Oh, I'm sorry, was that the record button I just pushed?

On Wednesday Grits for Breakfast gave us the inside scoop on a scandal in Austin over video-monitoring at the county jail. It seems that, despite promises to the contrary, that the contractor running the system records video conferences between inmates and their attorneys. As a result a federal lawsuit has been filed in Travis County seeking to stop the recording and to destroy all existing recordings.

The company, Securus Technologies, claims that the problem lies with deputies working in the jail not checking a box on a form. Oops.

Now that tells us that the default is to record the conversations. That isn't what the company promised attorneys. That isn't what the county promised attorneys.

Says Grits:

The Sheriff and DA say the recorded attorney client conversations were mistakes, the result of deputies failing to check the appropriate boxes on computerized forms. But those mechanisms are internal to the Sheriff and there's no mechanism for defense counsel to ascertain whether their conversations were recorded or shared with prosecutors unless the state later hands them over, by which time any strategic damage has been done. Said Austin Criminal Defense Lawyers Association president Bradley Hargis, “Basically, we just have to trust the sheriff and prosecutors not to listen to these calls but we have no way to verify they won’t.”

Grits goes on to say that the same issues have been raised in other states in which Securus installed and managed a video conferencing system for the jail. In each case the company, and the government, lied to attorneys about the technology. In each case the company, and the government, shifted the blame.

Securus Technologies is the same company hired by Harris County to run its video conferencing system. When the county first introduced the idea both county officials and the company swore up and down that none of the conversations would be recorded.

We now know that was a lie.

Back in 2012 I wrote an article following Sheriff Adrian Garcia's announcement that video conferencing was coming to the Harris County Jail. It now seems somewhat prophetic:

But do you really know for sure? The county maintains the equipment. The county maintains the software. You know, the same people who are trying to convict your client of whatever alleged misdeed he committed. Are you really having a secure conversation?

Jails maintain visitor logs. They record all outgoing inmate calls. They read all the mail - both incoming and outgoing - unless (fingers crossed) it says "attorney-client communication" (or words to that effect) on the envelope. What are they doing with the video feeds?

Does the software just facilitate the transfer of video and audio from one monitor to another? Does the software allow the state to "capture" audio or video? Does the software allow a third party to monitor the communication?

Does it really come as a surprise that we were lied to (again)? It shouldn't. Anyone who bought the promises of Securus and Harris County really needs to get their head examined because there are some synapses that aren't firing on all cylinders.

And it doesn't really matter if no one from the DA's office or law enforcement ever listens to, or views, the conferences. The mere fact that the state has a back door available to obtain privileged communications is troubling enough. And we should all be aware of the fact that in 2014, any back door that is available will be exploited by the government.

So the next time someone from the government stands up and says they have a great idea that will make life easier for defense attorneys, ask yourself why on earth the state would do anything at all to help us defend our clients.

Making the trains run on time

I heard from a colleague the other day that after a trial in which his client was acquitted the judge ordered the defendant taken back to jail in order to be processed out. My head began to hurt from spinning so fast.

His client couldn't afford to post bond and the judge wouldn't allow him a personal bond so he sat in the county jail for months waiting for trial. He could've easily pled guilty and taken time served (or less than what he ended up serving) but he insisted on his innocence.

I'm certain that he had some personal effects and items that were still sitting in his cell or in the property room but once that jury came back with a not guilty verdict, any authority the court may have had over him vanished into thin air. He should have been free to return to the jail when it was convenient for him to do so instead of having to go back into custody for another four or five hours while he was processed out.

It was bad enough that he had to sit in custody for months awaiting trial for the crime of not being able to scrape up enough money to pay a bondsman to get him out. That deprivation of his freedom can never be undone and the jury's verdict was a sharp rebuke to the police, prosecutors and the judge. But the illegal detention of an innocent man afterward is inexcusable.

I wish I knew the name of the judge so I could plaster it in bold type. I wish I knew the name of the judge so I could question his qualifications to sit on the bench. I wish I knew the name of the judge so the rest of the world would know who he was.

There are far too many judges sitting on the bench in Harris County who have the mistaken belief that they work in the district attorney's judicial division. They are only too willing to bend over backwards to impose coercive bond conditions on defendants who are legally innocent. They are only too willing to help out the members of "their team" in the courtroom.

This is not the first incident in which a judge has infringed upon the freedom of a defendant after receiving a not guilty verdict. A few years ago a visiting judge, Carolyn Marks Johnson, presided over a DWI trial. Now, before we go any further I must disclose that Ms. Johnson was my voir dire professor at South Texas - and she did a damn good job. However, after the jury acquitted the defendant, the judge decided that the defendant (innocent person sitting in the courtroom) needed to be drug tested. So she ordered it.

She had no jurisdiction over the (former) defendant. Once the jury returned their verdict the case was over as was the judge's power over the accused. But that's just a little detail. Why let things like constitutional protections get in the way when you can show someone you're the boss?

I'm sure that both the judge and Sheriff Adrian Garcia can come up with a myriad of excuses and reasons why a person who was just acquitted should have to go back into custody. There's all that paperwork and clothes and bedding to worry about. We certainly can't inconvenience the sheriff, can we? Besides, if he was charged with a crime we all know he was up to something - the fact that a jury found him not guilty doesn't make him innocent y'know.

A person's liberty shouldn't be infringed upon for the sole purpose of making life easier for the sheriff. The judge knows this and the judge also knows damn well that what he (or she) did was wrong and was a violation of the oath they took when they were elected (or appointed) to the bench.

Just another death in the Harris County Jail

On January 16, 2011, Norman Hicks was assaulted by a detention officer in the Harris County Jail. Christopher Pool hit Mr. Hicks in the face and left him lying on the floor bleeding. Six days later Mr. Hicks was dead as a result of complications from a heart attack after suffering a broken nose and blunt force trauma.

Two days after he was beaten by Officer Pool, Mr. Hicks was charged with the felony offense of harassment  in a correctional facility. The criminal complaint alleged that he threw a shirt covered with feces and urine at detention officer Pool on January 7, 2011.

It can hardly be a coincidence that nine days later Mr. Hicks, who was 72 at the time, found himself on the wrong end of Officer Pool's fist.

But what is not clear from the Harris County District Clerk's website is why Mr. Hicks was in jail in the first place. While he had been jailed for violating a protective order in 2010, there are no records of what he was charged with that landed him in jail in January. In September of 2010 a motion to adjudicate guilt in a felony domestic violence case was dismissed. Mr. Hicks was scheduled to appear for a review of his probation conditions on the mental health docket on the 18th - it was noted in the records that he was absent that day.

Mr. Hicks had a history of mental illness and had been jailed before on charges involving domestic violence.

On September 14, 2011, a Harris County Grand Jury cleared Officer Pool of any wrongdoing in the death of Mr. Hicks. It would seem to me that one could make a very compelling case that Officer Pool plotted his revenge after the alleged incident on January 7 and, when he had the opportunity, punched Mr. Hicks, almost 50 years his senior, in the face and then left him on the floor covered in blood.

But no one in the District Attorney's Office wanted to see a detention officer charged with criminally negligent homicide for killing an inmate. That would be too unseemly. But, they couldn't dismiss the case because the fallout from the community would be too great. So, someone decided to give a half-assed presentation to the grand jury so that Pat Lykos could blame the grand jury for no-billing Officer Pool if there was any outrage at the dismissal.

Now Mr. Pool, another detention officer and a sheriff's deputy have appealed their firings.

While Mr. Pool was no-billed by a grand jury, the fact remains that he used more force than was necessary in response to Mr. Hicks' actions. His callous act of punching Mr. Hicks in the face and leaving him on the ground unresponsive should give everyone pause. Is this the kind of person we want roaming the streets of Harris County carrying a loaded weapon and a taser? What would the reaction from prosecutors have been if the incident didn't involve a detention officer and an inmate? Would Joe Blow have been no-billed had he done the same thing to a neighbor who threw a feces-covered shirt at him?

The other two individuals were fired for not doing anything to help Mr. Hicks and for not reporting what they had seen. They both knew what Mr. Pool did was wrong. They both saw that Mr. Hicks was lying on the flood bleeding. And they both stood around and did absolutely nothing.

It's hard to decide whose conduct was worse.

I got my "i" on you

We live in an age where we are encouraged to spy on our neighbors, co-workers and friends. It's all about conformity and ratting out anyone who dares to do something other than the ordinary.

Well, maybe not exactly, as we don't like those damn whistleblowers like Wikileaks that dare to expose our government's deep, dark, dirty secrets. The last thing we seem to want is to know just what our government does in our name. We certainly don't want someone like Bradley Manning letting the world know that the United States violated just about every international convention regarding torture and the treatment of alleged enemy combatants.

Now the paranoia patrol has come to Houston. Just take a gander at the new iWatch Harris County mobile phone app. Now the shiny gadget brigade has the ability to watch crime and rat out those suspicious looking folk they see hanging about.

Just think, it's even easier to spy on your neighbors and that hippy do-gooder living down the street. What better way to get around that pesky little Fourth Amendment than having normal everyday citizens poking their noses into everyone else's business? After all, the Fourth Amendment just protects us against overreaching by the state.

In Texas, however, we do at least have the additional protection of Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that allows a jury to exclude any evidence that was obtained illegally - whether by the police or a private citizen. That is, if you can convince a jury to ignore the bad stuff your client did and focus in on the actions of the other party.

I wonder if the app will allow someone to report incidents of police brutality. What about illegal searches and pretextual stops? Testilying on the stand? Probably not.

Making us all just a little bit dumber

Apparently Amy Davis of KPRC-TV in Houston doesn't keep up with the news. If she had, she might not have criticized the Harris County Sheriff's Office for not using its BATmobile. If she kept up with the news she might have learned about the problems the Houston Police Department had with their vans.

Yes, Harris County did waste $80,000 purchasing the van. But they bought one because everyone else had one, too. It was just the latest shiny toy. No one thought about the sensitivity of the breath test machines. No one thought about how the summer heat could cause the circuitry in the machines to go haywire. At least not until HPD's problems became known.

Ms. Davis wants us to believe that motorists are in danger because the BATmobile sits in its cave. She wants you to believe that drunk drivers are cruising up and down our streets because the BATmobile isn't crawling around town.

Ms. Davis seems to be unaware that the police don't need a breath test in order to arrest a motorist on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. She doesn't seem to understand that a motorist suspected of driving while intoxicated is under arrest when the breath test is offered.

Instead of running an "investigative" piece about an unused heap of junk sitting in a garage, she should've looked into why the BATmobile was purchased in the first place. She should've looked at who makes the decisions on what equipment to purchase and why. Maybe she could've looked into the giant slush fund controlled by the DA from criminal seizures and forfeitures. Maybe she should've questioned why that money isn't placed into the general revenue pool for the county.

But such reporting would have required research and legwork. It's much easier to grab the low-hanging fruit. It's even easier not to do a simple internet search for articles about the problems with the BATmobiles.

Sheriff proposed video conferencing at the county jail

Video conferencing. Virtual jail visits. Meeting with your client without ever leaving the office. It's the wave of the future. Better climb aboard now or get left behind.

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia is in full cost-cutting mode. His latest idea on lowering the cost of allowing prisoners to see their families and attorneys is video conferencing. Both Fort Bend and Galveston counties have video conferencing set-ups in their jails.

Instead of going to a room to speak with their loved one through plexi-glass or by phone, visitors can sit down at a television monitor and have their face-to-face time. No doubt it's more convenient - but everyone in the lobby can hear your conversation.

In Fort Bend County they have special booths for attorneys to meet with their clients. It gives a greater sense of confidentiality since no one (you assume) outside the booth can listen in.

But do you really know for sure? The county maintains the equipment. The county maintains the software. You know, the same people who are trying to convict your client of whatever alleged misdeed he committed. Are you really having a secure conversation?

Jails maintain visitor logs. They record all outgoing inmate calls. They read all the mail - both incoming and outgoing - unless (fingers crossed) it says "attorney-client communication" (or words to that effect) on the envelope. What are they doing with the video feeds?

Does the software just facilitate the transfer of video and audio from one monitor to another? Does the software allow the state to "capture" audio or video? Does the software allow a third party to monitor the communication?

And now Harris County wants to go the video route, too. I'm sure there are plenty of attorneys out there who hate going to the jail to meet with their clients. The buildings reek. Attorneys have to pass through metal detectors. It's freaking cold. You have to speak through holes punched in a plexi-glass screen.

I don't care for it. But it's what I signed up for when I decided to be a defense attorney. I won't "meet" with my client via the county's video conferencing system because I don't trust the county.

There are too many unanswered questions when it comes to video conferencing at jails. And the folks that have the answers to those questions are the ones holding your client behind bars.

Staggering dockets won't relieve jail overcrowding

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia has taken it upon himself to try to resolve the county's long-term problem of jail overcrowding. It's too bad that it won't solve a thing.

There are 22 district (felony) criminal courts and 15 county courts-at-law (misdemeanor) in the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center. There is a "holdover" cell in each courtroom that is supposed to hold no more than 19 inmates. As they would say across the pond, that guideline is honored more in the breach than in the observance.

There is a giant holding cell in the tunnel between the county jail and the courthouse that can hold roughly 250 inmates. Now do the math. Thirty-seven courts with 19 inmates is a bit more than 250. The overflow inmates are lined up in the tunnel where they wait.

What is one to do?

Sheriff Garcia decided to stagger the times he has inmates delivered to courtrooms.This means that an attorney may walk into a courtroom and have no idea when his client might be brought over.

The problem with Sheriff Garcia's plan to alleviate overcrowding is that it doesn't. His plan only treats the symptoms, not the disease.

The way to reduce jail overcrowding in Harris County is to find a way to get those people in jail awaiting trial out of jail. Every person brought into the county jail is innocent unless proven guilty. To force someone to stay behind bars due to the arbitrariness of the county's bail schedule is a crime.

The first blog post I wrote dealt with the need to increase the number of personal bonds issued. Every person without a prior criminal record arrested for a non-violent offense should be released with a personal bond. The only reason to keep them behind bars is to coerce a plea out of them. Just wave that offer of time served in front of their face and they will gladly plead guilty to something they didn't do just to get out of that hellhole.

The other way to reduce the jail population in Harris County is to issue citations and summonses for non-violent misdemeanor drug possession cases. Confiscate the goods, issue the person a ticket along with a summons ordering them to appear in court on a certain day at a certain time under threat of arrest.

We need to do away with this notion that anyone charged with domestic assault must be held without bail until such time as he can see a magistrate so a temporary protective order can be issued. If we can find judges who are more than willing to hang around the courthouse (or by a fax machine) at all hours of the night to sign fill-in-the-blank warrants authorizing forcible blood draws, certainly we can find a judge or two who can sign an emergency protective order on short notice. It's not like they're going to read it or set a hearing to determine whether it's necessary or not.

Sheriff Garcia's plan addresses none of these issues.

Harris County Sheriff looks to ankle monitors to reduce overcrowding

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia is looking into allowing low-risk inmate at the county jail to serve their time at home with ankle monitors. A test program will be conducted using 10-20 inmates who work outside the jail under armed guard.

The program seems aimed at inmates who serve weekends in the jail and work during the week. According to the sheriff's office, these so-called "weekenders" eat up more space and man-hours than necessary.

" 'Weekenders,' as we refer to them, take up costly jail cells that we would otherwise want to save for accused offenders that are a true danger to the public." Adrian Garcia, Harris County Sheriff

The idea is to reduce the severe overcrowding at the Harris County Jail which would serve to reduce the amount the county pays to other counties to house their inmates. Implementing the plan would require the cooperation of County and State District Court judges, as well.

Sheriff Garcia, if you really want to make a dent in the inmate population in downtown Houston, look into issuing citations for minor Class B misdemeanor offenses such as possession of marijuana and personal bonds for non-violent, first-time arrestees.

If you're living in a glass house...

Once again State District Judge Kevin Fine has found himself in a bit of hot water. You should remember that the local Republican Party make Judge Fine their whipping boy in the most recent election -- even though he wasn't running. Now he's being criticized by prosecutors for reducing the bond of a Harris County Sheriff's deputy accused of dealing in drugs. It seems that Judge Fine reduced Richard Nutt's bond from $200,000 to $20,000 without notifying the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

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...

What are they hiding?

Last month I filed a request under both Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code (Open Records Request) as well as Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration for copies of all incoming and outgoing communications from judges and employees of the Office of County Court Management regarding judges volunteering to "review" warrant applications on "No Refusal Weekends."

In response to my requests, I received two letters from Judge Jean Hughes, the presiding judge of County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 telling me that the material I requested was exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(f).

Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 12.5:

The following records are exempt from disclosure under this rule: 

(f) Internal Deliberations on Court or Judicial Administration Matters. Any record relating to internal deliberations of a court or judicial agency, or among judicial officers or members of a judicial agency, on matters of court or judicial administration.

Now Rule 12.2(d) defines a judicial record for purposes of this statute:

Judicial record means a record made or maintained by or for a court or judicial agency in its regular course of business but not pertaining to its adjudicative function, regardless of whether that function relates to a specific case. A record of any nature created, produced, or filed in connection with any matter that is or has been before a court is not a judicial record. A record is a document, paper, letter, map, book, tape, photograph, film, recording, or other material, regardless of electronic or physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission.

The electronic and written communications were "made" by the court during its regular course of business. The e-mails were sent and received via the judges' county-provided e-mail accounts and did not relate to any specific case.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "deliberation" as:

The act of carefully considering issues and options before making a decision or taking some action.

Might a judge "deliberate" when asked to volunteer to "review" warrant applications on a "No Refusal Weekend?" Maybe. But, if the e-mail is addressed to the judge and he or she sends back a reply agreeing to volunteer have their been an internal deliberations? And with whom would the judge deliberate?

While a judge is a "judicial officer" per Rule 12.2(c), e-mails between the judge and the DA's Office are not records of internal deliberations nor are they communications between judicial officers or members of a judicial agency. 

They may be embarrassing, they may shine a little light on the relationship between judges in Harris County and the Harris County District Attorney's Office and they may make the public a little skeptical about the independence of the county judiciary.

The one record that was released is an e-mail dated July 19, 2010 from Ms. Nancy Hennessy of the Harris County Sheriff's Office to Ms. Blanca Villagomez, the chief hearing officer in Harris County.

We are conducting a DWI/no refusal initiative this weekend on Saturday, july 24 from 8p-4a in the northwest part of the county. It will be a multi-agency initiative with approximately 80 units participating. I have confirmed a blood draw location at jersey village pd. I also asked if one of their municipal judges could be made available for blood warrants but at 125/hr, I was told no. I asked around and was told that you were the person I needed to speak to to see if the county could provide a judge at the JV location for blood warrants or if arrangements could be made to have 2 judges on duty at IPC so a judge would be available without getting caught up in dockets. Could you provide me any information or direction as to who I would need to contact.

Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure if Jersey Village said they wouldn't provide judges for $125 an hour or if Harris County decided they wouldn't pay $125 an hour for a judge to "review" warrant applications. Whichever it is, the fact that the Sheriff's Office is communicating directly with a judge who determines whether there is probable cause to arrest is disturbing.

Harrowing tales of conditions in the Harris County Jail

Randall Patterson of The Houston Press penned an article in the current issue on the conditions inside the Harris County Jail. Mr. Patterson interviewed people as they were released from the facility and asked them to describe what it was like on the inside. The accounts of former inmates casts, shall we say, a different light on the facility than the assurances of Sheriff Adrian Garcia and County Attorney Vince Ryan.

Here's a taste of what Mr. Patterson discovered:

As for meals, "that whole food thing is hit or miss," said Shemika. "When they did feed you, it was a bologna sandwich — and I'm Muslim." Frank George Smith Jr. said he was there three and a half days and got just two sandwiches. No one was given anything to drink. There was only the fountain, which was suspended just above the toilet. The toilet was "like a fucking rain forest," Jarret said, "fungus and mold in there like this thick." People were lying on the floor around it; someone was always sitting on it. Jarret managed not to use the toilet for two and a half days — "man, you just take the stomach pains," he said — but he had to drink. "You practically got to put your face in shit to drink," he said. And Smith said, "you see that tan truck there? The water looked about like that."

What's even more appalling is that these folks were supposed to be presumed innocent when they were brought to the county jail. If this is how the Harris County Sheriff's Office treats people who haven't been convicted of anything - how much worse is the treatment of those who have been convicted?

Harris County to ship inmates to other Texas counties

The Houston Chronicle reported today that Harris County is on the verge of entering into an agreement with four other counties to house Harris County inmates who have been convicted and are waiting transfer to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and inmates who were convicted of state jail felonies but sentenced to misdemeanor time.

The Harris County Jail complex was built to house 9,400 inmates - the current jail population is a staggering 11,251 (as of August 10, 2009).

Currently the county is paying Louisiana $38 per person/per day to house 1,046 inmates who are serving misdemeanor sentences on state jail convictions. That figure doesn not include transportation or medical care expenses.

The contracts with Bowie, Dickens, Jefferson and Newton Counties calls for a payment of between $42.25 and $45 per prisoner/per day, including transportation and medical care expenses. All in all Harris County plans on spending $16.5 million to house up to 2,100 inmates for up to six months as a way of alleviating overcrowding.

Harris County Commission Steve Radack said that the county should be able to find additional space in other counties at bargain prices as the crime rate drops. No word on whether he made the comment with a straight face. Let's see, crime rate falling, inmate population in Harris County rising... what's wrong with this picture?

Here's an idea, Steve, instead of shipping inmates all over East Texas, why not put pressure on the Harris County District Attorney's Office to issue personal bonds on Class B misdemeanor drug possession cases? Then the officers can issue a citation with a promise to appear. Let's issue personal bonds (cite and release) people charged with driving on a suspended license.

“I think we'll get it into compliance, whether by sending out inmates to other jurisdictions, or building a massive new jail. If we started tomorrow to design a new jail, by the time you got it designed and engineered, it'd take three years. So, frankly, you're going to have to do something in the interim anyway. If you look at cost of a new facility, the cost of labor to run it, many times it's going to be cheaper to go to someone else who needs the income because they have overbuilt the capacity of their jail, and they need the money. They need to pay their bonds, their debt, and they're out looking.” - Steve Radack, Harris County Commissioner, Precinct 3

That's it, Steve. Let's just follow the money.

Harris County Jail fails inspection (again)

Inspectors from the State Commission on Jail Standards flunked the Harris County Jail for the fourth time in its last six inspections. During the one week review, commission members found broken intercoms, too many broken toilets and courthouse holdover cells packed beyond capacity.

"An inmate should be able to press the intercom and communicate with the officer controlling the floor. When an officer cannot hear an inmate in need that is a life safety issue." -- Adam Munoz, executive director, Commission on Jail Standards

New Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia placed the blame on his department's lack of authority over maintenance crews working on the facilities. The county now has 30 days to submit a plan to fix the problems in a "reasonable" time.

Harris County currently houses over 10,000 inmates at the jail.

Justice delayed...

According to the Houston Chronicle, the Harris County DA's office has dismissed criminal charges filed against Jose Jesus Vieyra who was charged with criminally negligent homicide as a result of an accident on February 21, 2008 in which Sheriff's Deputy Craig Miller was killed.

As it turns out, Deputy Miller had a blood alcohol content of at least .027 at the time of the accident. Interestingly enough, the original story was that Mr. Vieyra drove his truck across Miller's path as Miller headed to a surveillance assignment.

Who knew about Miller's condition at the time of the accident? Who authorized the story that he was on his way to a surveillance assignment? Who are the people responsible for the false charges made against Mr. Vieyra?

Although justice has now (finally) been served, Mr. Vieyra still had almost two months of his life taken away as he sat in the HCJ trying to post bond and he had to post that bond. Who is going to compensate him for this injustice?