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.
Showing posts with label Harris County courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harris County courts. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Another day...
... another fucked up mess outside the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center.
This was the scene yesterday at 9:03 am outside the criminal courthouse. The line for the entrance on San Jacinto was just as long. And, once inside, it was time to deal with the long lines trying to get in the elevators.
Hey, McFly, we've got a problem.
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
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Diverting from the law
According to the Houston Chronicle, the Harris County DA's DIVERT program is the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to dealing with DWI. The article points out that more than 3,000 people have signed up for the program and that 1,431 people have completed it. There have also been 413 people who have been unsuccessful.
Of course the DA's office thinks the program is working great -- that's over 3,000 DWI cases that they didn't have to worry about trying. That's over 3,000 DWI cases in which they have a signed confession from the defendant and a guilty plea before a judge. That's over 3,000 under court supervision because of an allegation that someone was intoxicated while driving. That's over 3,000 cases in which the prosecutor doesn't have to worry about the legality of a stop, of the administration of roadside coordination exercises or the results of a breath or blood test.
We have no way of knowing in how many of those cases there were questions about the stop, the arrest or the testing of the driver. We have no way of knowing how many folks threw up their hands and chose not to fight their case because of a promise their case would be dismissed.
There is one judge at the Criminal (In)justice Center who sees the problem with DIVERT and is unwilling to turn a blind eye.
Judge Harmon is right. If DIVERT were a true pretrial diversion program there would be no guilty plea before the court. A true pretrial diversion plan is an agreement between the District Attorney and a defendant that the defendant will do certain things in exchange for his case being dismissed. If the defendant messes up, the deal is off and the case proceeds as normal - with the possibility that the defendant admitted guilt in his application for pretrial diversion.
In DIVERT, the defendant is taken before the judge and enters a plea of guilty to the charges. The court then resets the case for about a year in advance and the person goes on "probation." Should there be a problem, the person is brought back before the court and given the choice of 30 days in jail or withdrawing the plea and re-entering a plea for probation. That's the problem with entering that guilty plea.
As I've stated before, DIVERT is nothing but deferred adjudication by another name and an attempt by the judges and prosecutors in Harris County to get around the state's ban on deferred adjudication for driving while intoxicated.
Of course the DA's office thinks the program is working great -- that's over 3,000 DWI cases that they didn't have to worry about trying. That's over 3,000 DWI cases in which they have a signed confession from the defendant and a guilty plea before a judge. That's over 3,000 under court supervision because of an allegation that someone was intoxicated while driving. That's over 3,000 cases in which the prosecutor doesn't have to worry about the legality of a stop, of the administration of roadside coordination exercises or the results of a breath or blood test.
We have no way of knowing in how many of those cases there were questions about the stop, the arrest or the testing of the driver. We have no way of knowing how many folks threw up their hands and chose not to fight their case because of a promise their case would be dismissed.
There is one judge at the Criminal (In)justice Center who sees the problem with DIVERT and is unwilling to turn a blind eye.
Critics, including a Houston judge, say the program is illegal because it circumvents 1980s legislation that prohibits deferred adjudication for DWI defendants. Deferred adjudication is a form of probation that allows a defendant to maintain a clean record.
"Of course it's illegal," said criminal court-at-law Judge Bill Harmon. "But nobody cares."
Harmon has presided over criminal proceedings for 22 years as a state district judge and four years in the misdemeanor courts.
"The No. 1 thing that the Code of Criminal Procedure says that you can't get deferred adjudication for is driving while intoxicated," he said. "And court-ordered supervision after a plea of guilty is deferred adjudication."
Judge Harmon is right. If DIVERT were a true pretrial diversion program there would be no guilty plea before the court. A true pretrial diversion plan is an agreement between the District Attorney and a defendant that the defendant will do certain things in exchange for his case being dismissed. If the defendant messes up, the deal is off and the case proceeds as normal - with the possibility that the defendant admitted guilt in his application for pretrial diversion.
In DIVERT, the defendant is taken before the judge and enters a plea of guilty to the charges. The court then resets the case for about a year in advance and the person goes on "probation." Should there be a problem, the person is brought back before the court and given the choice of 30 days in jail or withdrawing the plea and re-entering a plea for probation. That's the problem with entering that guilty plea.
As I've stated before, DIVERT is nothing but deferred adjudication by another name and an attempt by the judges and prosecutors in Harris County to get around the state's ban on deferred adjudication for driving while intoxicated.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Lined up in the deep freeze
It would appear that my colleague, Murray Newman, beat me to the punch with his pictures of folks lined up outside the Criminal (In)justice Center this morning in temperatures that hovered around 27 degrees. Murray's photos show the view up San Jacinto Street.
As Paul Harvey might have said once or twice, here's the rest of the story -- the folks lined up in front of the courthouse on Franklin Street.
Enough of the madness. Most of the security measures at the courthouse are unnecessary. There are plenty of courthouses around this state without metal detectors and they seem to operate just fine.
It's time to stagger the morning dockets. It's time to granting longer resets for cases in which the defendant is out on bond. It's time to tune down the metal detectors. Do we really need everyone to take their shoes and boots off just to get into the courthouse?
You can bet that if the judges, prosecutors, county commissioners and the Office of Court Administration had to stand outside in a slow-moving line in sub-freezing temperatures, things would change.
As Paul Harvey might have said once or twice, here's the rest of the story -- the folks lined up in front of the courthouse on Franklin Street.
Enough of the madness. Most of the security measures at the courthouse are unnecessary. There are plenty of courthouses around this state without metal detectors and they seem to operate just fine.
It's time to stagger the morning dockets. It's time to granting longer resets for cases in which the defendant is out on bond. It's time to tune down the metal detectors. Do we really need everyone to take their shoes and boots off just to get into the courthouse?
You can bet that if the judges, prosecutors, county commissioners and the Office of Court Administration had to stand outside in a slow-moving line in sub-freezing temperatures, things would change.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Guilty unless proven otherwise
Who among us hasn't commented about the "black-robed prosecutor" sitting on the bench or about having to try a case against two prosecutors - the one at the table and the one at the bench?
On numerous occasions I've sat in the courtroom while the jury was out of the room and listened as the judge advised a young prosecutor how to get a specific piece of evidence admitted or how to lay the proper predicate. One judge even told a prosecutor while the jury was out to offer our client five days on a second DWI because, as the judge said, the conviction mattered, not the time.
It seems that one is not presumed innocent unless proven guilty in the Russian Federation -- one is merely waiting to see how bad the sentence will be.
And, should a defendant come before the bench for sentencing - either on a plea without a recommendation or as the result of a conviction, the judge is obligated to consider the entire range of punishment for that offense -- including probation.
I've asked the question before, and I'll ask it again, when a judge's campaign material says he's "tough," what does that mean? Is he going to hold the state to its burden of proof? Is he going to lend a critical eye to allegations that the police violated a defendant's constitutional rights? Or is he going to act as the second prosecutor in the courtroom?
That's what they do in Russia.
On numerous occasions I've sat in the courtroom while the jury was out of the room and listened as the judge advised a young prosecutor how to get a specific piece of evidence admitted or how to lay the proper predicate. One judge even told a prosecutor while the jury was out to offer our client five days on a second DWI because, as the judge said, the conviction mattered, not the time.
Critics say the judicial system in the Khodorkovsky case worked just the way Prime Minister Vladimir Putin wanted it to. Days before Khodorkovsky's new conviction, Putin said on television that "a thief belongs in jail." It was almost as if he gave the judge a signal, instructing him on what to do.According to a piece on NPR's Morning Edition, we're not the only ones playing against a loaded deck.
It seems that one is not presumed innocent unless proven guilty in the Russian Federation -- one is merely waiting to see how bad the sentence will be.
[J]udges seem to behave like they are an extension of law enforcement. Prosecutors file charges, and it's a judge's job to convict rather than interfere.Wander in and out of enough courtrooms at the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center and you may very well walk away with the same impression. During the recent election it was hard to tell whether some of the judicial candidates were running for the bench or for county sheriff.
One former judge, Alexander Melikov, told NPR that the judges are not bad people. It's just that many have a "mindset that a court is a law enforcement body; it is not an institution there to protect citizens." When he tried to work outside the system around 2003 and '04, his superiors complained that his decisions were too lenient — and he was fired.It may attract votes to run on a platform of being tough on crime, but it's highly improper and might even be (gasp) unethical. A judge's sole role on the bench is to act as am impartial arbiter. His job is to listen to the arguments of counsel when deciding upon the merits of a motion or determining whether objections should be overruled or sustained.
And, should a defendant come before the bench for sentencing - either on a plea without a recommendation or as the result of a conviction, the judge is obligated to consider the entire range of punishment for that offense -- including probation.
I've asked the question before, and I'll ask it again, when a judge's campaign material says he's "tough," what does that mean? Is he going to hold the state to its burden of proof? Is he going to lend a critical eye to allegations that the police violated a defendant's constitutional rights? Or is he going to act as the second prosecutor in the courtroom?
That's what they do in Russia.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Now we have a judge in Harris County who is concerned about the amount of time our clients miss from work or school as the result of appearing at court settings in criminal cases. At least that's the story going around.
In order to combat this problem, the Honorable Jay Karahan has decreed that there will only be three pre-trial settings in matters in his court: the initial appearance, a motions setting and a final setting either to plead the case or set it for trial. But will this "rocket docket" actually benefit our clients?
The answer is a resounding no.
Being required to make multiple appearances in court is an inconvenience for most of our clients. They have jobs. Or they're in school. Or they have family obligations. However, in some cases, multiple settings is the only way to obtain the evidence that is necessary to defend the case.
How long will it take to get that blood test result back? What about that lab report on that little rock in the floorboard? What about having to wait for an ALR hearing in a DWI case? How about obtaining maintenance records for a breath test machine?
Will the settings be 30 days apart? 45 days apart? 60 days apart?
Reducing the number of settings will benefit those attorneys who live by "churning and burning" their clients into quick pleas. No longer will they have to pretend to work a case to satisfy a client. Now they can scare their clients into pleading out by telling them that the case is bad and can't be won at trial.
The other result of the "rocket docket" will be more and more cases set on the trial docket. It takes time to prepare a case properly for trial, especially cases in which we're dealing with (pseudo)scientific evidence. It takes time to get an ALR hearing. It takes time to get lab results. It takes time to interview witnesses.
I can think of no reason a client in a criminal prosecution benefits by speeding up the docket - unless they're already in custody (in which case they aren't inconvenienced by multiple appearances). After all, every day that your client is out and about is a victory when you are up against the oppressive power of the state.
If the dockets have become unmanageable, maybe we should look to what's happening on the 6th floor at 1201 Franklin. Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos operates her office using fear as a motivator. There are prosecutors who are scared to dismiss questionable cases out of fear of retribution by Ms. Lykos.
The "rocket docket" is not being implemented to benefit our clients. Nothing in the criminal courthouse is designed to benefit our clients. The purpose is to coerce more pleas and deprive more citizens of their right to a trial by jury of their peers.
In order to combat this problem, the Honorable Jay Karahan has decreed that there will only be three pre-trial settings in matters in his court: the initial appearance, a motions setting and a final setting either to plead the case or set it for trial. But will this "rocket docket" actually benefit our clients?
The answer is a resounding no.
Being required to make multiple appearances in court is an inconvenience for most of our clients. They have jobs. Or they're in school. Or they have family obligations. However, in some cases, multiple settings is the only way to obtain the evidence that is necessary to defend the case.
How long will it take to get that blood test result back? What about that lab report on that little rock in the floorboard? What about having to wait for an ALR hearing in a DWI case? How about obtaining maintenance records for a breath test machine?
Will the settings be 30 days apart? 45 days apart? 60 days apart?
Reducing the number of settings will benefit those attorneys who live by "churning and burning" their clients into quick pleas. No longer will they have to pretend to work a case to satisfy a client. Now they can scare their clients into pleading out by telling them that the case is bad and can't be won at trial.
The other result of the "rocket docket" will be more and more cases set on the trial docket. It takes time to prepare a case properly for trial, especially cases in which we're dealing with (pseudo)scientific evidence. It takes time to get an ALR hearing. It takes time to get lab results. It takes time to interview witnesses.
I can think of no reason a client in a criminal prosecution benefits by speeding up the docket - unless they're already in custody (in which case they aren't inconvenienced by multiple appearances). After all, every day that your client is out and about is a victory when you are up against the oppressive power of the state.
If the dockets have become unmanageable, maybe we should look to what's happening on the 6th floor at 1201 Franklin. Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos operates her office using fear as a motivator. There are prosecutors who are scared to dismiss questionable cases out of fear of retribution by Ms. Lykos.
The "rocket docket" is not being implemented to benefit our clients. Nothing in the criminal courthouse is designed to benefit our clients. The purpose is to coerce more pleas and deprive more citizens of their right to a trial by jury of their peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)