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?
Showing posts with label Judge Mike Fields. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Mike Fields. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Judge sounds off on putting the brakes on the death penalty
Mike Fields, the presiding judge of Harris County's Criminal Court at Law No. 14, is a very complex character.
I've had disagreements with Judge Fields that I have documented in this blog. We've butted heads a couple of times in the courtroom. But we've also had nice little chats in chambers, on the sidewalk of my old neighborhood and at the bench. Hell, Judge Fields performed the marriage ceremony (in his courtroom) for my current wife and me.
For the longest time, Judge Fields was the only black judge in the misdemeanor courts. That changed when Darrell Jordan was elected to County Criminal Court at Law No. 16. If you remember back a little while, I wrote about Judge Fields backing out of the county's lawsuit to retain its unconstitutional and punitive misdemeanor bail schedule.
Now comes an editorial in the Houston Chronicle in which Judge Fields challenges the wisdom of those who want to speed up the death penalty in Texas.
In this piece, Judge Fields points out the number of times juries have gotten it wrong (that we are aware of) when it comes to death penalty cases. He also points out the role that the defense bar has played in this process. When no one else is standing up to defend the rights of the accused, it makes it so much easier to stick a needle in someone's arm and worry about whether the jury got it right later. Prosecutors have an ethical duty to see that justice is done - yet most district attorneys will fight tooth and nail to prevent an exoneration. In the mind of the prosecutor it is far more important to preserve the illusion that our criminal (in)justice system gets it right than it is to prevent an innocent man from being murdered by the hand of the state.
I've said it before and I will say it again multiple times before I die that our adversarial trial system isn't designed to determine the truth, it's designed to see which of two competing versions of reality a jury is willing to buy. And if we grease the wheels of the death penalty machine any more then we are going all-in on that notion.
I've had disagreements with Judge Fields that I have documented in this blog. We've butted heads a couple of times in the courtroom. But we've also had nice little chats in chambers, on the sidewalk of my old neighborhood and at the bench. Hell, Judge Fields performed the marriage ceremony (in his courtroom) for my current wife and me.
For the longest time, Judge Fields was the only black judge in the misdemeanor courts. That changed when Darrell Jordan was elected to County Criminal Court at Law No. 16. If you remember back a little while, I wrote about Judge Fields backing out of the county's lawsuit to retain its unconstitutional and punitive misdemeanor bail schedule.
Now comes an editorial in the Houston Chronicle in which Judge Fields challenges the wisdom of those who want to speed up the death penalty in Texas.
Just for a moment, however, let’s forget about the exorbitant costs associated with killing a fellow human being. The very idea that a person, innocent of a capital crime, could be caused to sit on death row for any amount of time or, worse, wrongfully killed by our government, is offensive to our fundamental notions of liberty and justice. As celebrated English jurist Sir William Blackstone once said, “It is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than one innocent suffer.” Some of our founding fathers agreed. -- Hon. Mike Fields
In this piece, Judge Fields points out the number of times juries have gotten it wrong (that we are aware of) when it comes to death penalty cases. He also points out the role that the defense bar has played in this process. When no one else is standing up to defend the rights of the accused, it makes it so much easier to stick a needle in someone's arm and worry about whether the jury got it right later. Prosecutors have an ethical duty to see that justice is done - yet most district attorneys will fight tooth and nail to prevent an exoneration. In the mind of the prosecutor it is far more important to preserve the illusion that our criminal (in)justice system gets it right than it is to prevent an innocent man from being murdered by the hand of the state.
I've said it before and I will say it again multiple times before I die that our adversarial trial system isn't designed to determine the truth, it's designed to see which of two competing versions of reality a jury is willing to buy. And if we grease the wheels of the death penalty machine any more then we are going all-in on that notion.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Doing the right thing
Well here's an interesting twist in Harris County's fight against bail reform - Michael Fields, the presiding judge in County Criminal Court at Law No. 14 has withdrawn himself from the appeal. He joins Darrell Jordan, presiding judge in County Criminal Court at Law No. 16, on the sidelines.
According to Judge Fields, his view of the case changed after attending a hearing at the Federal Courthouse this past Tuesday where he had a front row view of the high powered legal team the county criminal judges hired to fight US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's ruling that the Harris County bail system was unconstitutional.
For those of y'all who plan on voting in the Republican primary, keep in mind that every incumbent (with the exception of Judge Fields) has spent taxpayer money to defend a system that denied any semblance of justice to the accused. The judges are upset because non-violent defendants are being released which makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight a case.
The system under which we labored for so long used a predetermined bail schedule to determine how much a person would have to post to get out of jail. That system didn't take into account a defendant's financial circumstances or factors that would determine the likelihood of his appearing in court. Bail was used as a punitive measure that punished the most vulnerable defendants.
The fact that the judges are fighting back against Judge Rosenthal's order should tell you everything you need to know about their attitude towards the citizen accused. These are judges who are more interested in moving their dockets than they are about justice. And they are using our money to fight for a system that was declared unconstitutional. Just think about that for a second.
Judge Fields and I have butted heads in the past - and I'm sure that if he remains on the bench we will butt heads again at some point in the future - but I'm going to commend him for his decision in this matter. It takes courage to stand up and admit that you were wrong, but that's exactly what Judge Fields has done.
Thank you, Judge, for doing the right thing.
According to Judge Fields, his view of the case changed after attending a hearing at the Federal Courthouse this past Tuesday where he had a front row view of the high powered legal team the county criminal judges hired to fight US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's ruling that the Harris County bail system was unconstitutional.
Fields initially opposed the lawsuit, and summed up his initial position as: "This is the way we've always done it. It has to be working OK. What are we doing wrong? We're not bad people."Thus far Harris County has spent some $5 million defending a system of bail that led to an overcrowded jail and defendants pleading guilty just to get out of jail. Many of those cases were plead out, with the help of court-appointed attorneys, without so much as a cursory investigation of the facts. The only issue in most cases was whether the defendant would get out on time served or have to spend a few more nights in jail.
For those of y'all who plan on voting in the Republican primary, keep in mind that every incumbent (with the exception of Judge Fields) has spent taxpayer money to defend a system that denied any semblance of justice to the accused. The judges are upset because non-violent defendants are being released which makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight a case.
The system under which we labored for so long used a predetermined bail schedule to determine how much a person would have to post to get out of jail. That system didn't take into account a defendant's financial circumstances or factors that would determine the likelihood of his appearing in court. Bail was used as a punitive measure that punished the most vulnerable defendants.
The fact that the judges are fighting back against Judge Rosenthal's order should tell you everything you need to know about their attitude towards the citizen accused. These are judges who are more interested in moving their dockets than they are about justice. And they are using our money to fight for a system that was declared unconstitutional. Just think about that for a second.
Judge Fields and I have butted heads in the past - and I'm sure that if he remains on the bench we will butt heads again at some point in the future - but I'm going to commend him for his decision in this matter. It takes courage to stand up and admit that you were wrong, but that's exactly what Judge Fields has done.
Thank you, Judge, for doing the right thing.
Monday, June 30, 2014
First the plea, then the admonishments
On Friday members of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association stood outside Judge Michael Fields' courtroom handing out 3x5 cards listing the rights a criminal defendant has under the 5th and 6th Amendments. They did this to protect unrepresented defendants making their first appearance from Judge Fields.
If you are taken into custody in Harris County and aren't bailed out immediately you will probably find yourself standing in a room staring at a video monitor as a magistrate informs you that it would be best if you kept your damn mouth shut. He then asks if you want to plead guilty. If not, a plea of not guilty is entered and you are returned to your holding cell until you bond out or until you are moved to a pod.
For those who get bonded out earlier they are released from the jail and handed a piece of paper telling them when and where they need to appear. At that first appearance in court they are called up to the bench and the judge tells them it would be best if they would keep their damn mouths shut. If they've bonded out it's assumed that they are pleading not guilty.
Unlike what you see on television or in the movies. There is no dramatic scene where a defendant is brought into a courtroom with an attorney to enter a not guilty plea and argue over the amount of bond required to get out of jail. You see, we have a bond schedule in Harris County that takes the guesswork right out of the entire process. There's no need to talk about mitigating circumstances or a defendant's clean record or ability to pay, all a magistrate has to do is look down the list and set bail.
But then we come to the 11th floor of the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center and the courtroom for County Criminal Court at Law No. 14. That's where the rules we follow in the normal world don't apply. It can be like stepping out into another world.
This is a court in which every defendant charged with driving while intoxicated will be ordered to install an ignition interlock device on their car -- even the one who blew 0.0 who was suspected of having smoked marijuana. Let's just forget about the fact that the interlock device can't detect THC in a person's breath. But, dammit, if he was charged with DWI we're going with the interlock anyway. And heaven help the poor soul who "tripped the wire" because he had used mouthwash just before starting his car. If anything bad comes back on that report he's going to jail overnight to teach him the lesson that neither the state nor its devices are ever wrong.
Step into the courtroom and you will see Judge Fields call up all the defendants making their first appearances who bonded out and who haven't hired attorneys. And then, without letting the people in front of him know they have the right to remain silent and the right to consult with counsel, he asks them how they wish to plead. Right there. No one is provided with any information about the consequences of pleading guilty and no one is warned of the potential collateral consequences of such a plea.
And once it's entered, it's final. No turning back. No changing your mind.
A judge isn't part of the prosecution's team. A judge is supposed to a be a neutral and unbiased referee who's sole job is to make certain that a defendant's due process rights are protected and that both sides follow the rules of evidence and procedure during the course of the proceedings. Whether a person pleads guilty or not is of no concern to the judge - at least it shouldn't be. In Texas we are all guaranteed the right to a jury trial in a criminal matter. Defendants and their attorneys shouldn't have to fight the judge to exercise that right.
The entire criminal (in)justice system in Harris County is designed to coerce defendants into pleading guilty. Whether it's excessive bail or bond conditions; or whether it's judges who want to prevent folks from exercising their right to a jury trial; the game is the same.
Judge Fields isn't the only one playing this game. But he was certainly the most egregious this time around.
If you are taken into custody in Harris County and aren't bailed out immediately you will probably find yourself standing in a room staring at a video monitor as a magistrate informs you that it would be best if you kept your damn mouth shut. He then asks if you want to plead guilty. If not, a plea of not guilty is entered and you are returned to your holding cell until you bond out or until you are moved to a pod.
For those who get bonded out earlier they are released from the jail and handed a piece of paper telling them when and where they need to appear. At that first appearance in court they are called up to the bench and the judge tells them it would be best if they would keep their damn mouths shut. If they've bonded out it's assumed that they are pleading not guilty.
Unlike what you see on television or in the movies. There is no dramatic scene where a defendant is brought into a courtroom with an attorney to enter a not guilty plea and argue over the amount of bond required to get out of jail. You see, we have a bond schedule in Harris County that takes the guesswork right out of the entire process. There's no need to talk about mitigating circumstances or a defendant's clean record or ability to pay, all a magistrate has to do is look down the list and set bail.
But then we come to the 11th floor of the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center and the courtroom for County Criminal Court at Law No. 14. That's where the rules we follow in the normal world don't apply. It can be like stepping out into another world.
This is a court in which every defendant charged with driving while intoxicated will be ordered to install an ignition interlock device on their car -- even the one who blew 0.0 who was suspected of having smoked marijuana. Let's just forget about the fact that the interlock device can't detect THC in a person's breath. But, dammit, if he was charged with DWI we're going with the interlock anyway. And heaven help the poor soul who "tripped the wire" because he had used mouthwash just before starting his car. If anything bad comes back on that report he's going to jail overnight to teach him the lesson that neither the state nor its devices are ever wrong.
Step into the courtroom and you will see Judge Fields call up all the defendants making their first appearances who bonded out and who haven't hired attorneys. And then, without letting the people in front of him know they have the right to remain silent and the right to consult with counsel, he asks them how they wish to plead. Right there. No one is provided with any information about the consequences of pleading guilty and no one is warned of the potential collateral consequences of such a plea.
And once it's entered, it's final. No turning back. No changing your mind.
A judge isn't part of the prosecution's team. A judge is supposed to a be a neutral and unbiased referee who's sole job is to make certain that a defendant's due process rights are protected and that both sides follow the rules of evidence and procedure during the course of the proceedings. Whether a person pleads guilty or not is of no concern to the judge - at least it shouldn't be. In Texas we are all guaranteed the right to a jury trial in a criminal matter. Defendants and their attorneys shouldn't have to fight the judge to exercise that right.
The entire criminal (in)justice system in Harris County is designed to coerce defendants into pleading guilty. Whether it's excessive bail or bond conditions; or whether it's judges who want to prevent folks from exercising their right to a jury trial; the game is the same.
Judge Fields isn't the only one playing this game. But he was certainly the most egregious this time around.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Rethinking the docket
The other day Scott Greenfield wondered aloud why defendants in criminal cases are required to appear in court on arbitrarily set court dates unlike defendants in civil cases. While his reference was New York - whose procedural rules are quite different than ours down here - his point was well made.
In Harris County a defendant is brought before the court within 48-72 hours of his arrest - if he isn't able to post bond. Posting bond will delay that first appearance for about a week. At that first appearance the defense lawyer has an opportunity to view the state's file and chat with the prosecutor about the facts of the case. The next step is to step out into the hallway with one's client and discuss how the officer's version of facts differs from the one he have the attorney.
At some point there is usually, but not always, a probable cause determination that rarely ends with anything other than there is probable cause to charge the person standing before the bench.
Then, absent a plea on the first setting, the case is reset. The court coordinator will ask the lawyer what day during a particular week (generally three to four weeks hence) he would like to appear. A reset form is filled out, signed and turned in. The defendant is then free to go.
Then, from that point forward, the defendant must appear in court every third or fourth week (in some courts every other week) until his case is resolved. It doesn't matter if there is anything new. It doesn't matter if the decision has already been made to set the case for trial. Combined with judges' new fascination with forcing defendants on bond to report to the adult probation department for pre-trial release supervision, this scheduling pushes defendants to plead to cases early on to avoid the expense (both time and money) of continuing the fight. After all, who can afford to take a day off every month to sit in court and visit a probation officer and then another day off to drive across town to pee in a cup?
Judge Michael Fields has the right idea. Instead of setting routine courts dates in every case, following the initial appearance, Judge Fields sets the case off a few months for a pretrial conference setting. In the meantime it is up to the lawyer to keep in contact with the prosecutor to discuss any new developments (left unsaid is how to keep up with the ever-changing court rotation of baby prosecutors). The procedure is notably different for defendants who can't post bond of course.
Being that, for many attorneys, an upcoming court date is the catalyst to check to see if something needs to be done on a case, practicing in Judge Fields' court might require a new-found discipline to get things done without monthly reminders in the form of court appearances. While the new docket control system isn't perfect, it does make life easier for those citizens who are innocent unless proven otherwise by the state.
In Harris County a defendant is brought before the court within 48-72 hours of his arrest - if he isn't able to post bond. Posting bond will delay that first appearance for about a week. At that first appearance the defense lawyer has an opportunity to view the state's file and chat with the prosecutor about the facts of the case. The next step is to step out into the hallway with one's client and discuss how the officer's version of facts differs from the one he have the attorney.
At some point there is usually, but not always, a probable cause determination that rarely ends with anything other than there is probable cause to charge the person standing before the bench.
Then, absent a plea on the first setting, the case is reset. The court coordinator will ask the lawyer what day during a particular week (generally three to four weeks hence) he would like to appear. A reset form is filled out, signed and turned in. The defendant is then free to go.
Then, from that point forward, the defendant must appear in court every third or fourth week (in some courts every other week) until his case is resolved. It doesn't matter if there is anything new. It doesn't matter if the decision has already been made to set the case for trial. Combined with judges' new fascination with forcing defendants on bond to report to the adult probation department for pre-trial release supervision, this scheduling pushes defendants to plead to cases early on to avoid the expense (both time and money) of continuing the fight. After all, who can afford to take a day off every month to sit in court and visit a probation officer and then another day off to drive across town to pee in a cup?
Judge Michael Fields has the right idea. Instead of setting routine courts dates in every case, following the initial appearance, Judge Fields sets the case off a few months for a pretrial conference setting. In the meantime it is up to the lawyer to keep in contact with the prosecutor to discuss any new developments (left unsaid is how to keep up with the ever-changing court rotation of baby prosecutors). The procedure is notably different for defendants who can't post bond of course.
Being that, for many attorneys, an upcoming court date is the catalyst to check to see if something needs to be done on a case, practicing in Judge Fields' court might require a new-found discipline to get things done without monthly reminders in the form of court appearances. While the new docket control system isn't perfect, it does make life easier for those citizens who are innocent unless proven otherwise by the state.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Judge Fields goes outside the box
Over the years I've dealt out plenty of criticism on this blog. I would also like to think that I've given credit where it's due, as well.
One of the targets of my criticism has been Judge Michael Fields, the presiding judge of Harris County's Criminal Court at Law No. 14. Well, today Judge Fields is on the receiving end of some praise.
Last week Judge Fields revealed to Chris Tritico, the President of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, that he has instituted a new docket control plan in his court. From now on a defendant will appear for an arraignment setting and then, if he has already hired an attorney, his case will be reset for four months.
The next appearance by the defendant will be a motions setting and then the case will either be set for plea in 30 days or trial in 60 days.
In the meantime the attorney is expected to investigate the case and attempt to work it out with prosecutors.
The new plan frees defendants from having to take off work to come to court for meaningless settings while the case is pending. For those of y'all not familiar with the way in which the criminal courts operate, most settings involve the defense attorney thumbing through the file looking to see if there's anything new and then taking a stab at convincing the prosecutor to dismiss the case. Then a reset is signed and the entire process repeats itself three to four weeks down the road.
Of course there is a price to pay for such a change - the defense attorney will have to put together a checklist and a calendar for each case in order to make sure he or she is doing the work that needs to be done in the meantime. Motions will have to be drafted and filed. Informal discovery will need to be conducted. Meetings with prosecutors will have to be scheduled.
But, then, that's what we're paid to do. The new plan will force attorneys to be disciplined enough to get the work done when it needs to get done. It will also make it easier for our clients to fight their cases without worrying about losing their job because of court appearances.
And then there's the issue of payment. It's not unusual for an attorney to set a fee, collect a portion of it upfront and then collect the rest each court appearance. The new docket plan will force attorneys to do a better job of either collecting the fee upfront or at least collecting a larger portion of the fee upfront. It will place the onus on the attorney to collect his fee while the case is pending. It will also force the attorney to make a decision on whether or not to withdraw due to non-payment of the fee earlier in the case.
For defendants and for defense attorneys, Judge Fields' new plan is a vast improvement over the way things operate at 1201 Franklin and I give the judge kudos for being innovative in trying to figure out how to move his docket.
Bondsmen, on the other hand, may not be so happy with the plan. If a person doesn't need to be in court for a four month stretch, there is little the bonding company can do if he decides to skip out. So long as he checks in with the bonding company by telephone every week they won't have any idea whether or not the defendant is even in the state. Whether this will result in higher bonding fees or more contractual conditions for cases in Judge Fields' court remains to be seen.
All in all it's a step in the right direction.
One of the targets of my criticism has been Judge Michael Fields, the presiding judge of Harris County's Criminal Court at Law No. 14. Well, today Judge Fields is on the receiving end of some praise.
Last week Judge Fields revealed to Chris Tritico, the President of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, that he has instituted a new docket control plan in his court. From now on a defendant will appear for an arraignment setting and then, if he has already hired an attorney, his case will be reset for four months.
The next appearance by the defendant will be a motions setting and then the case will either be set for plea in 30 days or trial in 60 days.
In the meantime the attorney is expected to investigate the case and attempt to work it out with prosecutors.
The new plan frees defendants from having to take off work to come to court for meaningless settings while the case is pending. For those of y'all not familiar with the way in which the criminal courts operate, most settings involve the defense attorney thumbing through the file looking to see if there's anything new and then taking a stab at convincing the prosecutor to dismiss the case. Then a reset is signed and the entire process repeats itself three to four weeks down the road.
Of course there is a price to pay for such a change - the defense attorney will have to put together a checklist and a calendar for each case in order to make sure he or she is doing the work that needs to be done in the meantime. Motions will have to be drafted and filed. Informal discovery will need to be conducted. Meetings with prosecutors will have to be scheduled.
But, then, that's what we're paid to do. The new plan will force attorneys to be disciplined enough to get the work done when it needs to get done. It will also make it easier for our clients to fight their cases without worrying about losing their job because of court appearances.
And then there's the issue of payment. It's not unusual for an attorney to set a fee, collect a portion of it upfront and then collect the rest each court appearance. The new docket plan will force attorneys to do a better job of either collecting the fee upfront or at least collecting a larger portion of the fee upfront. It will place the onus on the attorney to collect his fee while the case is pending. It will also force the attorney to make a decision on whether or not to withdraw due to non-payment of the fee earlier in the case.
For defendants and for defense attorneys, Judge Fields' new plan is a vast improvement over the way things operate at 1201 Franklin and I give the judge kudos for being innovative in trying to figure out how to move his docket.
Bondsmen, on the other hand, may not be so happy with the plan. If a person doesn't need to be in court for a four month stretch, there is little the bonding company can do if he decides to skip out. So long as he checks in with the bonding company by telephone every week they won't have any idea whether or not the defendant is even in the state. Whether this will result in higher bonding fees or more contractual conditions for cases in Judge Fields' court remains to be seen.
All in all it's a step in the right direction.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Bully in a robe
Last June Michael Giacona got behind the wheel of his van after drinking and ended up in an accident that claimed the life of Aaron Pennywell. Mr. Giacona was charged with a misdemeanor DWI because investigators could not determine who was at fault for the accident.
As part of a plea, Mr. Giancona was sentenced to one year in the Harris County Jail. After 90 days, Judge Michael Fields ordered that Mr. Giancona be released from jail and placed on probation. The terms of that probation included standing at the intersection where the accident occurred on four consecutive Saturdays wearing a sign that said "I killed Aaron Pennywell while driving drunk."
On the first Saturday of his public humiliation, Mr. Giacona was confronted by hostile passers-by and passing cars. It seems that Judge Fields' idea of punishment was to expose Mr. Giacona to bodily injury. Sanity later prevailed in County Criminal Court at Law No. 14 and Judge Fields suspended the public humiliation.
As part of the terms of probation, Judge Fields also ordered Mr. Giacona to write a letter to Mr. Pennywell's parents apologizing for killing their son. This past Wednesday, Mr. Giacona told Judge Fields that he would rather return to jail than apologize to Mr. Pennywell's parents.
Now let's remember that the Harris County District Attorney's Office didn't charge Mr. Giacona with intoxication manslaughter because they couldn't prove that the accident was the result of Mr. Giancona driving while intoxicated. In other words, no one could determine - beyond a reasonable doubt - who was responsible for the accident. While his refusal to apologize does not make Mr. Giacona a sympathetic figure, following the judge's order would result in an admission of fault for the accident. That admission of fault would (all but) guarantee a recovery in a civil suit for wrongful death.
But that's nothing to ordering a man to humiliate himself and expose himself to injury. Judge Fields' order that Mr. Giacona must stand at the intersection holding a sign announcing that he killed Mr. Pennywell does nothing to further justice. The purpose of punishment in our criminal (in)justice system is to rehabilitate, deter or punish. It is not to humiliate a person. The order to carry the sign was gratuitous. It was a way of telling a defendant that I can make you do whatever I want you to do - and you can't do a damn thing about it. Judge Fields was angry that Mr. Giacona couldn't get more than a year in the county jail. Oh well. A judge's job is to act as an impartial arbiter at trial and, if requested, to order a punishment that is appropriate under the circumstances.
Whether the judge approves of the charge filed against the defendant is of no concern. Imposing a harsher punishment because you think someone should have been charged with a more serious crime is wrong. Ordering someone to humiliate themselves is the act of a bully.
As part of a plea, Mr. Giancona was sentenced to one year in the Harris County Jail. After 90 days, Judge Michael Fields ordered that Mr. Giancona be released from jail and placed on probation. The terms of that probation included standing at the intersection where the accident occurred on four consecutive Saturdays wearing a sign that said "I killed Aaron Pennywell while driving drunk."
On the first Saturday of his public humiliation, Mr. Giacona was confronted by hostile passers-by and passing cars. It seems that Judge Fields' idea of punishment was to expose Mr. Giacona to bodily injury. Sanity later prevailed in County Criminal Court at Law No. 14 and Judge Fields suspended the public humiliation.
As part of the terms of probation, Judge Fields also ordered Mr. Giacona to write a letter to Mr. Pennywell's parents apologizing for killing their son. This past Wednesday, Mr. Giacona told Judge Fields that he would rather return to jail than apologize to Mr. Pennywell's parents.
Now let's remember that the Harris County District Attorney's Office didn't charge Mr. Giacona with intoxication manslaughter because they couldn't prove that the accident was the result of Mr. Giancona driving while intoxicated. In other words, no one could determine - beyond a reasonable doubt - who was responsible for the accident. While his refusal to apologize does not make Mr. Giacona a sympathetic figure, following the judge's order would result in an admission of fault for the accident. That admission of fault would (all but) guarantee a recovery in a civil suit for wrongful death.
But that's nothing to ordering a man to humiliate himself and expose himself to injury. Judge Fields' order that Mr. Giacona must stand at the intersection holding a sign announcing that he killed Mr. Pennywell does nothing to further justice. The purpose of punishment in our criminal (in)justice system is to rehabilitate, deter or punish. It is not to humiliate a person. The order to carry the sign was gratuitous. It was a way of telling a defendant that I can make you do whatever I want you to do - and you can't do a damn thing about it. Judge Fields was angry that Mr. Giacona couldn't get more than a year in the county jail. Oh well. A judge's job is to act as an impartial arbiter at trial and, if requested, to order a punishment that is appropriate under the circumstances.
Whether the judge approves of the charge filed against the defendant is of no concern. Imposing a harsher punishment because you think someone should have been charged with a more serious crime is wrong. Ordering someone to humiliate themselves is the act of a bully.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The benefits of jury duty
Experiencing true grass roots democracy.
Seeing firsthand just how our court system works (or doesn't).
Being charged with contempt of court, taken to the holdover and shackled to a bench.
Betcha didn't see that third one coming. But that's exactly what 19-year old Christian Daniels experienced in Harris County the other day. It seems that Mr. Daniels reported to the new Jury Assembly Room as requested. He was then selected for a panel to hear a misdemeanor case in County Criminal Court at Law No. 14, the Hon. Michael Fields presiding.
He was taken, along with the other 19 panelists, from the Jury Assembly Room to the 11th Floor of the Criminal (In)justice Center. Somewhere along the way the group was separated and Mr. Daniels got lost or confused, or both. He went back to the Jury Assembly Room - and was sent back to Judge Fields' court. When he finally found his way back the defense attorney was already conducting his voir dire.
Judge Fields found Mr. Daniels in contempt for his failure to appear for jury duty and ordered him to the holdover where he was shackled to a bench.
The case against Mr. Daniels was later dismissed thanks to HCCLA member Stephen Touchstone.
According to KHOU-TV, Mr. Daniels learned "the importance of paying attention when called to serve." Either that or he learned just how capricious our criminal (in)justice system can be.
Show Cause Order
Seeing firsthand just how our court system works (or doesn't).
Being charged with contempt of court, taken to the holdover and shackled to a bench.
Betcha didn't see that third one coming. But that's exactly what 19-year old Christian Daniels experienced in Harris County the other day. It seems that Mr. Daniels reported to the new Jury Assembly Room as requested. He was then selected for a panel to hear a misdemeanor case in County Criminal Court at Law No. 14, the Hon. Michael Fields presiding.
He was taken, along with the other 19 panelists, from the Jury Assembly Room to the 11th Floor of the Criminal (In)justice Center. Somewhere along the way the group was separated and Mr. Daniels got lost or confused, or both. He went back to the Jury Assembly Room - and was sent back to Judge Fields' court. When he finally found his way back the defense attorney was already conducting his voir dire.
Judge Fields found Mr. Daniels in contempt for his failure to appear for jury duty and ordered him to the holdover where he was shackled to a bench.
The case against Mr. Daniels was later dismissed thanks to HCCLA member Stephen Touchstone.
According to KHOU-TV, Mr. Daniels learned "the importance of paying attention when called to serve." Either that or he learned just how capricious our criminal (in)justice system can be.
Show Cause Order
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Vampires on the bench
"Thank you again for agreeing to help out with the Holiday No Refusal program. I know that you've been very generous with your time in the past, and I'm trying to "share the opportunity" with as many people as possible so that we don't abuse those Judges who haven't needed the arm-twisting to help! I'm also working to find a long-term solution that doesn't impose on the county court judges.
"At any rate, the short-term dictates that I stick with looking for volunteers...
"Is there any chance that tomorrow night the 12th is convenient? If not, how about next Thurs, Fri or Sat?"
E-mail from Assistant District Attorney Catherine Evans to County Criminal Court at Law No. 14 Judge Mike Fields, dated 12/11/2009.That's right, the Harris County DA's Office is looking for "volunteers" to sign pro forma search warrant applications so that the vampires patrolling the streets can strap you down and draw your blood. What's going on here?
The excerpts in this article were obtained via an open records request to the Harris County District Attorney's Office for all incoming and outgoing communications between employees of the Harris County DA's Office regarding judges volunteering to review warrants on No Refusal Weekends.
Is a neutral and detached magistrate as much a figment of our imaginations as the Tooth Fairy? Why is the DA's office put in charge of assigning judges to "review" warrant applications on No Refusal Weekends? Apparently there's no need to bother keeping up the charade of an independent judiciary in Harris County.
The No Refusal Weekend is a joint law enforcement effort to emasculate the Bill of Rights; the judiciary should not be playing a role in this mockery of our Constitution. They certainly shouldn't be exchanging e-mails with prosecutors on what nights work best for them. Somehow I'm not thinking any judge who might dare to question the legality of this fiasco is going to be on Ms. Evans' e-mail list.
"I am the new Chief of the Vehicular Crimes Section and will be coordinating the No Refusal Weekends. I understand that you are looking for information about future dates. HPD requested to run No Refusal on a number of high volume nights, and Judge Lykos has agreed to pay for ADA's and a nurse to staff those nights. We will be running No Refusal on the following days:
Thursday, Dec. 10
Friday, Dec. 11
Saturday, Dec. 12
Thursday, Dec. 17
Friday, Dec. 18
Saturday, Dec. 19
Friday, Dec. 25
Saturday, Dec. 26
Thursday, Dec. 31
Friday, Jan. 1
Saturday, Jan 2
"As you can see, this upcoming weekend is NOT part of the program. On the involved dates, from 10pm to 12am, we will be presenting the search warrants to the City of Houston Municipal Judges. I intend to approach the misdemeanor Judges about volunteering to be available by fax between the hours of 2 and 5am. If I can get volunteers, that should offer some relief to the Magistrate Judges during the high volume hours. Obviously, if I can't get volunteers, we'll have no choice but to approach the magistrate on-duty when they are not in docket during the hours of 2-5am.
"For this past weekend, we filed more intoxication charges than on Thanksgiving weekend last year but sought far fewer search warrants. My hope is that we will continue to procure good evidence by consent without having to resort to a search warrant. I am certainly looking for ways to make No Refusal Weekends as efficient and effective as possible, so please let me know if you have any requests or recommendations."
E-mail from Assistant District Attorney Catherine Evans to County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 Judge Jean Hughes, dated 12/3/2009.Harris County prosecutors want to make forcing motorists to volunteer evidence as "efficient and effective as possible" and they are going to the judges for ideas on how to do so. Since when do the judges of Harris County work for the Harris County DA's Office? Since when do the judges of Harris County work for local law enforcement? The role of a judge is to be a neutral arbiter in a dispute and to insure that the rules of evidence and procedure are followed. Their role is not to be a partner with law enforcement and prosecutors to make it easier to prosecute and coerce pleas from their fellow citizens.
And, just as disturbing, some local criminal defense attorneys have participated in these charades -- some while working for the Harris County DA's Office and others while (supposedly) practicing criminal defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)