the nature of the allegation and the criminal history of the defendant. But, making it a blanket policy to deny PR bonds without taking into account the individual circumstances of each defendant is wrong - and it is a systematic denial of justice.
Judge McSpadden even made a point of defending his position by blaming movements like Black Lives Matter for the problem. He hits all of the dog whistle talking points in his statement without taking into account the institutional racism found in law enforcement, police brutality and violence against unarmed black and brown men or the capricious nature in which bond decisions are made in Harris County.
No, Judge McSpadden, the contempt people of color feel for the criminal (in)justice system has more to do with the acts of those in charge of the system and the systemic racism inherent in the way our courts operate. Denying PR bonds to defendants because of the color of their skin or without regard to their ability to post bond breeds contempt for the system.
Today, after US District Judge Lee Rosenthal declared Harris County's misdemeanor bond schedule to be unconstitutional, three-quarters of the county's 8,700 inmates are in jail awaiting trial. Think about that for a second. There are more than 6,000 people behind bars who haven't been convicted of anything.
This process came to light when three Harris County magistrates, Eric Hagsteette, Jill Wallace and Joseph Licata III, during disciplinary hearings before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The complaints were filed by State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston). During the hearings the magistrates told commissioners that they were instructed by judges not to grant PR bonds.
The following district court (felony) judges instructed magistrates not to grant PR bonds on cases assigned to their courts:
- Devon Anderson, former district judge and DA, 2006-2007
- Mike Anderson, former district judge and DA, 2006-2009
- Jeannine Barr, 182nd District Court, 2006-2017
- Denise Bradley, 262nd District Court, 2012-2017
- Marc Brown, former district judge and current Justice on the 14th Court of Appeals, 2012
- Susan Brown, 185th District Court, 2006-2012
- Katherine Cabaniss, 248th District Court, 2014-2017
- Joan Campbell, former district judge, 2006-2012
- Marc Carter, 228th District Court, 2006-2014
- Caprice Cosper, former district judge, 2006-2007
- Denise Collins, 208th District Court, 2006-2012
- Mark Kent Ellis, former district judge, 2006-2017
- Catherine Evans, 180th District Court, 2014-2017
- George Godwin, former district judge, 2006-2007
- William Harwin, former district judge, current county court judge, 2006
- Belinda Hill, former district judge, 2006-2012
- Joan Huffman, former district judge and current state senator, 1999-2005
- Hazel Jones, 338th District Court, 2009 and 2012
- Jan Krocker, 184th District Court, 2006
- Renee Magee, former district judge, 2014
- Michael McSpadden, 209th District Court, 2006-2017
- Ryan Patrick, former district judge and current US Attorney, 2012 and 2014
- George Powell, 351st District Court, 2017
- Brian Rains, former district judge, 2006-2007
- Herb Ritchie, 337th District Court, 2009-2012
- Debbie Mantooth Stricklin, former district judge, 2006-2009
- Don Stricklin, former district judge, 2006-2007
- Brock Thomas, former district judge, 2006-2007 and 2014
- Vanessa Velasquez, 183rd District Court, 2006-2007
- Jim Wallace, 263rd District Court, 2006-2017
- Michael Wilkinson, former district judge, 2006-2007
Each of these judges systematically deprived defendants of bond. Yes, in some cases, individual decisions to deny PR bonds - or bond in general - was correct given the nature of the allegation and the criminal history of the defendant. But, making it a blanket policy to deny PR bonds without taking into account the individual circumstances of each defendant is wrong - and it is a systematic denial of justice.
"The young black men - and it's primarily young black men rather than young black women - charged with felony offenses, they're not getting good advice from their parents. Who do they get advice from? Rag-tag organizations like Black Lives Matter, which tell you, 'Resist police,' which is the worst thing in the world you can tell a young black man... They teach contempt for the police, for the whole justice system."
-- Judge Michael McSpadden, 209th District Court
Judge McSpadden even made a point of defending his position by blaming movements like Black Lives Matter for the problem. He hits all of the dog whistle talking points in his statement without taking into account the institutional racism found in law enforcement, police brutality and violence against unarmed black and brown men or the capricious nature in which bond decisions are made in Harris County.
No, Judge McSpadden, the contempt people of color feel for the criminal (in)justice system has more to do with the acts of those in charge of the system and the systemic racism inherent in the way our courts operate. Denying PR bonds to defendants because of the color of their skin or without regard to their ability to post bond breeds contempt for the system.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Losing leverage
The purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused appears in court to answer the charge against him and to ensure the safety of the community.
When courts leave their bail decisions up to a chart without regard to a defendant's ability to pay, the courts are abdicating their responsibility to uphold the law.
Harris County is currently under a court order from US District Judge Lee Rosenthal to release nonviolent misdemeanor defendants regardless of their ability to post a cash bond. Fourteen of the sixteen misdemeanor court judges in Harris County (all Republicans) are waging war against the order because it gums up the works.
On January 31, Dutchess County Judge Maria Rosa ruled that setting bail for defendants without regard to their ability to pay is unconstitutional. The case was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Christopher Kunkeli who was held for almost three months in the Dutchess County jail because he couldn't afford the $5,000 bail in his case. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor with an offer of time served.
According to the NYCLU, 71% of the inmates at the Dutchess County jail had not been convicted of anything. They were behind bars because they couldn't afford to post bail.
Of course the local District Attorney, William Grady, didn't see a problem with holding folks pending trial. It makes his life easier because after a while, most inmates will plead guilty to almost anything in exchange for getting out of jail.
Mr. Grady contends, much like the Harris County judges, that actually following the law is "misguided." What he means, of course, is that having defendants sleeping in their own beds removes the leverage his office had over them when trying to resolve their cases. Now his office might be burdened with the task of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
When courts leave their bail decisions up to a chart without regard to a defendant's ability to pay, the courts are abdicating their responsibility to uphold the law.
Harris County is currently under a court order from US District Judge Lee Rosenthal to release nonviolent misdemeanor defendants regardless of their ability to post a cash bond. Fourteen of the sixteen misdemeanor court judges in Harris County (all Republicans) are waging war against the order because it gums up the works.
On January 31, Dutchess County Judge Maria Rosa ruled that setting bail for defendants without regard to their ability to pay is unconstitutional. The case was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Christopher Kunkeli who was held for almost three months in the Dutchess County jail because he couldn't afford the $5,000 bail in his case. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor with an offer of time served.
According to the NYCLU, 71% of the inmates at the Dutchess County jail had not been convicted of anything. They were behind bars because they couldn't afford to post bail.
Of course the local District Attorney, William Grady, didn't see a problem with holding folks pending trial. It makes his life easier because after a while, most inmates will plead guilty to almost anything in exchange for getting out of jail.
Mr. Grady contends, much like the Harris County judges, that actually following the law is "misguided." What he means, of course, is that having defendants sleeping in their own beds removes the leverage his office had over them when trying to resolve their cases. Now his office might be burdened with the task of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Friday, February 16, 2018
It's a swing and a miss
And it's strike two against Harris County in their efforts to maintain an unconstitutional and discriminatory bail policy in place.
Last June, US District Judge Lee Rosenthal ordered Harris County to change the way in which those arrested for non-violent misdemeanors are treated. Out went the bond schedule that failed to take into account the individual financial circumstances of the accused. In came a system in which folks who couldn't afford bail were released on personal bonds and pretrial release.
Fourteen of the county misdemeanor judges joined together to challenge Judge Rosenthal's order. As noted here, Judge Mike Fields removed himself from the rest of the Republican judges recently.
Now the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling and it affirmed Judge Rosenthal's order. This should be the death blow to the county's attempt to reinstitute the plea mill as no one would ever come to the conclusion that the Fifth Circuit Court is anything other than conservative at heart.
While the Court stopped short of saying that everyone charged with a misdemeanor has the right to pre-trial release, Harris County is required to conduct an individual assessment of each detainee.
The stance of the judges fighting to overturn Judge Rosenthal's order should come as quite jarring when compared to their tame campaign promises to see that justice is done. The justice these judges have in mind is coercing defendants who can't afford to post bond to plead guilty to criminal acts without having the opportunity to investigate the facts and to hold the state to its burden of proof.
Now the leverage the judges and prosecutors had over many defendants is gone. And that's a very good thing, no matter what the Republican judges tell you between now and November.
Last June, US District Judge Lee Rosenthal ordered Harris County to change the way in which those arrested for non-violent misdemeanors are treated. Out went the bond schedule that failed to take into account the individual financial circumstances of the accused. In came a system in which folks who couldn't afford bail were released on personal bonds and pretrial release.
Fourteen of the county misdemeanor judges joined together to challenge Judge Rosenthal's order. As noted here, Judge Mike Fields removed himself from the rest of the Republican judges recently.
Now the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling and it affirmed Judge Rosenthal's order. This should be the death blow to the county's attempt to reinstitute the plea mill as no one would ever come to the conclusion that the Fifth Circuit Court is anything other than conservative at heart.
While the Court stopped short of saying that everyone charged with a misdemeanor has the right to pre-trial release, Harris County is required to conduct an individual assessment of each detainee.
The stance of the judges fighting to overturn Judge Rosenthal's order should come as quite jarring when compared to their tame campaign promises to see that justice is done. The justice these judges have in mind is coercing defendants who can't afford to post bond to plead guilty to criminal acts without having the opportunity to investigate the facts and to hold the state to its burden of proof.
Now the leverage the judges and prosecutors had over many defendants is gone. And that's a very good thing, no matter what the Republican judges tell you between now and November.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Is Harris County deliberately undermining a federal court order?
This past June an order from US District Judge Lee Rosenthal went into effect that drastically altered the way pretrial bonds are handled in Harris County.
In the past if a defendant charged with a misdemeanor couldn't afford to post bond or his family couldn't afford to hire a bondsman, that defendant sat in jail until his case was resolved. This put pressure on defendants to plead their cases even if there was no evidence or even if they were innocent, just to get out of jail.
Judges and prosecutors loved it. It cleared dockets. It meant fewer trials.
In light of Judge Rosenthal's ruling, defendants charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who can't afford to post bond are to be released on personal bonds - that is, on their promise to return to court on a certain date.
Many of these folks were placed on pretrial supervision in which caseworkers do what they can to ensure they return to court when scheduled.
But, according to this article in the Houston Chronicle, many of those who need supervision don't receive it and, subsequently, don't show up for their court dates.
Judges are up in arms because of the number of warrants they have to issue for defendants who miss court. County officials blame Judge Rosenthal for the problem.
Keep in mind that for decades in Harris County the jail was filled to capacity primarily with detainees who hadn't been convicted of anything. The county also fought, tooth and nail, to defend its system that denied the accused their due process rights by confining them absent a showing of guilt and absent a showing that they were a danger to society.
And, in what is most likely a deliberate attempt to undermine Judge Rosenthal's order, Harris County does not place those who most need supervision on pretrial supervision. This policy of neglect almost guarantees that folks are going to fall between the cracks. I suspect the county hopes that this policy will allow them to go back to the old system when they present "evidence" that the public was placed at risk by nonviolent misdemeanor defendants who failed to appear in court.
The judges want to return to the old system so they can move cases off their dockets. Everyone involved in the criminal (in)justice system knows that it's much easier to fight your case when you aren't behind bars. But having folks exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial gums up the works down at the courthouse - especially after Hurricane Harvey.
I know that judicial efficiency is a big deal for those wearing the black robes, but it doesn't - and shouldn't - trump the due process rights of citizens accused of breaking the law.
In the past if a defendant charged with a misdemeanor couldn't afford to post bond or his family couldn't afford to hire a bondsman, that defendant sat in jail until his case was resolved. This put pressure on defendants to plead their cases even if there was no evidence or even if they were innocent, just to get out of jail.
Judges and prosecutors loved it. It cleared dockets. It meant fewer trials.
In light of Judge Rosenthal's ruling, defendants charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who can't afford to post bond are to be released on personal bonds - that is, on their promise to return to court on a certain date.
Many of these folks were placed on pretrial supervision in which caseworkers do what they can to ensure they return to court when scheduled.
But, according to this article in the Houston Chronicle, many of those who need supervision don't receive it and, subsequently, don't show up for their court dates.
Judges are up in arms because of the number of warrants they have to issue for defendants who miss court. County officials blame Judge Rosenthal for the problem.
Keep in mind that for decades in Harris County the jail was filled to capacity primarily with detainees who hadn't been convicted of anything. The county also fought, tooth and nail, to defend its system that denied the accused their due process rights by confining them absent a showing of guilt and absent a showing that they were a danger to society.
And, in what is most likely a deliberate attempt to undermine Judge Rosenthal's order, Harris County does not place those who most need supervision on pretrial supervision. This policy of neglect almost guarantees that folks are going to fall between the cracks. I suspect the county hopes that this policy will allow them to go back to the old system when they present "evidence" that the public was placed at risk by nonviolent misdemeanor defendants who failed to appear in court.
The judges want to return to the old system so they can move cases off their dockets. Everyone involved in the criminal (in)justice system knows that it's much easier to fight your case when you aren't behind bars. But having folks exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial gums up the works down at the courthouse - especially after Hurricane Harvey.
I know that judicial efficiency is a big deal for those wearing the black robes, but it doesn't - and shouldn't - trump the due process rights of citizens accused of breaking the law.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Standing up to coercive bonding guidelines
The first post I wrote for this blog - way back in August 2008 - was a short piece on the need for PR (personal recognizance) bonds in Harris County. A PR bond is nothing more than a promise from a person accused of a crime that he or she will show up in court when ordered (much like your signature on that traffic ticket).
Today, more than five years later, there are too many people locked up in the Harris County Jail for non-violent offenses - mostly driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. The lucky ones are able to arrange for a friend or loved one to post a bond so they can fight their case from the outside. Some aren't so lucky and sit in jail for weeks or months while their cases are being litigated.
In the meantime law enforcement demand taxpayers take on more debt and build another jail as the existing jails don't have enough room to hold all of the folks the county insists on keeping behind bars.
What too many of our black-robed officials and prosecutors have forgotten is that a person accused of a crime is innocent unless proven otherwise. That includes those arrested for driving while intoxicated, possessing a baggy of pot, shoplifting and driving with a fake inspection sticker.
There is absolutely no excuse for not issuing PR bonds for folks charged with non-violent offenses who have no prior convictions. The purpose of bail is to ensure a person's appearance in court - not to punish the accused. Instead of looking for reasons to keep someone behind bars, our judges should be looking for reasons to release them pending trial.
Anyone who has done this job for any period of time is well aware of the fact that it is far easier to fight a case when your client is not behind bars. Keeping someone in jail does nothing more than coerce them into pleading guilty in exchange for being released. Who's more likely to wait for the results of a blood test in a DWI case - the guy who posted bond or the guy sitting in the holdover? The prosecutor is more than willing to offer time served (or a few days in jail) to the guy who can't post bond on the theft case while the defendant sitting out in the courtroom has the time to challenge the allegations.
PR bonds would lead to fewer first setting pleas as there would be fewer members on the chain gang to be pled out without bothering to investigate the facts. They would also present a challenge to the bondsmen in Harris County who depend on the judges blindly following the bond schedule to make their living.
Robb Fickman has had enough. Mr. Fickman is on a fast to bring attention to the problem. While the vehicle for his protest may be extreme, his argument is just and right. It is high time to bring an end to "coercion by bond" in Harris County. It is time we all remember that the only presumption we are allowed to make in the criminal courthouse is that the defendant is innocent.
From The "Meaning" of America...
Keep up the good fight, Robb.
Today, more than five years later, there are too many people locked up in the Harris County Jail for non-violent offenses - mostly driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. The lucky ones are able to arrange for a friend or loved one to post a bond so they can fight their case from the outside. Some aren't so lucky and sit in jail for weeks or months while their cases are being litigated.
In the meantime law enforcement demand taxpayers take on more debt and build another jail as the existing jails don't have enough room to hold all of the folks the county insists on keeping behind bars.
What too many of our black-robed officials and prosecutors have forgotten is that a person accused of a crime is innocent unless proven otherwise. That includes those arrested for driving while intoxicated, possessing a baggy of pot, shoplifting and driving with a fake inspection sticker.
There is absolutely no excuse for not issuing PR bonds for folks charged with non-violent offenses who have no prior convictions. The purpose of bail is to ensure a person's appearance in court - not to punish the accused. Instead of looking for reasons to keep someone behind bars, our judges should be looking for reasons to release them pending trial.
Anyone who has done this job for any period of time is well aware of the fact that it is far easier to fight a case when your client is not behind bars. Keeping someone in jail does nothing more than coerce them into pleading guilty in exchange for being released. Who's more likely to wait for the results of a blood test in a DWI case - the guy who posted bond or the guy sitting in the holdover? The prosecutor is more than willing to offer time served (or a few days in jail) to the guy who can't post bond on the theft case while the defendant sitting out in the courtroom has the time to challenge the allegations.
PR bonds would lead to fewer first setting pleas as there would be fewer members on the chain gang to be pled out without bothering to investigate the facts. They would also present a challenge to the bondsmen in Harris County who depend on the judges blindly following the bond schedule to make their living.
Robb Fickman has had enough. Mr. Fickman is on a fast to bring attention to the problem. While the vehicle for his protest may be extreme, his argument is just and right. It is high time to bring an end to "coercion by bond" in Harris County. It is time we all remember that the only presumption we are allowed to make in the criminal courthouse is that the defendant is innocent.
From The "Meaning" of America...
For years, I have observed the chain of orange jump suits come into our courts. I watch people pleading guilty, not long after they have met their appointed counsel. The lawyers who plead multiple clients guilty an hour after they met them, are not truly functioning as defense lawyers. A defense lawyer is duty bound to investigate the law and the facts. Those lawyers who plead multiple clients guilty, not long after meeting said clients, cannot possibly have done an adequate job of investigating the law or the facts. A lawyer who is appointed to represent 6 clients at 9AM, does not have sufficient time to investigate the law and facts for those 6 clients between 9AM and 11AM. Yet we routinely see lawyers who were appointed at 9AM, pleading 6 clients guilty at 11AM. Doing the math, that affords the lawyer no more than 20 minutes tops to work on each client’s case. I suspect if it were our loved one, we would all expect a lawyer to spend more than 20 minutes on our loved one’s case before making even an initial recommendation.
There is no time for these lawyers to interview the client in any meaningful way, interview prospective defense witnesses, investigate potential defenses, investigate the state’s case, or investigate relevant legal issues. That cannot be done in 20 minutes. I refer to this system as the “Harris County Plea Mill”. I am not picking on Harris County, I am aware similar bad systems exist elsewhere. (Nor am I picking on all lawyers who do court appointed work in the county courts. We have some lawyers who, despite the system, do their very best to provide effective assistance. These lawyers are more the exception than the rule.)
I believe the inherently unfair “Plea Mill” stems largely from the incarceration of the accused. The accused remain in jail because they have not been able to hire a bondsman and because your courts will not give them personal recognizance bonds. Logic dictates that people prefer liberty over incarceration.So, while you're enjoying your turkey, ham or whatever other food is on your table today, give a brief thought to the sacrifice that Robb Fickman is making to bring attention to a problem that happens to "those other people." Criminal defendants aren't anyone's favorite constituency. No one wants to be seen by the voters as "soft on crime." But those folks sitting in jail because they can't post bond are our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers and, sometimes, our family members.
Keep up the good fight, Robb.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Conflicting interests
So here I am, after a long weekend, wondering what I'm going to write about on Tuesday morning when a very interesting story drops into my lap. Courtesy of a bondsman in Harris County, who shall remain anonymous, we have the curious tale of two brothers - one a bondsman and one a traffic ticket attorney and the grey area where their worlds meet.
Last month Michael Youngblood filed suit in Jefferson County, Texas (about 90 miles east of Houston) alleging that Houston-area bondsman Michael Kubosh and his brother, ticket attorney Paul Kubosh, teamed up to steer Michael's bonding clients to Paul's law firm. According to Mr. Youngblood, he called up Michael Kubosh's bonding company to post bonds on some overdue traffic tickets. He claims he was placed on hold and charged a fee that included representation by Paul Kubosh's law firm (which is next door to the bonding company).
Mr. Youngblood also accused Michael Kubosh of holding himself out to be a licensed attorney - which, according to the State Bar's website, he is not.
Mr. Youngblood claims he never asked anyone to help him find an attorney to handle his traffic tickets.
If the name Michael Kubosh sounds familiar it may be because back in February he announced his candidacy for an at-large seat on the Houston City Council.
Now I must say that over the years I've dealt with both of the Kubosh brothers and I have never found them to be anything other than helpful (in the interest of full disclosure, I once represented a woman who was being sued for a bonding fee by the Kubosh bonding company, but my dealings were with a third Kubosh brother).
The other day I had a conversation with the newest member of the Harris County Bail Bond board who told me he was shocked when he found out how some of the traffic ticket law firms operated. I've written before about one such firm who placed a sign in front of their office offering free representation for anyone who posted a bond with them and the inherent conflicts that type of business arrangement harbors.
The board member told me he couldn't believe that some ticket firms (who also posted bonds) had language in their contracts that stated the law firm could enter a plea on behalf of the client if he or she failed to appear in court - presumably if they were a bonding client (though, since I haven't seen the contract in question, I cannot state for certain).
Just think of the conflicts involved in that transaction. The client's goal is to keep the traffic ticket off their record, whether that be by dismissal, deferred probation or by taking a defensive driving class. For an ordinary motorist that ticket could result in two points being assessed against their driver license (six points over a three-year period results in a $100 surcharge for renewal and too many tickets in a given period can result in a suspension). For a commercial truck driver a conviction on a traffic ticket could result in the loss of a job.
The ticket attorney may or may not care how the case is resolved since he or she can only deal with the facts in front of them - and they've already been paid. The bonding company, however, wants that case resolved so they can write additional bonds. The more bonds, the more fees, the more profit.
And when the same person owns the law firm and the bonding company, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen. Now the Houston Municipal Court has taken steps to alleviate the conflict by requiring attorneys entering pleas on their clients' behalf to present a waiver of appearance signed by the client. Of course there is no way to know whether that form is filled out at the initial consultation or at the time the plea is entered.
If you spend any amount of time in the shadowy world of criminal defense, it isn't surprising that these situations arise. People who have warrants out there or the family of someone who's been arrested are desperate. They are willing to do almost anything either to stay out of jail or get someone else out of jail. They are easy prey for those willing to take advantage of them.
But that certainly doesn't mean we should tolerate it.
Last month Michael Youngblood filed suit in Jefferson County, Texas (about 90 miles east of Houston) alleging that Houston-area bondsman Michael Kubosh and his brother, ticket attorney Paul Kubosh, teamed up to steer Michael's bonding clients to Paul's law firm. According to Mr. Youngblood, he called up Michael Kubosh's bonding company to post bonds on some overdue traffic tickets. He claims he was placed on hold and charged a fee that included representation by Paul Kubosh's law firm (which is next door to the bonding company).
Mr. Youngblood also accused Michael Kubosh of holding himself out to be a licensed attorney - which, according to the State Bar's website, he is not.
Mr. Youngblood claims he never asked anyone to help him find an attorney to handle his traffic tickets.
If the name Michael Kubosh sounds familiar it may be because back in February he announced his candidacy for an at-large seat on the Houston City Council.
Now I must say that over the years I've dealt with both of the Kubosh brothers and I have never found them to be anything other than helpful (in the interest of full disclosure, I once represented a woman who was being sued for a bonding fee by the Kubosh bonding company, but my dealings were with a third Kubosh brother).
The other day I had a conversation with the newest member of the Harris County Bail Bond board who told me he was shocked when he found out how some of the traffic ticket law firms operated. I've written before about one such firm who placed a sign in front of their office offering free representation for anyone who posted a bond with them and the inherent conflicts that type of business arrangement harbors.
The board member told me he couldn't believe that some ticket firms (who also posted bonds) had language in their contracts that stated the law firm could enter a plea on behalf of the client if he or she failed to appear in court - presumably if they were a bonding client (though, since I haven't seen the contract in question, I cannot state for certain).
Just think of the conflicts involved in that transaction. The client's goal is to keep the traffic ticket off their record, whether that be by dismissal, deferred probation or by taking a defensive driving class. For an ordinary motorist that ticket could result in two points being assessed against their driver license (six points over a three-year period results in a $100 surcharge for renewal and too many tickets in a given period can result in a suspension). For a commercial truck driver a conviction on a traffic ticket could result in the loss of a job.
The ticket attorney may or may not care how the case is resolved since he or she can only deal with the facts in front of them - and they've already been paid. The bonding company, however, wants that case resolved so they can write additional bonds. The more bonds, the more fees, the more profit.
And when the same person owns the law firm and the bonding company, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen. Now the Houston Municipal Court has taken steps to alleviate the conflict by requiring attorneys entering pleas on their clients' behalf to present a waiver of appearance signed by the client. Of course there is no way to know whether that form is filled out at the initial consultation or at the time the plea is entered.
If you spend any amount of time in the shadowy world of criminal defense, it isn't surprising that these situations arise. People who have warrants out there or the family of someone who's been arrested are desperate. They are willing to do almost anything either to stay out of jail or get someone else out of jail. They are easy prey for those willing to take advantage of them.
But that certainly doesn't mean we should tolerate it.
Monday, May 2, 2011
One lump or two?
Oh, the hypocrisy of those limited government folks never ceases to amaze. As Grits for Breakfast reports, Teabaggers in Smith County (that would be northeast Texas, for those of y'all not in the know), have come out in favor of (yet another) referendum to build a new jail.
Nevermind the fact that voters in Smith County (hardly a liberal stronghold) have said "thanks, but no thanks" on four previous occasions. Nevermind the debt the construction project would impose on county coffers. Nevermind the fact that it costs Smith County less to house a few inmates in other counties than it would to pay for a new jail. Nevermind that the majority of folks being housed in jails across this state are being held for nonviolent crimes.
In other words, nevermind the fact that the Teabaggers proclaim themselves to be champions of limited government. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about lobbying for restrictions to be placed on the constitutional rights of those accused of criminal activity. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about creating new crimes or harsher penalties because of one bad incident that occurred. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about allowing the police to intrude more and more into the lives of ordinary citizens -- whether it be through "back-dooring" our e-mail or cell phone communications or fondling people boarding planes.
You want to reduce the cost of incarcerating our fellow citizens? How about personal bonds for folks charged with minor nonviolent offenses who have no prior criminal record? How about allowing police officers to issue tickets for possession of trace amounts of marijuana instead of hauling someone off to jail? How about more pretrial diversion programs for folks without criminal records? How about reducing bonds so that defendants don't have to sit around in jail until their cases are disposed of?
The problem with those ideas, though, is that they're logical.
In other words, nevermind the fact that the Teabaggers proclaim themselves to be champions of limited government. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about lobbying for restrictions to be placed on the constitutional rights of those accused of criminal activity. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about creating new crimes or harsher penalties because of one bad incident that occurred. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about allowing the police to intrude more and more into the lives of ordinary citizens -- whether it be through "back-dooring" our e-mail or cell phone communications or fondling people boarding planes.
You want to reduce the cost of incarcerating our fellow citizens? How about personal bonds for folks charged with minor nonviolent offenses who have no prior criminal record? How about allowing police officers to issue tickets for possession of trace amounts of marijuana instead of hauling someone off to jail? How about more pretrial diversion programs for folks without criminal records? How about reducing bonds so that defendants don't have to sit around in jail until their cases are disposed of?
The problem with those ideas, though, is that they're logical.
Monday, December 20, 2010
If you're living in a glass house...
Article 17.091 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that
Before a judge or magistrate reduces the amount of bail set for a defendant charged with an offense listed in Section 3g, Article 42.12, or an offense described by Article 62.001(5), the judge or magistrate shall provide:(1) to the attorney representing the state, reasonable notice of the proposed bail reduction; and(2) on request of the attorney representing the state or the defendant or the defendant's counsel, an opportunity for a hearing concerning the proposed bail reduction.
Article 42.12, Section 3g(2) of the CCP refers to criminal acts alleged to have been committed by an accused in which he used or exhibited a deadly weapon - here Deputy Nutt's firearm.
There is nothing in the Harris County District Clerk's website to indicate that a written motion to reduce Deputy Nutt's bond was filed. It would appear that Judge Fine acted on his own.
The Harris County DA's Office is up in arms because they weren't consulted before the Judge issued his ruling. One of the rules of civil law I learned in law school was that the person making an allegation should have clean hands.
It is a well-known "secret" at 1201 Franklin that judges and prosecutors discuss cases without defense attorneys being present. "Judge, this is the case we discussed..." is not an unusual thing to hear from a prosecutor at the bench. I have sat in the middle of trial and listened to judges instruct prosecutors on how to get evidence admitted. I have been present at dockets in other counties in which the judge and prosecutors discussed where a case would fall on the trial docket without defense counsel present.
That doesn't make Judge Fine's decision correct, but, if you're living in a glass house...
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A little blue lie
I recently received a phone call from a former client who found out there was a warrant for his arrest. He said the officer had called his house and wanted to talk to him about some alleged crime. He asked me what he should do.
After telling him to keep his mouth shut I told him to call a bondsman and get a non-arrest bond and that once he had posted the bond to turn himself in at the jail so they could walk him through. About an hour later he called me to say that the police officer told him that he couldn't post a non-arrest bond and that he would have to turn himself in and wait to see the judge.
I told him the officer was full of shit and was lying to him. He seemed stunned to think such a thing.
To make a long story short, he posted the non-arrest bond, turned himself in and walked out of the jail about two hours later.
My colleague out in Fresno, Rick Horowitz, laments in his latest opus that our legal system is broken and wonders why we even bother to get out of bed some days. Yes, Rick, the system is broken - and it's been broken for quite some time. Everyone knows when a police officer is lying on the stand -- that's what they're trained to do; anything to get the arrest or the conviction.
Why else would our friendly neighborhood officer lie through his teeth to my client about the non-arrest bond?
After telling him to keep his mouth shut I told him to call a bondsman and get a non-arrest bond and that once he had posted the bond to turn himself in at the jail so they could walk him through. About an hour later he called me to say that the police officer told him that he couldn't post a non-arrest bond and that he would have to turn himself in and wait to see the judge.
I told him the officer was full of shit and was lying to him. He seemed stunned to think such a thing.
To make a long story short, he posted the non-arrest bond, turned himself in and walked out of the jail about two hours later.
My colleague out in Fresno, Rick Horowitz, laments in his latest opus that our legal system is broken and wonders why we even bother to get out of bed some days. Yes, Rick, the system is broken - and it's been broken for quite some time. Everyone knows when a police officer is lying on the stand -- that's what they're trained to do; anything to get the arrest or the conviction.
Why else would our friendly neighborhood officer lie through his teeth to my client about the non-arrest bond?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Who is indigent in Harris County?
It is a rarity in Harris County for any defendant who is out on bond to receive appointed counsel. There is even one judge in the Criminal (In)justice Center who will tell a (bonded) person seeking appointed counsel that he must sell every non-essential item in his possession and show that he still cannot afford to hire an attorney before the judge will appoint one.
Nevermind that the purpose of bail is not to punish a person but is, instead, a means of guaranteeing his appearance in court.
On December 3, 2008, the Harris County Criminal Courts last amended their Standards and Procedures [for] Appointment of Counsel for Indigent Defendants pursuant to the Fair Defense Act.
1.0 Financial Standards for Determining IndigencyThe indigency standards adopted by the judges shall apply to each defendant equally, regardless of whether the defendant is in custody or out on bail.1.1 A judge shall consider the following criteria as incorporated by the form adopted by the board of judges in determining whether a defendant is indigent:1.1.1 defendant's income;1.1.2 source of income;1.1.3 assets;1.1.4 property owned;1.1.5 outstanding obligations;1.1.6 necessary expenses;1.1.7 the number of ages of dependents; and1.1.8 spousal incomes available to defendant.1.2 The judge shall not consider whether the defendant has posted bail, except to the extent that it reflects the defendant's financial circumstances.
In Galveston County I have been appointed to represent many a defendant who has posted bond, yet is still eligible for "appointed" counsel (much more on this topic later); yet in Harris County most of the client's for the appointed attorney are still donning the orange jumpsuits of the Harris County Jail.
Many of the misdemeanor defendants were charged with nonviolent offenses yet were denied personal bonds due to the magistrates' strict obedience to the Harris County bond schedule (misdemeanor and felony). The denial of personal bonds (and the subsequent refusal to request one) lead to the mass plea in which defendants "voluntarily" waive their rights to trial by jury, confrontation and appeal in exchange for time served so they can get out of jail and back to their families or jobs.
Convictions based upon expediency and judicial economy -- not on the merits. That's not justice.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Squeezing the working poor
The working poor have long been the victims of a cruel trick when it comes to health care in this country - they make too much to qualify for government-funded health plans but too little to be able to afford to purchase private coverage.
Add access to justice to the hardships facing the working poor in Harris County.
Middle class and wealthy defendants can afford to retain the attorney of their choosing should the need occur. Those classified as indigent by the judges of Harris County may elect to have counsel appointed to represent them (see...). However, those who can post a bond, or who can find friends or family to post a bond, often find themselves in "no man's land."
If a criminal defendant in Harris County cannot afford to post a bond, he is considered to be indigent and is eligible for a court-appointed attorney. That's because the definition of indigency in the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center is one who can't figure out a way to get himself bonded out of the county jail.
If you are able to raise enough money to post a bond, you must prove to the court that you don't have enough money to hire an attorney. One judge (on the 8th floor) tells those in street clothes asking for a court-appointed attorney that they must sell everything of value they own and then show him that they can't hire an attorney with the proceeds.
"The prime object or purpose of bail is to secure the presence of an accused upon trial of an accusation against him. It is not a revenue measure intended to be a substitute for a fine, but is intended to secure the trial of the alleged offender rather than turn his securities or those of his bondsman into a penalty." Trammel v. State, 529 SW2d 528 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975)
The judges in Harris County seem to have forgotten that every person charged with a crime is innocent unless the state proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bail should be set at a level that is low enough for a defendant to post it but at a level that is high enough to guarantee his appearance in court.
The ability to post a bond, in and of itself, should not be the test to determine whether a person qualifies for a court-appointed attorney. Such a policy ignores the reality that many of the working poor that find themselves behind bars raise money from friends and relatives to post a bond so that they can go back to work to support their families. It also ignores the fact that our jails were not built not to house citizens awaiting trial but to house those who were found guilty at trial.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for those accused of committing a criminal act. Harris County's policy is the state's way of short-circuiting the Constitution and forcing the working poor to accept convictions (and the consequences thereof) without the benefit of representation.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wearing two hats
I must preface my remarks by saying that I know plenty of good attorneys that also write bonds - it's common practice for attorneys who handle a high volume of traffic tickets.
My question is whether there is an inherent conflict in both writing the bond and representing the citizen accused?
As a criminal defense attorney, my job is to keep my clients out of jail as long as possible. That means stretching out a case if necessary. However, the bondsman's interest is ensuring that client shows up in court for every scheduled appearance - and, the longer a case draws out, the more risk the client won't appear or will end up in more trouble.
If you're the attorney and the potential bondsman, do you argue for a personal bond?
What happens if a client doesn't appear? Do you ask the judge to give your client one more chance or do you cut your losses and surrender the bond?
And the true dilemma - if your client skips, do you do nothing or do you track him down and hand him over to the police?
Do y'all think there's an ethical dilemma at play?
My question is whether there is an inherent conflict in both writing the bond and representing the citizen accused?
As a criminal defense attorney, my job is to keep my clients out of jail as long as possible. That means stretching out a case if necessary. However, the bondsman's interest is ensuring that client shows up in court for every scheduled appearance - and, the longer a case draws out, the more risk the client won't appear or will end up in more trouble.
If you're the attorney and the potential bondsman, do you argue for a personal bond?
What happens if a client doesn't appear? Do you ask the judge to give your client one more chance or do you cut your losses and surrender the bond?
And the true dilemma - if your client skips, do you do nothing or do you track him down and hand him over to the police?
Do y'all think there's an ethical dilemma at play?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
PR Bonds
Rumors are swirling about that inmates in the Harris County Jail will soon be receiving 3-for-1 credit on their time served.
Harris County continues to send inmates whose sentences were reduced under 12.44(a) to Louisiana because the downtown complex is overcrowded.
Everyday a line of defendants wearing HCJ jumpsuits enter pleas en masse.
The common link? Too many citizens are being jailed for simple drug possession offenses. The solution may be as simple as allowing law enforcement officers to issue citations for Class B drug possession cases -- the citation would tell the defendant where and when to appear (much like a traffic citation). Should the defendant fail to appear, a warrant would be issued for their arrest.
In addition, the issuance of PR bonds would enable citizens accused to fight their cases. We all know that it's easier to wage war against the Harris County DA's office when you're on the outside rather than locked up.
Fat chance it'll happen, though, as the HCDA is opposed to any reform that would make them work harder for a conviction.
Harris County continues to send inmates whose sentences were reduced under 12.44(a) to Louisiana because the downtown complex is overcrowded.
Everyday a line of defendants wearing HCJ jumpsuits enter pleas en masse.
The common link? Too many citizens are being jailed for simple drug possession offenses. The solution may be as simple as allowing law enforcement officers to issue citations for Class B drug possession cases -- the citation would tell the defendant where and when to appear (much like a traffic citation). Should the defendant fail to appear, a warrant would be issued for their arrest.
In addition, the issuance of PR bonds would enable citizens accused to fight their cases. We all know that it's easier to wage war against the Harris County DA's office when you're on the outside rather than locked up.
Fat chance it'll happen, though, as the HCDA is opposed to any reform that would make them work harder for a conviction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)