"Justice" of the peace?

Oh, where to begin?

The other morning I had a client in traffic court out in West Houston (Precinct 5, Place 2 for those keeping score). He's a "frequent flier" and he, and his friends and family, provide a nice bit of pocket change over the course of the year.

He was cited for failure to control speed - he rear-ended another vehicle on the highway.

The driver of the other car showed up in court. The prosecutor chatted with him. I then went to the back room to chat with the prosecutor.

The case was simple enough. The driver of the other car had to slow down for traffic and my client hit him from behind. The damage to the other driver's car had been repaired and he wasn't out of pocket. But the prosecutor wasn't willing to let the case go so she offered my client a 90-day deferral with a fine of $50 plus court costs. If my client managed to go 90 days without getting another ticket in that court the case would be dismissed.

He took the deal.

So I had him stand in line for the clerks and headed downtown to take care of a couple of cases at the criminal courthouse. Before I ever made it to the freeway (just a few miles), I got a call from my client. In broken English he told me that the clerk said he would have to pay more money and take a defensive driving class. I told him that wasn't our deal. Eventually the clerk got on the phone and I explained to her what the agreement was. I thought the matter was resolved.

I was wrong.

On my way downtown I got another call from my client. They wanted him to pay more money and take the defensive driving class. I told him to wait for me. I told him it would be a couple of hours before I could get back to the courthouse.

As I was parking my car downtown I got yet another call from my client. He told me that the clerk said he needed to go back and talk to the prosecutor. I told him he was to do no such thing.

I then called the court and the phone was answered by an intern who had absolutely no clue as to what she was doing. She tried to explain to me (after speaking to someone else) that the court's standard offer would require my client to pay a higher fine and take a defensive driving class. I told her that wasn't the deal the prosecutor had made with us and that if that's how they wanted to play then we would just go to trial.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I was not the best behaved person on the phone. I was pissed and I said some things I shouldn't have said. In no way would I try to imply that my choice of language was either professional or appropriate. But this situation was ridiculous.

I called my client back and told him to meet me at the courthouse at 1pm - the scheduled time for the actual trial docket.

I was quite surprised when I got to the courthouse at 1pm and my client handed me a reset form with a new trial date. I was even more surprised when the clerk behind the window told me that prosecutor had left for the day. I asked to see the jacket so I could get the information on the other driver.

So I sat and waited. And waited. A supervisor finally came out and told me the file was with the judge and he was at lunch and they were trying to get his attention (oops, I think that's the equivalent of being sent to the principal's office). By this time I had wasted nearly 30 minutes at the courthouse and I had had enough. I told her no thank you and my client and I left.

One of two situations occurred behind the scenes that morning - but neither was handled according to the law. Either the clerk took it upon herself to change the terms of the plea bargain agreement or the judge rejected the deal. If the clerk did the deed then she was practicing law without a license. She may also have altered a government document. The clerk had no business getting involved in the plea agreement between the district attorney and my client. The ADA reviewed the case, spoke with the witness and discussed the matter with me before making her offer. She made an offer that she thought was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances. The clerk, on the other hand, just sat behind a window and called out "next."

The clerk was also out of line when she told my client that he needed to speak to the district attorney about the deal. He was represented by counsel. The clerk knew he was represented by counsel. The clerk also knew (after speaking with my client) that English wasn't his first language. That makes her conduct even more deplorable.

The alternative was that the judge rejected the offer when it came across his desk. If that was the case then my client (and me) should have been told the court rejected the offer and my client had the right to withdraw his plea. That didn't happen. No one from the court ever called me to say that the judge rejected the offer.

Yes, attorneys tend to gum up the works in traffic court - whether it be municipal or justice - but, if you love the Constitution, that's a good thing. Judges would probably prefer that attorneys didn't get involved - we tend to lower the overall revenue of the court by our meddling. But if the court's are going to have so-called "standard offers" then the attorneys representing the state are no longer acting as attorneys - they are nothing more than glorified clerks.

This is the result of judicial efficiency being placed higher on the pedestal than fairness and equity. This is what happens when a court develops an attitude of us-against-them when it comes to dealing with criminal defendants.

This just goes to prove, that in the courthouse, there is no justice. There's "just us."

The butcher, the baker and the idiot who fell off the turnip truck

I attended the Harris County Municipal Justice Bar Association's lunch today so I could see the candidates for Harris County Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5, Place 2. For those of you unfamiliar with that court, the current Justice of the Peace, William Yeoman, is retiring and four republicans are running for his bench.

Of the four candidates, Jeff Williams, George Huntoon and Virginia Pittman spoke at the luncheon. Mr. Williams is an attorney, Ms. Pittman is the supervisor of the court's criminal department and Mr. Huntoon is a real estate huckster, er agent.

Judge Yeoman's court is the busiest in the State of Texas, or at least that's what Judge Yeoman announces to the gathered throng when he steps out to present his monologue, er welcome speech, every morning.

Mr. Williams said he has practiced in Judge Yeoman's court and knows what a nightmare it can be. He promised to streamline procedures so that attorneys weren't spending hours in court. Of course on the traffic side of things, the nightmarish docket can be a blessing as DPS officers will rarely appear for trial and cases are continued for a year or more.

Ms. Pittman understands the inner workings of the court. She knows what works now and what doesn't. She proposed to get input from court staff as to what needs to be changed. While some might say that a court insider could be very myopic when it comes to operations, when it comes to the strange world of the justice court, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Finally we come to the strange world of Mr. Huntoon. He was quite proud to let us know he wasn't an attorney -- but he always wanted to be one. His radio ads tout him as someone who would run the court as a conservative republican. When questioned about that statement he seemed at quite a loss for what a JP court actually does.

If you're concerned that a Harris County Justice of the Peace might conduct a marriage ceremony between two gays or lesbians, then Mr. Huntoon is the man for you. He said he would never do that. If you're worried that a Harris County Justice of the Peace might sit over a trial in which a defendant was charged with a hate crime (WTF?), he let us know that he wouldn't stand for it -- he didn't think federal hate crime legislation was constitutional. Finally, if you lie awake at night fretting that a Harris County Justice of the Peace would be one of those liberal activist judges who make up the law on the bench, you needn't worry anymore.

Mr. Huntoon said that as a judge he represented everyone in the district. Huh? Is that what he really said? Earth to McFly, a judge represents no one. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the facts before him.

So for those of y'all voting in the republican primary next month, you've got a choice. You can choose the attorney, the court employee or the buffoon who has no freakin' idea what a Justice of the Peace does.