Throwing in the towel (finally)

Now it's over.

Yesterday the lawsuit filed by the former Republican misdemeanor judges was dismissed on a motion filed by the 15 incoming Democratic judges. Judge Darrell Jordan was never a part of the original lawsuit - he was later joined in his opposition by Mike Fields, the former judge in Court 14.

The dismissal of the suit means that Harris County elected officials will stop wasting taxpayer money defending an unconstitutional bail system. The outgoing judges fought tooth and nail to walk back US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's order. They knew that the leverage the courts had over indigent defendants was based on a bail system designed to keep them behind bars.

Under the old rules the county magistrates (who preside over probable cause hearings at the jail) would take out a chart, look up the offense, check for priors and then find the corresponding bail amount. Never once did the magistrate bother to ask if the defendant could afford bail. Not once did the magistrate bother to ask what amount, if any, could the defendant afford. The defendants weren't represented by counsel and had no idea they could ask for a personal bond (not that any of the magistrates would have given anyone such a bond).

This system insured that indigent defendants would jump at the opportunity to dispose of their cases for a guilty plea and time served. Court-appointed counsel were only too willing to go along with this charade of justice - lest they piss off the court that was paying them.

The result was a plea mill. Defendants would be led into the courtroom like a chain gang and would stand in front of the judge. The judge would spend no more than a minute or two on each case and the chain gang would be led back into the holdover.

This system guaranteed convictions for prosecutors, fewer pending cases for the judges and convictions for the defendants.

Those days are now in the past. Defendants who couldn't afford to post bond in the past will now be released on personal bonds and will be able to assist in their defense. They will be able to sleep in their own beds, see their families and go to their jobs.

No longer will a misdemeanor defendant have to make that agonizing decision on whether to fight his case or cop a plea to get out of jail.

A tip of my hat to the new judges who made this happen.

The aftermath

The blue wave hit Harris County (and even our suburban neighbors to the southwest) yesterday. The Democrats swept every county-wide seat, including all of the county civil and criminal benches, the family court benches, the juvenile court benches and every district court bench up for election.

Today should be an interesting day at the courthouse.

Yesterday's results will likely mean an end to the county's lawsuit to fight bail reform. If you'll recall, 14 of the 15 Republican judges were fighting to preserve a system by which poor defendants were coerced into pleading guilty in order to get out of jail. Only Darrell Jordan and Mike Fields, the two African-American judges in the misdemeanor courts, chose the honorable route.

I am sure we will hear quite a bit from a couple of the ousted judges about how much of a revolving door the courts have become since US District Judge Lee Rosenthal issued her ruling. When you hear it, just remember the source.

The judges fighting the lawsuit have cost Harris County over $6 million so far. But, hey, they are all white Republicans and it wasn't their money they were spending.

And, yes, there were some good judges who will be stepping down at the end of the year. But so fucking what? Not one of them was elected because the folks of Harris County thought they were or would be excellent jurists. Not one of them was elected because they presented voters with a vision of how the courts should operate. They took their seats on the bench because they happened to have an R after their name in an election in which the Republican at the top of the ballot won in Harris County.

For every one of these good judges, there was plenty of jetsam and flotsam. As imperfect as our system of selecting judges is in Texas, it certainly beats any of the alternatives. Party affiliations cut down on corruption in the general election because candidates don't have to raise large sums of money (in fact, a judicial candidate doesn't need to spend a dime after winning the primary because he or she will get about the same percentage of the vote as the candidate at the top of the ballot for their party).

I don't think there is anyone who seriously thinks a better system would be to allow the governor to appoint judges who would stand for periodic retention elections.

Good luck to the new judges and may y'all be lamented as good judges done wrong should the pendulum swing back to the right.

A senseless death in the Harris County Jail

Debora Ann Lyons is the second inmate in the Harris County Jail to commit suicide in the last month. Ms. Lyons, who was taken into custody on July 22, 2018, hung herself on Tuesday night.

Ms. Lyons was arrested on misdemeanor theft charge. However, based upon her prior convictions, she was charged with a felony. Now, as an aside, I understand why the legislature allows prosecutors to enhance some offenses based upon prior convictions. The theory being that if you've been in trouble once or twice for the same offense the punishment needs to be a bit more severe. But, this doesn't work out so well on petty thefts.

I've had a client before who was charged with shoplifting toiletries from a drug store. What he did warranted no more than a Class B charge. But, since he had multiple theft convictions in the past, that little misdemeanor theft ended up landing him in district court with a felony charge. And I don't care how tough on crime you are, charging someone with felony theft over less than $100 worth of toiletries doesn't serve anyone's interests. Prison should be reserved for those who have done heinous crimes, sending someone to prison for petty theft is a waste of resources.

On the date she was charged, bail was set at $1,500. Ms. Lyons didn't have that kind of money -- but because the felony courts still rely on a piece of paper to determine how to set bond, that number was written down on a piece of paper without regard to Ms. Lyons' ability to pay.

Sound familiar?

It should.

This is the system which 14 Republican misdemeanor judges in Harris County are fighting to keep in place. Thus far they have spent over $6 million of taxpayer's money to defend a cash bail system that is unconstitutional. If US District Judge Lee Rosenthal's order applied to the district courts, Ms. Lyons would have been eligible for release on a PR bond within 48 hours of her arrest. Instead she sat in jail for nearly a month before she took her life.

The ultimate irony, of course, is that she was granted a PR bond on Wednesday -- the day after she hung herself.

So, even though this case was filed in district court as a felony, I still would like to hear one of the Republican misdemeanor judges defend the old system. It's the old system that killed Ms. Lyons. The last time I checked, the penalty for theft in Texas wasn't death.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the 14 Republican misdemeanor judges who are fighting bail reform are all white. If you know anything about Harris County you also know that the vast majority of the people affected by bail reform aren't white. Racism, you see, plays real well out in the suburbs where the Republicans pick up most of their votes. And for all the talk you will hear from those judges, they aren't fighting bail reform to protect the public -- they are fighting it because the old system gave the state coercive power over minority defendants who couldn't afford to post bond. They were forced to plead guilty in order to get out of jail.

And, if they happened to get in trouble later, those convictions came back to bite them in the ass as their new cases were enhanced.

Ms. Lyons died because Harris County is doing everything it can to preserve a coercive system to force the poor to plead guilty regardless of the facts of their cases so they can get on with their lives.

In case you've forgotten the names of the judges who are fighting to preserve an unconstitutional system, here they are again:

• Paula Goodhart, County Criminal Court at Law No. 1
• Bill Harmon, County Criminal Court at Law No. 2
• Natalie Fleming, County Criminal Court at Law No. 3
• John Clinton, County Criminal Court at Law No. 4
• Margaret Harris, County Criminal Court at Law No. 5
• Larry Standley, County Criminal Court at Law No. 6
• Pam Derbyshire, County Criminal Court at Law No. 7
• Jay Karahan, County Criminal Court at Law No. 8
• Analia Wilkerson, County Criminal Court at Law No. 9
• Dan Spjut, County Criminal Court at Law No. 10
• Diane Bull, County Criminal Court at Law No. 11
• Robin Brown, County Criminal Court at Law No. 12
• Don Smyth, County Criminal Court at Law No. 13
• Jean Spradling, County Criminal Court at Law No. 15

The next time you see any of these judges, ask them why they are defending an unconstitutional cash bail system. Ask them why they are opposed to bail being set in a timely matter based upon the defendant's ability to pay. Ask them why they are wasting your tax dollars fighting bail reform.

Ask them why they haven't joined Judge Darrell Jordan and Judge Mike Fields on the other side of the coin.

Debora Ann Lyons was no angel. But she was someone's daughter. She was someone's mother. She had a family and she had friends. And she damn well didn't deserve to die in the Harris County Jail.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Two years awaiting trial; so much for the presumption of innocence

One way to quell dissent is to lock up the dissenters so that no one can listen to them.You can do this by overcharging on a criminal complaint, by asking for an unreasonable level of bail or both.

Cecily McMillan has been held behind bars by New York prosecutors for almost two years. Her trial on charges she assaulted a New York City police officer was to begin yesterday. After clearing procedural hurdles, and scheduling around court holidays, jury selection is scheduled to begin on Thursday and the government should present its case on Friday.

Ms. McMillan was charged with felony assault after she elbowed an officer beneath his eye at a Zuccotti Park protest back in March of 2012. Prosecutors claim Ms. McMillan deliberately elbowed the officer in the face as members of Occupy Wall Street fought with the police. Ms. McMillan claims that someone behind her grabbed her breast and she swung her elbow to protect herself. After her elbow made contact Ms. McMillan was viciously beaten by the police and arrested.

There was no need for Ms. McMillan to suffer the beating she did. She was one person. The officer wasn't seriously injured. Yet the beating commenced. And once it began there was no stopping it until the adrenaline ran out. What happened to Ms. McMillan on the street was far worse than what happened to the officer.

Now aside from the legal issues of what constitutes intentional or knowing action in this case, there is a bigger issue. The crime for which Ms. McMillan was charged is a Class D felony for which she faces a maximum sentence of seven years.

But let's keep in mind that Ms. McMillan is innocent unless proven otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt by the government. And for that reason alone she should not have spent the last 23 months confined to a cell. Her confinement was a means to coerce her into entering a plea that would resolve the case and leave her with a criminal record for the rest of her life.

Her confinement also shows the divide between the attitudes of prosecutors and the rest of society. For a prosecutor, a sentence is but a number that can be thrown around as if it were handed down by a god. There are no consequences for a prosecutor - he or she is going home every evening after work regardless of what happens.

For the rest of us, those numbers represent a tragedy. Someone's mother or father or daughter or son or sister or brother is going to be taken away. Arrangements must be made so that whoever is left on the outside can take care of everyone else. The situation is only magnified when judges and prosecutors play games with bail and lock up innocent folks for months or years while they await resolution of their cases.

Now there can be little doubt that the police in New York City (and elsewhere across the country) overreacted in their response to the Occupy! movement. There was no reason to clear parks by force when folks all over this country were organizing and exercising their constitutional right to assemble and petition the government for their grievances.

If things got out of hand that night at Zuccotti Park then we should be looking at the leadership of the New York City Police Department who instead of carrying out their supposed duty to protect and defend the residents of New York City, turned their weapons on the citizenry to clear a park at the behest of Wall Street interests.

Even if you believe the government's account of what happened that night, there is no excuse to lock up a young woman without a criminal record for two years. If bail were set at a level higher than that which she could afford to post, then it should have been lowered. After all, bail is not a punitive measure, it is merely a means of guaranteeing a defendant's appearance in court. Holding someone behind bars for two years serves only to make it more difficult to defend a case. It certainly doesn't advance the cause of justice.

Is it time to bail on the bond system?

In Maryland whenever someone was arrested they would be brought before a judge who would determine if the defendant should be granted bail, should be held without bail or should be released on their promise to appear in court. This system functioned efficiently - primarily because it excluded lawyers.

At least that's how they used to do it before the Maryland Court of Appeals found the bond hearings to be unconstitutional because defendants were denied the assistance of counsel. Now the state is scrambling to find a new way to decide who gets to sit in jail awaiting trial and who gets to sleep in their own bed. Due to the cost of providing additional public defenders and prosecutors at bail hearings, the state is considering doing away with the entire bail bond system.

Of course the bondsmen are a powerful lobby who have a direct interest in the way this matter proceeds. And they have friends - trial lawyers - in the Maryland legislature who love the campaign contributions.

The purpose of bond has always been to assure a defendant shows up in court. The seriousness of the charge and whether the defendant is a danger to society are other factors that come into play - but the presumption is that every defendant is entitled to bail. The system has become one in which those who have the resources are able to bond out while those without money, who are charged with identical offenses, sit behind bars until their cases are disposed.

The ruling in Maryland interests me because we have a similar system here in Harris County. If you are arrested in Harris County you will be taken before a magistrate on video. The magistrate will admonish the defendant to keep his damn mouth shut and will then determine the bond amount. For virtually every case that amount is written on a sheet of paper - the county bond schedule.

Harris County misdemeanor bond schedule

Harris County felony bond schedule

The defendant isn't afforded the assistance of counsel at this hearing. There is no one to speak for him. The case is filed, the defendant is admonished and the judge looks down at a piece of paper to determine how much it'll cost the defendant to sleep in his own bed while his case is pending.

The Sixth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that a criminal defendant is entitled to the advice of counsel at any crucial stage in our criminal (in)justice system. But, in Harris County, that initial bond determination isn't considered a crucial stage in the process.

The benefactors are the county's bondsmen who exact their pound of flesh before sending the magic paper to the county jail. The other benefactors are the judges who can rely upon the bond system to coerce defendants behind bars to plead out their cases in order to go home. Just imagine the chaos if every criminal defendant had the ability to fight their case from outside the jail. No longer would the state have the added bonus of pretrial incarceration as a negotiating tool.

Of course we have other problems in Harris County - most stemming from attorneys and judges who don't bother to read Article 1, Section 11a of the Texas Constitution. That provision sets forth who can be denied bail and how that determination is to be made. According to the Constitution, a defendant may only be held without bail (on a non-capital case) if a hearing is held within seven days of his arrest to determine whether or not the state can deny bond. Very few people know this and very few attorneys ever litigate the matter. Ask a prosecutor about it and they'll just tell you the bond schedule says he doesn't get a bond.

In a sane world the notion that a pretrial hearing to determine whether a defendant is entitled to a bond is not a crucial stage in the process would be laughable. Here in Harris County it's called "doing business."

Harris County trails only LA and NYC for largest daily jail population

A quarter of the Harris County budget goes to fund law enforcement, with over $750,000 spent every day on inmates at the Harris County Jail, according to a report in Forbes. Harris County has the third largest daily jail population - trailing only Los Angeles County and New York City.

Over a three-year stretch the number of inmates increased more than 21%.

"Many people are in jail because they are too poor to post bail. If you have a first-class pretrial program, a county is often in a better position because they can carefully analyze the individual, can figure out better what needs to be done." -- Donald Murray, senior legislative director, National Association of Counties

According to John Dyess, chief administrative officer for the Harris County Sheriff's Office, the county spends some $200 million a year for detention, money that could be spent in more productive ways.

"This really wasn't built for this. I don't know if we can build our way out of where we are today." - John Dyess

The Justice Policy Institute estimates that almost two-thirds of the nation's jail population are awaiting trial. And why are they waiting behind bars? Because almost four out of every five inmates made less than $2,000 a month prior to being arrested.

Between 1986 and 2005, the number of arrests for violent crimes increased 25% but the number of arrests for possession of illegal drugs increased 150%.

The numbers are appalling. The wholesale eviseration of the Eigth Amendement's prohibition against unreasonable bail is unconscionable. The only purpose of bail is to insure the accused's appearance in court. It is not meant to be a tool of punishment. We often forget that these men and women held in jail awaiting trial haven't been convicted of anything. They are innocent unless the state proves them guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ex-judge named Harris County jail czarina

Interesting news that ex-State District Judge Caprice Cosper has been named to head a commission to figure out what to do about the overcrowded Harris County Jail. No one from the defense bar was named to the committee.

(Author's note: I made a mistake in the original post. I got Ms. Cosper and former judge Devon Anderson mixed up when I commented that Ms. Cosper was joined at the hip with Brock Thomas. I offer my sincere apologies for that mistake. In my defense, however, it can be hard keeping track of all the roadkill left after the Democrats' near sweep in the 2008 judicial contests in Harris County.)

Ms. Cosper had already returned to the public trough as executive assistant to County Commissioner Steve Radack. Old habits die hard.

As for the state of the Harris County Jail? As of this past Monday (July 13, 2009), of the 11,107 people housed in the jail, 6,064 were awaiting trial. That means that 55% of the people housed in the county jail are folks who either couldn't afford to post bond or who were being held without bond. That is absurd!

According to the Eighth Amendment, a court may not set an unreasonable bond. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that bail should not be punitive. Something's wrong when over half the jail population hasn't even been convicted of anything. So much for the presumption of innocence.

Harris County Jail draws ire of the feds

So it's not enough that the Harris County Jail has failed four of the last six inspections conducted by the Texas State Commission on Jail Standards, now the Harris County Jail has drawn the ire of the U.S. Department of Justice.

According to the feds, poor health care standards and life-threatening conditions at the jail are violations of the inmates' constitutional rights.

“The (DOJ) found that the jail fails to provide detainees with adequate: (1) medical care; (2) mental health care; (3) protection from serious physical harm and (4) protection from life safety hazards.” -- Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar

Now before we get our panties in a wad about "coddling criminals," let's not forget that every person brought before the court accused of a criminal act is innocent unless proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. As a result of Harris County's refusal to adopt personal bonds on minor criminal offenses and the county's reliance on its bond schedule, there are folks in the Harris County Jail who are, in the eyes of the law, wholly innocent yet having to endure potential life-threatening conditions while awaiting their day in court.

The solution is not, as Sheriff Adrian Garcia would lead us to believe, building new jail facilities. The solution is to release minor offenders on personal bonds with a promise to appear in court and to find a way to treat drug addicts without locking them up in the jail.

See also:

• Crowded house (The Defense Rests, 1/26/09)
• Harris County jail fails inspection (again) (The Defense Rests, 4/18/09)
• Harris County Sheriff wants a new jail (The Defense Rests, 5/7/09)

Harris County Sheriff wants a new jail

Newly elected Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia's solution for the failing grades the Harris County Jail has received is to build a new one -- an idea that area voters rejected back in 2007.

Persistent problems at the Harris County Jail will cease only with the construction of a new facility, Sheriff Adrian Garcia said today after negotiating with state officials to keep the downtown lockup running despite its failure of a recent inspection.

Garcia appeared before the state Commission on Jail Standards to outline plans to address the problems that prompted inspectors to fail the jail after a visit in April, including broken intercoms that cut off communication between deputies and 90 percent of inmates held on two floors of one building.

It was the fourth time in six years that state inspectors failed the jail, which remains under federal investigation and faces local scrutiny over controversial deaths and access to medical care.

Garcia outlined short-term fixes, but stressed that construction of a new building for a detention system that already holds more than 10,000 people will be inevitable. Two years ago, before Garcia took office, voters narrowly rejected a $245 million bond referendum to build a 2,500-bed jail.

“Today is an indication of how pressing the need is,” Garcia said. “We are going to have to have a conversation about the future and make sure we don’t propose a jail that doesn’t meet the needs of the county.”

The current jail is overcrowded and understaffed. The solution to the county's problem is not to build yet another jail - the solution is to examine the policies of the criminal courts in setting bonds too high and denying personal bonds in minor drug possession cases. 

The purpose of bail is not to punish the accused but only to ensure that the citizen accused appears in court. The current policies of the criminal courts in Harris County only ensures that the jail will remain overcrowded and citizens will be subject to violations of their rights.

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?

Crowded house

Harris County officials seem to have finally seen the writing on the wall regarding jail overcrowding. With the inmate population of the Harris County Jail expected to rise to 12,600 this spring, the Sheriff, Adrian Garcia, the District Attorney, Pat Lykos, and the eight new criminal district judges are looking at ways to alleviate the situation.  Chief among the suggestions are the issuing of personal bonds for nonviolent offenders and the creation of a mental health court.

The Harris County Jail has been certified by the state to house up to 9,435 inmates but is currently housing close to 11,000 thanks to the state's authorization of 1,840 "variance beds." There are also nearly 1,000 Harris County inmates being housed in Louisiana.

As my colleague, Mark Bennett, stated, holding minor drug offenders in custody only encourages them to plead to cases before any investigation has been conducted on their behalf. He is correct in acknowledging that it is easier to defend a case when the citizen accused is able to function in a (somewhat) normal manner during the pendency of the case.

According to the Eighth Amendment "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required..."  The purpose of bail is to guarantee appearance in court -- not to punish.  If a citizen cannot afford to post bail, that is, by definition, excessive bail.  Continuing to hold that citizen deprives him of his right to confront witnesses and present evidence to the court, which, in turn, makes the presumption of innocence a cruel joke.