Aging men and women are the most rapidly growing group in US prisons, and prison officials are hard-pressed to provide them appropriate housing and medical care, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Because of their higher rates of illness and impairments, older prisoners incur medical costs that are three to nine times as high as those for younger prisoners.A Texas-based fact-bite from the report: "In Texas, although elderly inmates represent only 5.4 percent of the inmate population, they account for more than 25 percent of hospitalization costs. The healthcare cost per day in fiscal year 2005 for an elderly offender was $26, compared to $7 per day for the average offender.[180] In fiscal year 2010, the state paid $4,853 per elderly offender for healthcare compared to $795 for inmates under 55.[181]"
The 104-page report, “Old Behind Bars: The Aging Prison Population in the United States,” includes new data Human Rights Watch developed from a variety of federal and state sources that document dramatic increases in the number of older US prisoners.
Human Rights Watch found that the number of sentenced state and federal prisoners age 65 or older grew at 94 times the rate of the overall prison population between 2007 and 2010. The number of sentenced prisoners age 55 or older grew at six times the rate of the overall prison population between 1995 and 2010.
“Prisons were never designed to be geriatric facilities,” said Jamie Fellner, senior adviser to the US Program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “Yet US corrections officials now operate old age homes behind bars.”
Long sentences mean that many current prisoners will not leave prison until they become extremely old, if at all. Human Rights Watch found that almost 1 in 10 state prisoners (9.6 percent) is serving a life sentence. An additional 11.2 percent have sentences longer than 20 years.
Friday, January 27, 2012
"Old Behind Bars"
From a Human Rights Watch press release:
Judge: State mental hospitals must take incompetent inmates within 21 days
Big news for mentally ill defendants in Texas declared incompetent to stand trial, not to mention the state agency that is supposed to provide "competency restoration" services, which presently has a months-long waiting list. After a court ruling this week, such long delays have been deemed unconstitutional and state mental hospitals have been ordered to begin taking inmates within 21 days after they've been declared incompetent. Reports Andrea Ball at the Austin Statesman ("Judge: Mentally incompetent inmates being kept in jail too long," Jan. 26):
The lawsuit is aimed at the Commissioner of the Department of State Health Services, and while everyone thinks it'd be a good idea to reduce waiting times, the decision raises as many questions as it answers. The state cut state hospital funding and other mental health services this year, so seeking more resources in the near term will be like squeezing blood from a stone. Meanwhile, the average waiting list for beds in 2011 was about 300 people, wrote Judge Naranjo, with about 800 beds designated for "forensic" use.
How will DSHS comply with this ruling or will they balk and appeal? If they comply, will they contract for beds, and if so where, and with what money? Will they shift more beds to forensic purposes, and if so what impact will that have on other severely mentally ill folks with civil commitments (69% of state hospital patients, says the ruling)? Will the Legislative Budget Board authorize extra interim expenditures - as they did for the $5 million per month extra being spent on TDCJ healthcare - or will they let the system limp along, noncompliant, until the 2013 session? And what remedy might Judge Naranjo be able to muster to compel them to act sooner? ¿Quien sabe?
This is a welcome ruling, but it doesn't manufacture extra hospital beds out of thin air. Perhaps, though, it will set in motion a process that forces the Legislature to focus on the question much more seriously, and immediately, than they have in the past.
Texas routinely violates the constitutional rights of mentally incompetent prisoners by forcing them to stay in jail for up to six months before moving them to psychiatric hospitals, a Travis County judge ruled this week.I contacted the attorney in the case from the group Disability Rights Texas, Beth Mitchell, who forwarded a copy of Judge Naranjo's ruling (uploaded here on Google Documents).
State District Judge Orlinda Naranjo ruled that the Department of State Health Services must start moving "forensic commitments" — people accused of crimes who have been ruled incompetent to stand trial because of mental illness — to state psychiatric hospitals within 21 days of receiving a judge's order. Over the past two years , the average prisoner spent six months in jail waiting for a hospital bed, the ruling states.
"Keeping incompetent pretrial criminal defendants confined in county jail for unreasonable periods of time violates the incompetent detainees' due process rights as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution," Naranjo wrote.
A final order that would specifically lay out how the health department should proceed has not been issued, said Tom Kelley , spokesman for the attorney general's office. That agency has not decided whether it will appeal the case. Right now, there is no timetable for when the changes might be instituted.
The lawsuit is aimed at the Commissioner of the Department of State Health Services, and while everyone thinks it'd be a good idea to reduce waiting times, the decision raises as many questions as it answers. The state cut state hospital funding and other mental health services this year, so seeking more resources in the near term will be like squeezing blood from a stone. Meanwhile, the average waiting list for beds in 2011 was about 300 people, wrote Judge Naranjo, with about 800 beds designated for "forensic" use.
How will DSHS comply with this ruling or will they balk and appeal? If they comply, will they contract for beds, and if so where, and with what money? Will they shift more beds to forensic purposes, and if so what impact will that have on other severely mentally ill folks with civil commitments (69% of state hospital patients, says the ruling)? Will the Legislative Budget Board authorize extra interim expenditures - as they did for the $5 million per month extra being spent on TDCJ healthcare - or will they let the system limp along, noncompliant, until the 2013 session? And what remedy might Judge Naranjo be able to muster to compel them to act sooner? ¿Quien sabe?
This is a welcome ruling, but it doesn't manufacture extra hospital beds out of thin air. Perhaps, though, it will set in motion a process that forces the Legislature to focus on the question much more seriously, and immediately, than they have in the past.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
23% of Texas prison spending outside of TDCJ's budget
According to a new report (pdf) by the Vera Institute, "Texas taxpayers pay an average 23 percent more for state prisons than the state’s annual corrections budget reflects," reports Mike Ward at the Austin Statesman: "The new report by the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York-based research organization that tracks criminal justice trends, calculates the state’s total costs for its adult corrections and prison programs at $3.3 billion — almost $783 million higher than the $2.5 billion annual budget for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice." Wrote Ward:
While Texas’ costs were 23.7 percent higher with the associated additional costs, other states ranged from 1 percent higher (Arizona) to 34 percent (Connecticut). Texas was one of six states — Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, New York and Pennsylvania — where between 20 and 34 percent of the corrections budgets were outside the prisons system budget.Factors outside of TDCJ's budget included employee benefits and taxes, underfunded pension benefits and retiree health contributions, retirement costs, judgments and claims, and statewide administrative costs. I wonder what the folks at the Legislative Budget Board would have to say about Vera's calculations, and whether they need to update their Uniform Cost Report (pdf) on corrections as a result?
When all costs are considered, the annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,166 per convict, according to the study. In Texas, the cost is $21,390 a year per convict.
See the full report, The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers, here.
SCOTUS expands scope of Fourth Amendment in divided 9-0 ruling
At the US Supreme Court case this week, the opinion in US v. Jones on GPS tracking of private vehicles was a fascinating piece of jurisprudence. Ostensibly a 9-0 decision, the only thing all nine justices agreed on was the bottom line that "the decision of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed," and none of them for precisely the reasons on which the lower court based its decision!
To make matters even more confusing, as Tom Goldstein pointed out at SCOTUSBlog, most of the mainstream media misinterpreted the opinion to say a warrant is required to use GPS tracking on a personal vehicle. But the ruling does not address the warrant requirement, only whether the GPS tracking constituted a "search."
What's the distinction? The Fourth Amendment only bans "unreasonable" searches without a warrant, but the courts have carved out wide swaths of legal territory where warrantless searches are routinely allowed. Wrote Goldstein, "The government probably conducts fifty times as many warrantless searches a day as warrant-based searches. The government can sometimes conduct warrantless searches on less than probable cause, as when a police officer pats down someone on the street or TSA puts carry-on luggage through an x-ray machine." I'd also add consent searches at traffic stops and searches incident to arrest as examples of warrantless searches. They're far more common than search warrants, and there's no guarantee this ruling will require a warrant in every instance GPS is used by federal agents, particularly when it's used for a relatively brief period of time.
In an earlier post, Goldstein discussed the breakdown among justices as insightfully as I've seen on this case:
Seldom do 9-0 rulings reveal such sharp, underlying disagreement. But that's not the biggest story coming out of the case, which surely marks one of the most important moments in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the last 50 years. As Orin Kerr pointed out at the Volokh Conspiracy, Scalia's majority opinion articulated a new test for what constitutes a search, reaching back to historic court precedents based on property rights as opposed to modern jurisprudence based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy," first articulated in the Katz decision in 1967. That case, which dealt with an eavesdropping device planted in a phone booth (ask your parents or watch an episode of Dr. Who if you don't know what that is), found that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places” abandoning the "trespass" model.
Scalia's opinion, though, demands that a defendant's "Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation" and makes the claim that "Katz did not narrow the Fourth Amendment’s scope." That's a matter of opinion and I surely disagree with it. I think Katz significantly narrowed the Fourth Amendment's scope by placing the focus almost solely on "reasonableness," and that this opinion reinforcing other aspects - in particular, the enumerated, protected places and items - represents a welcome corrective, broadening the Fourth Amendment's scope instead of narrowing it for the first time in decades.
Regardless, according to Scalia's most recent pronouncement, "the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test." So going forward, the court has effectively added a new definition of what is a search while keeping the old one intact, expanding the scope of the Fourth Amendment in some as-yet-to-be-defined way.
Though I happen to agree with Scalia's policy choice in this case, it's pretty clear he's the one adding to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, expanding the definition of a search beyond its Katz-based limits. Justice Alito called the majority opinion "unwise," declaring that "It strains the language of the Fourth Amendment; it has little if any support in current Fourth Amendment case law; and it is highly artificial." For Alito, as the court had expressly declared in its Kyollo ruling, the Katz opinion “decoupled violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights from trespassory violation of his property,” which is certainly how this non-lawyer always understood it. While IMO Alito's concurrence accurately reflects the trajectory of Fourth Amendment stare decisis, Scalia's back-to-basics approach revitalizes aspects of the Fourth Amendment that the Katz approach brushed past too breezily in the name of reasonableness.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor received a great deal of attention for her concurrence, in which she expressed the fear that “GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may 'alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.'” (I'm glad somebody said it!)
Even "more fundamentally," wrote Sotomayor, "it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties." Hear, hear! That indeed is the great dark cloud looming over Americans' privacy frontier. Too bad the court's second-most junior justice couldn't get any of her colleagues to sign onto the sentiment that the court should address the question.
Just to mention it, for us here in Texas this ruling only applies to federal agents, as we already have a requirement that law-enforcement get a court order before placing a "mobile tracking device" on your car.
MORE: From Lori Andrews at The Crime Report.
To make matters even more confusing, as Tom Goldstein pointed out at SCOTUSBlog, most of the mainstream media misinterpreted the opinion to say a warrant is required to use GPS tracking on a personal vehicle. But the ruling does not address the warrant requirement, only whether the GPS tracking constituted a "search."
What's the distinction? The Fourth Amendment only bans "unreasonable" searches without a warrant, but the courts have carved out wide swaths of legal territory where warrantless searches are routinely allowed. Wrote Goldstein, "The government probably conducts fifty times as many warrantless searches a day as warrant-based searches. The government can sometimes conduct warrantless searches on less than probable cause, as when a police officer pats down someone on the street or TSA puts carry-on luggage through an x-ray machine." I'd also add consent searches at traffic stops and searches incident to arrest as examples of warrantless searches. They're far more common than search warrants, and there's no guarantee this ruling will require a warrant in every instance GPS is used by federal agents, particularly when it's used for a relatively brief period of time.
In an earlier post, Goldstein discussed the breakdown among justices as insightfully as I've seen on this case:
I think that the correct way to understand the case is to read it as having two separate majority opinions. This odd alignment occurs because Justice Sotomayor agrees with both theories: she agrees with the majority “at a minimum” (Sotomayor op. at 1) and also seemingly agrees with the concurrence’s “incisive” conclusions (id. at 3). Justice Sotomayor does not formally join the Alito opinion, but her sympathy for its finding of a Fourth Amendment “search” in GPS monitoring is fairly obvious, as she expresses a broader view of privacy than any other member of the Court.Votes on Fourth Amendment questions tend to defy partisan makeup. In Jones, basically court conservatives and Sotomayor sided with Scalia for the majority opinion expanding the Fourth Amendment's scope, while Alito teamed up with those considered the "liberal" wing to denounce the expansion and critique Scalia's judicial activism.
Here is the upshot. Five Justices join the holding of the “majority” opinion (per Scalia) that by attaching and monitoring a GPS device the police conduct a “search”; four Justices (those in the Alito concurrence) reject that view. Five Justices join or express their agreement with the portion of the “Alito” opinion concluding that the long-term monitoring of a GPS device violates a reasonable expectation of privacy; four Justices (those in the majority, minus Sotomayor) leave that question open.
Seldom do 9-0 rulings reveal such sharp, underlying disagreement. But that's not the biggest story coming out of the case, which surely marks one of the most important moments in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the last 50 years. As Orin Kerr pointed out at the Volokh Conspiracy, Scalia's majority opinion articulated a new test for what constitutes a search, reaching back to historic court precedents based on property rights as opposed to modern jurisprudence based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy," first articulated in the Katz decision in 1967. That case, which dealt with an eavesdropping device planted in a phone booth (ask your parents or watch an episode of Dr. Who if you don't know what that is), found that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places” abandoning the "trespass" model.
Scalia's opinion, though, demands that a defendant's "Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation" and makes the claim that "Katz did not narrow the Fourth Amendment’s scope." That's a matter of opinion and I surely disagree with it. I think Katz significantly narrowed the Fourth Amendment's scope by placing the focus almost solely on "reasonableness," and that this opinion reinforcing other aspects - in particular, the enumerated, protected places and items - represents a welcome corrective, broadening the Fourth Amendment's scope instead of narrowing it for the first time in decades.
Regardless, according to Scalia's most recent pronouncement, "the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test." So going forward, the court has effectively added a new definition of what is a search while keeping the old one intact, expanding the scope of the Fourth Amendment in some as-yet-to-be-defined way.
Though I happen to agree with Scalia's policy choice in this case, it's pretty clear he's the one adding to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, expanding the definition of a search beyond its Katz-based limits. Justice Alito called the majority opinion "unwise," declaring that "It strains the language of the Fourth Amendment; it has little if any support in current Fourth Amendment case law; and it is highly artificial." For Alito, as the court had expressly declared in its Kyollo ruling, the Katz opinion “decoupled violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights from trespassory violation of his property,” which is certainly how this non-lawyer always understood it. While IMO Alito's concurrence accurately reflects the trajectory of Fourth Amendment stare decisis, Scalia's back-to-basics approach revitalizes aspects of the Fourth Amendment that the Katz approach brushed past too breezily in the name of reasonableness.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor received a great deal of attention for her concurrence, in which she expressed the fear that “GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may 'alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.'” (I'm glad somebody said it!)
Even "more fundamentally," wrote Sotomayor, "it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties." Hear, hear! That indeed is the great dark cloud looming over Americans' privacy frontier. Too bad the court's second-most junior justice couldn't get any of her colleagues to sign onto the sentiment that the court should address the question.
Just to mention it, for us here in Texas this ruling only applies to federal agents, as we already have a requirement that law-enforcement get a court order before placing a "mobile tracking device" on your car.
MORE: From Lori Andrews at The Crime Report.
Red-light cameras in Houston and the price of democracy
Some in the Houston media are giving the mayor and city council heat for a proposed settlement with its red-light camera contractor (ATS) - delayed for two weeks at the Wednesday city council meeting - that may eventually cause taxpayers to bail out the contract, which was supposed to be paid solely with red-light ticket fines. But under the circumstances, the settlement seems like a reasonable, if not an inevitable result.
Here's the extenuating circumstance: A citizens group gathered by gathered signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and a majority of Houstonians voted against red-light cameras. Later, a federal judge said the plebiscite couldn't override the city's contract with the red-light vendor, but the majority of city councilmembers, including the mayor, decided to succumb to the will of the voters. So the city council first made an unpopular decision, was rebuffed at the polls by their constituents, and now faces expenses associated with undoing a hastily implemented contract, which turns out to have just been a bad idea that's caused them nothing but grief.
Casting another fly in the ointment, brothers Michael and Randy Kubosh, who launched and funded the referendum drive against the cameras, got the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the day before the city was to consider the settlement agreement, to make them a party to the suit in order to challenge the judge's ruling that the plebiscite was illegal. That prompted the city attorney to recommend against the settlement with ATS unless the Kuboshes dropped out of the suit. The council delayed the decision for two weeks to sort things out.
What a mess. Politically, the Kuboshes have won the red-light camera fight, with even camera proponents like the mayor now toeing the no-more-cameras line. Legally though, their fight has morphed from one over taking down red-light cameras to a different, unrelated battle over the limits of initiative and referenda, and the new focus could disrupt their original political objective. I'm not sure quite how I feel about that. Part of me wishes they'd have declared victory and moved on.
From Grits perspective, given the city's contractual obligations and federal court rulings in the case, the settlement looked like a good deal. Kuff points out that, with some $3 million in the bank, "the up front payment and most of the first year’s payment after that are covered. The city – presumably, an agent on their behalf – would take over collection duties from ATS. We’ll see how that goes." So if the taxpayers are on the hook, it won't be for at least another couple of years, and maybe not then depending on collection rates.
How much might taxpayers eventually have to pay? The total owed is $4.8 million, but a local TV station reported the city had $2.3 million in the bank while the Mayor's office told Kuff they had $3 million in that account. So taxpayers could be on the hook for $1.8 to $2.5 million judging from that range of estimates. Mistakes can be costly, in politics and life. OTOH, in the long run Houston drivers will save a LOT more than $2.5 million in fines from having the cameras taken down, and they pay taxes, too.
(BTW, Kuff mentions another upcoming Texas plebiscite on red light cameras: "Finally, in red light camera news elsewhere, League City residents will vote on whether or not to extend that city’s contract with a red light camera company. The contract runs through 2014, and a proposition about it will be 'in the next special municipal election', whenever that is. Red light opponents have a pretty good track record in these elections, and I’m sure they will be gunning for this one as well.")
The red-light camera fad is an example of seeking criminal-justice solutions to engineering problems out of essentially a financial motivation. Lengthening yellow-light times at those intersections by one second would do more than cameras and tickets to reduce accidents, but that wouldn't have generated the new revenue stream. (They can and should still lengthen yellow-light times at problem intersections, in fact.) Perhaps it was a costly lesson, but if the settlement gets done, Houston can chalk up that $1.8 to $2.5 million to the price of democracy.
Here's the extenuating circumstance: A citizens group gathered by gathered signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and a majority of Houstonians voted against red-light cameras. Later, a federal judge said the plebiscite couldn't override the city's contract with the red-light vendor, but the majority of city councilmembers, including the mayor, decided to succumb to the will of the voters. So the city council first made an unpopular decision, was rebuffed at the polls by their constituents, and now faces expenses associated with undoing a hastily implemented contract, which turns out to have just been a bad idea that's caused them nothing but grief.
Casting another fly in the ointment, brothers Michael and Randy Kubosh, who launched and funded the referendum drive against the cameras, got the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the day before the city was to consider the settlement agreement, to make them a party to the suit in order to challenge the judge's ruling that the plebiscite was illegal. That prompted the city attorney to recommend against the settlement with ATS unless the Kuboshes dropped out of the suit. The council delayed the decision for two weeks to sort things out.
What a mess. Politically, the Kuboshes have won the red-light camera fight, with even camera proponents like the mayor now toeing the no-more-cameras line. Legally though, their fight has morphed from one over taking down red-light cameras to a different, unrelated battle over the limits of initiative and referenda, and the new focus could disrupt their original political objective. I'm not sure quite how I feel about that. Part of me wishes they'd have declared victory and moved on.
From Grits perspective, given the city's contractual obligations and federal court rulings in the case, the settlement looked like a good deal. Kuff points out that, with some $3 million in the bank, "the up front payment and most of the first year’s payment after that are covered. The city – presumably, an agent on their behalf – would take over collection duties from ATS. We’ll see how that goes." So if the taxpayers are on the hook, it won't be for at least another couple of years, and maybe not then depending on collection rates.
How much might taxpayers eventually have to pay? The total owed is $4.8 million, but a local TV station reported the city had $2.3 million in the bank while the Mayor's office told Kuff they had $3 million in that account. So taxpayers could be on the hook for $1.8 to $2.5 million judging from that range of estimates. Mistakes can be costly, in politics and life. OTOH, in the long run Houston drivers will save a LOT more than $2.5 million in fines from having the cameras taken down, and they pay taxes, too.
(BTW, Kuff mentions another upcoming Texas plebiscite on red light cameras: "Finally, in red light camera news elsewhere, League City residents will vote on whether or not to extend that city’s contract with a red light camera company. The contract runs through 2014, and a proposition about it will be 'in the next special municipal election', whenever that is. Red light opponents have a pretty good track record in these elections, and I’m sure they will be gunning for this one as well.")
The red-light camera fad is an example of seeking criminal-justice solutions to engineering problems out of essentially a financial motivation. Lengthening yellow-light times at those intersections by one second would do more than cameras and tickets to reduce accidents, but that wouldn't have generated the new revenue stream. (They can and should still lengthen yellow-light times at problem intersections, in fact.) Perhaps it was a costly lesson, but if the settlement gets done, Houston can chalk up that $1.8 to $2.5 million to the price of democracy.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Upward budget pressure at crime labs
A pair of stories from out of state underscore two sources of upward budget pressure at crime labs that Grits suspects apply equally here in the Lone Star State. Crime labs are expensive, labor-intensive operations, and Texas and other states have traditionally underinvested in them, leading to significant backlogs. Meanwhile, a combination of court rulings and technological innovation will ratchet up demand considerably for these services in the near term.
First, re: court rulings. In Melendez-Diaz and subsequent cases, Justice Anontin Scalia has led a US Supreme Court majority in reinvigorating the Confrontation Clause, requiring crime lab experts to testify in person (in order to be cross-examined) instead of simply sending written reports which cannot be interrogated. The inevitable result is crime lab scientists going to court more often, and in Arkansas, 42% of crime lab scientists' courtroom trips last year did not result in giving testimony, reported AP (Jan. 22):
Grits was also interested to see a story out of Connecticut, where the overwhelmed state crime lab established new guidelines discouraging agencies from submitting evidence:
This problem isn't going away: State budget writers will be grousing about crime labs as money pits for many years before lab capacity finally catches up to demand.
First, re: court rulings. In Melendez-Diaz and subsequent cases, Justice Anontin Scalia has led a US Supreme Court majority in reinvigorating the Confrontation Clause, requiring crime lab experts to testify in person (in order to be cross-examined) instead of simply sending written reports which cannot be interrogated. The inevitable result is crime lab scientists going to court more often, and in Arkansas, 42% of crime lab scientists' courtroom trips last year did not result in giving testimony, reported AP (Jan. 22):
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Sunday (http://bit.ly/wP2ZHQ ) that lab analysts such as DNA specialists, drug chemists and medical examiners traveled to county courthouses around the state but ended up not testifying 238 out of 573 times last year. That means 42 percent of the lab experts' court trips didn't yield any testimony in 2011.I've never seen similar data regarding Texas crime labs, but I'll bet the Arkansas situation is not unique. After Melendez-Diaz (2009), it's almost inevitable crime lab scientists would go to court more often without testifying. Certainly the SCOTUS justices were aware of that fact during their discussion at oral argument. There's a pricetag associated with that judgment, however, and this story out of Arkansas is the first time I've seen somebody put a dollar figure to it.
Grits was also interested to see a story out of Connecticut, where the overwhelmed state crime lab established new guidelines discouraging agencies from submitting evidence:
Police agencies across Connecticut are now being asked for the first time to limit their submissions to the state lab under new guidelines that took effect Jan. 1. The state also plans to hire 25 to 35 new lab workers to reduce the backlog to a manageable level, but it may take two to three years before the new employees are trained and ready to work, said Michael Lawlor, criminal justice aide to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.
The number of DNA cases that have not been started at the forensics lab in Meriden skyrocketed from less than 250 in mid-2006 to nearly 3,900 last year, according to the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, which oversees the lab. During the same time period, the number of lab workers has decreased about 10 percent to 90. The wait for DNA testing in many cases is more than three years.The advent of "touch DNA" and the expansion of DNA evidence to nonviolent offenses like burglary mean the near-term growth potential for DNA examiners may be limited only by how much state and local governments are willing to pay for them. Add to that forensic scientists spending more time in the courtroom away from the lab, and crime labs are being asked to do much more with fewer scientists available to perform the tasks.
If no extra staff were added, officials say the lab's DNA unit by April 2013 would only be able to perform testing in felony cases that are reaching the statute of limitations for prosecution. The lab wouldn't be able to test samples in hundreds of other criminal cases.
The lab is also dealing with backlogs in other types of evidence testing, including nearly 1,700 firearms cases and 1,400 latent fingerprinting cases.
The state lab's backlog follows a national trend. DNA casework backlogs at labs across the country increased from about 38,000 in 2005 to nearly 112,000 in 2009, according to the latest available U.S. Justice Department statistics. In addition to an increase of samples from crime scenes, most states have passed laws requiring DNA testing of criminals, adding to many labs' backlogs.
This problem isn't going away: State budget writers will be grousing about crime labs as money pits for many years before lab capacity finally catches up to demand.
Blind administration would improve accuracy of forensics
The Economist argues that even the most powerful forensic tools, including DNA can be tainted by "cognitive bias" when scientists are given too much "contextual information" about the case, citing a study where DNA analysts unfamiliar with case details were less likely to find a match than the original examiners who knew the case details. The magazine grants that:
one example does not prove the existence of a systematic problem. But it does point to a sloppy approach to science. According to Norah Rudin, a forensic-DNA consultant in Mountain View, California, forensic scientists are beginning to accept that cognitive bias exists, but there is still a lot of resistance to the idea, because examiners take the criticism personally and feel they are being accused of doing bad science. According to Dr Rudin, the attitude that cognitive bias can somehow be willed away, by education, training or good intentions, is still pervasive.
Medical researchers, by contrast, take great care to make drug trials “blind”, so that neither the patient nor the administering doctor knows who is receiving the drug being tested, and who is getting a control drug or placebo. When someone’s freedom—and, in an American context, possibly his life, as well—is at stake, it surely behooves forensic-science laboratories to take precautions that are equally strong.Blind administration turned out to be a key reform for eyewitness identification, and your correspondent has long believed the same approach is justified in other forensic disciplines. Why does a DNA analyst need to know case details before deciding if two samples match? Not only is it irrelevant to the analysis, it may actually turn out to reduce its accuracy.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Liberty County lowers jail pop nearly 2/3, private contractor wants to up rates, county may de-privatize
Remarkably, Liberty County has reduced its local jail population by nearly 2/3 since early 2011 simply by issuing more personal bonds to low-risk defendants, reported the Cleveland Advocate ("County's jail population down, but companies now asking for more money per inmate," Jan. 22):
There's a kicker, though: The private prison company which manages the facility, alarmed by declining inmate numbers (and the state's closure of a small intermediate sanctions faciliity housed at the jail), wants to raise the county's per-inmate rate, wiping out savings to the taxpayer from all their hard work. Reported the Advocate's Vanessa Brasher:
Grits mentioned the other day how remarkable and noteworthy it is that crime rates (including homicides) declined dramatically in Houston during a period when the county jail population decreased 31%. And in Bexar County, the commissioners court is interrogating why a large reduction (1,000+) in inmate numbers hasn't yielded more savings for the county.
Liberty County's relative achievement (though on a much smaller scale) is even more impressive and worthy of emulation. Their example shows that when judges take the lead, excess incarceration at county jails can be reduced pretty darn rapidly, with little identifiable detriment to public safety. The main barrier to reducing jail costs is a lack of leadership and political courage among judges, who have the authority to act and are uniquely positioned to build consensus among other elected officials (particularly DAs, who can easily throw monkey wrenches into the gears of they have no incentive to work together, and commissioners courts, who must pay for incarceration alternatives).
Finally, it's a welcome development that counties are beginning to see jails as an expense that could be cut instead of a sacred budget cow they daren't touch. I don't think Harris, Bexar, and Liberty will be the last counties we hear of in the next 3-5 years reducing jail populations to save costs.
Liberty County is already seeing a reduction in costs for the operation of the county jail thanks to a plan initiated by 253rd District Court Judge Chap B. Cain and supported by County Judge Craig McNair, County Court-at-Law Judge Tommy Chambers and 75th District Court Judge Mark Morefield to reduce the inmate population. Morefield discussed the plan as guest speaker of the Cleveland Rotary Club luncheon on Jan. 18
According to Morefield, at the time the plan was put into place, the county was spending 11 percent of its total budget, around $3.85 million, to fund the county jail. Much of the burden had to do with the fact that non-violent offenders were not being released because they were unable to pay their bond.
“It is not about overcrowding. It’s about the expense to the county and ultimately the taxpayers of Liberty County,” said Morefield. “The plan is designed to release low-risk inmates. Give them a PR (personal recognizance) bond and get them out of jail and off the fee list. With PR bonds, there hasn’t always been oversight, but our plan alleviates some of the concern.”
In early 2011, there were 372 male and female inmates in the county jail. For each inmate, the county was required to pay $46.50 to the company contracted to manage the jail, Community Education Centers (CEC).
That equated to around $17,000 per day in costs to the county for housing the inmates.
When the judges met in April prior to the plan being implemented, the inmate population had dropped, but the cost to the county was still around $10,000 per day. According to Morefield, the recent inmate population has dropped to 132.
“That is still not sufficient. We ought to be able to get it down to 100-110,” he said.
While saving county taxpayers is the objective of the plan, the judges are not totally focused on money matters.
“We would never sacrifice the safety of our citizens for economy,” said Morefield.Liberty County's approach works for one simple reason: The local judiciary led the effort and that's who actually makes the decision regarding whether defendants must put up bail. Any objections by local bail bond companies were apparently overruled and the DA, judging from comments in the article, didn't fight the change, so this is a model that may not be replicable elsewhere.
There's a kicker, though: The private prison company which manages the facility, alarmed by declining inmate numbers (and the state's closure of a small intermediate sanctions faciliity housed at the jail), wants to raise the county's per-inmate rate, wiping out savings to the taxpayer from all their hard work. Reported the Advocate's Vanessa Brasher:
The judges’ plan, having saved the taxpayers millions, may have inadvertently forced the county to no longer outsource the jail’s operation.Most Texas counties can run their jails at a far lower cost per day than the estimates being bandied about in this story, so de-privatization may indeed make a great deal of economic sense, particularly now that jail population numbers are down an amazing 64.5% in just a single year's time!
The county is currently accepting bids for the jail contract. Morefield said companies submitting bids are apparently aware of the judges’ inmate reduction plan. All of the bids received so far are set on a sliding fee scale.
“One bid said that if the inmate population goes below 200, the cost per inmate goes from $63 to $68 per day. If we work really hard to decrease the inmate population, the cost will go up to $70 per day,” said Morefield. “They are taking all the incentive out of it.”
Morefield feels the county is capable of managing its own jail.
“The prevailing thought any time the government undertakes a project is that the government will pay 1.5 times for something. Government is wasteful. I challenge that thinking that government cannot compete with the private sector. I advocate that you talk to county commissioners about the county taking over the jail,” said Morefield. “I am not saying it will be economically feasible but the taxpayers deserve answers to this issue.”
Grits mentioned the other day how remarkable and noteworthy it is that crime rates (including homicides) declined dramatically in Houston during a period when the county jail population decreased 31%. And in Bexar County, the commissioners court is interrogating why a large reduction (1,000+) in inmate numbers hasn't yielded more savings for the county.
Liberty County's relative achievement (though on a much smaller scale) is even more impressive and worthy of emulation. Their example shows that when judges take the lead, excess incarceration at county jails can be reduced pretty darn rapidly, with little identifiable detriment to public safety. The main barrier to reducing jail costs is a lack of leadership and political courage among judges, who have the authority to act and are uniquely positioned to build consensus among other elected officials (particularly DAs, who can easily throw monkey wrenches into the gears of they have no incentive to work together, and commissioners courts, who must pay for incarceration alternatives).
Finally, it's a welcome development that counties are beginning to see jails as an expense that could be cut instead of a sacred budget cow they daren't touch. I don't think Harris, Bexar, and Liberty will be the last counties we hear of in the next 3-5 years reducing jail populations to save costs.
Audits of asset forfeiture funds yield questions, felony conviction of Brooks/Jim Wells DA
Joe Frank Garza, the former DA of Brooks and Jim Wells counties, which slice through rural South Texas along US 281, gave his first interview since his conviction last year for misappropriation of public funds to Mark Collette of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times ("As new questions emerge, former District Attorney Garza speaks about forfeiture funds," Jan. 22). Here's a notable excerpt from the article:
Further, wrote Collette, "The county has no record of any budgets submitted by Lozano. The audit reports that when a county auditor raised objections about the sheriff's spending, Lozano and Garza replied with statements such as 'the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.'" Big ticket item to be accounted for include $88K in credit card purchases which appear mostly unrelated to law enforcement. Also, "About $394,000 was spent to buy 18 vehicles, apparently without competitive purchasing procedures. The auditor had difficulty tracking what happened to the vehicles and whether the county received money when they were sold." (Here's a copy of the October 2011 audit (pdf) of the Sheriff's asset forfeiture fund.)
So the former DA in Brooks and Jim Wells counties pled guilty to a first-degree felony for overpaying himself and his staff with asset-forfeiture money, but thinks he did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, the ex-Brooks County Sheriff treated asset forfeiture money as his own private slush fund with little accountability. One wonders what similar audits would find in other jurisdictions? Are these examples outliers or would similar self dealing and/or misappropriations be discovered elsewhere, if anyone bothered to look?
MORE: From Texas Watchdog.
From 2002 to 2008, [Garza] used the funds for himself and to supplement employee salaries without approval. An audit showed more than $4.2 million went to salary supplements for Garza and at least three of his employees, and trips to casinos. Three secretaries received more than $1 million during a five-year period — or more than $66,000 per secretary per year, effectively doubling or tripling their pay. Garza said the secretaries deserved it.Meanwhile, Collette reported yesterday in a separate item ("Former Brooks County Sheriff under investigation for use of seized cash"), the former Brooks County Sheriff has his own asset-forfeiture related woes, reports Collette:
As part of the plea deal, Garza was sentenced to 10 years in prison, which was suspended for 10 years probation. Garza spent six months in jail as a condition of probation and was forced to surrender his law license. He also was ordered to pay $2.16 million in restitution and a $10,000 fine.
State law requires custodians of forfeiture funds to submit detailed budgets outlining how they intend to use the money. Garza said he didn't understand the budget requirement because the statute was "so confusing."
In 2001 the statute contained the same requirement it has today for district attorneys: "The budget must be detailed and clearly list and define the categories of expenditures."
Garza said the law, which allows district attorneys to used seized funds for official purposes, lets the district attorney determine what qualifies as an official purpose. He claimed he asked state officials in 2000 whether there were limitations on how he could use the money and was told, "You can spend it for whatever, so long as you don't put it in your wallet."
He said he received advice from a county auditor and county judge who told him he didn't need to submit budgets for forfeiture fund expenditures.
The state's prosecutors didn't buy it.
"He knew better," Assistant Attorney General Shane Attaway said when Garza took the plea deal. "This is pure greed. This isn't an accident."
Garza complained that the audit of his funds and subsequent prosecution were politically motivated.
An auditor found more than $500,000 in questionable purchases through former Brooks County Sheriff Balde Lozano's criminal asset forfeiture funds, prompting a local prosecutor to refer the matter to the Texas Attorney General's office.Indeed, Lozano shouldn't spend too much time wondering why he's being dragged back into it! Reports Collette, "State law requires sheriffs, district attorneys and other officials who oversee seizure funds to submit forms yearly to the state comptroller and Texas attorney general detailing the money and seized property flowing through the funds and listing how much money was spent in various categories, such as salaries, equipment and travel expenses. There is no record of Lozano submitting the paperwork during his 12 years in office." Whoops.
According to the audit, some of the purchases were channeled through funds controlled by Joe Frank Garza, the former 79th District Attorney who pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge for paying himself and his employees more than $2 million from his office's forfeiture fund without county commissioners' approval.
Lozano, 59, who is now a Falfurrias police officer, was sheriff from 1997 through 2009. He did not accept requests for an interview but provided a written statement saying the audit was politically motivated.
"I have been out of politics for the last three years," Lozano wrote. "It seems like the present sheriff's administration continues to try to drag me back into it."
Further, wrote Collette, "The county has no record of any budgets submitted by Lozano. The audit reports that when a county auditor raised objections about the sheriff's spending, Lozano and Garza replied with statements such as 'the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.'" Big ticket item to be accounted for include $88K in credit card purchases which appear mostly unrelated to law enforcement. Also, "About $394,000 was spent to buy 18 vehicles, apparently without competitive purchasing procedures. The auditor had difficulty tracking what happened to the vehicles and whether the county received money when they were sold." (Here's a copy of the October 2011 audit (pdf) of the Sheriff's asset forfeiture fund.)
So the former DA in Brooks and Jim Wells counties pled guilty to a first-degree felony for overpaying himself and his staff with asset-forfeiture money, but thinks he did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, the ex-Brooks County Sheriff treated asset forfeiture money as his own private slush fund with little accountability. One wonders what similar audits would find in other jurisdictions? Are these examples outliers or would similar self dealing and/or misappropriations be discovered elsewhere, if anyone bothered to look?
MORE: From Texas Watchdog.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Inmates and media: The Prison Show, snail mail and appreciating the Apostle Paul
A coupla interesting stories discussing inmates' relationship to media caught Grits' attention. First, NPR this week had a feature on The Prison Show, emphasizing how the long-running Houston-based radio show focuses on connecting inmates to their families.
"So many people go to prison and those relationships end," [host David] Babb says. "The families will write to them for a while, they'll go visit them for a while and it becomes a burden, it just tends to fades away."
But the show gives prisoners a way to stay connected and the call-ins they get from children are proof of that. One daughter left this message for her incarcerated dad: "Well, school's going great. I don't have any classes with my friends but I'm seeing that as the bright side to make new friends ... And I'm just loving school right now. So I hope you can wish me luck when it comes to all the tests I have to take this year. OK, love you, Dad. See you soon, I hope."At The Baptist Standard, there's an interesting article suggesting inmates understand the ancients' relationship to the written word more innately and viscerally than those in the free world because of their relationship to snail mail.
Stephen Presley, who teaches a biblical interpretation class at a maximum-security prison near Houston, said the inmates' familiarity with letter writing has given them a unique perspective on the epistles that comprise a large portion of the New Testament.
"I think that (for) those of us who live in a world that's dominated by e-mail and controlled by other forms of technology, sometimes it's hard for us to understand the genre of letter writing—the genre of the epistles," Presley said.
"But for those who live in this world (behind bars), it was so easy for them to comprehend and to almost identify with the early church in the way they would have felt receiving these letters from Paul and how they would have treated the letter, perhaps, even in ways we don't, in terms of reading it from start to finish, reading it closely and observing every word."
Friday, January 20, 2012
Change v. Tradition, lawyers v. journalists, and other perennial conflicts
Lots of tidbits this morning competing for Grits attention:
Travis DA race: Change v. Tradition
At the Austin Chronicle, Michael King has a pair of interviews with challenger Charlie Baird and incumbent Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg in what shapes up to be a dandy of a Democratic primary race between two political and legal veterans during which, judging from these interviews, many seldom-discussed aspects of the justice system will be vetted.
APD crime lab whistleblower interviewed
In Austin, KVUE-TV has an interview with the whistleblower alleging violations at the APD crime lab.
Dumped
Video: Littlefield, Texas: 'Meet town bankrupted by private prisons."
Dumped?
Liberty County is considering un-privatizing their jail and letting the Sheriff run it. The facility is currently run by Community Education Centers.
It's the checkpoints, stupid
No surprise to Grits readers, but the Texas Tribune reports that most contraband crossing into Texas from Mexico comes in at the checkpoints, not through the empty regions in between, which is one of many reasons this blog always opposed a border wall as misdirected enforcement.
Senate Criminal Justice interim charges
Interim charges (pdf) for the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee include studies of money laundering, the Crime Victims Compensation fund, the bail bond industry, solitary confinement (ad seg) at TDCJ, prescription drug abuse, and school discipline.
Senate Homeland Security charges
Interim charges (pdf) for the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee of interest to Grits' topic areas include the effect of drug trafficking and cartel violence on the economy, 911 staffing, limitations of using national guard for border security, the anticipated impact of the Panama Canal expansion, oversized vehicle enforcement (as it relates to preventing road damage), and pursuing toll scofflaws.
Okie prosecutors seek probation profits
In Oklahoma, prosecutors have begun taking on probation supervision duties for low-risk offenders, the Wall Street Journal reports, with an eye toward a new revenue source from offender fees. But critics wonder exactly how much supervising is going on.
Lawyers v. Journalists, innocence edition
Unless you've been on the inside of such fights - and Grits has occasionally found himself on both sides, over the years, as well as in the middle of such feuds - it's difficult to grasp the good-faith conflicts that arise thanks to the differing roles of journalists and lawyers. This story from the ABA Journal about innocence project work at Northwestern University captures some of those conflicts better than most depictions.
Travis DA race: Change v. Tradition
At the Austin Chronicle, Michael King has a pair of interviews with challenger Charlie Baird and incumbent Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg in what shapes up to be a dandy of a Democratic primary race between two political and legal veterans during which, judging from these interviews, many seldom-discussed aspects of the justice system will be vetted.
APD crime lab whistleblower interviewed
In Austin, KVUE-TV has an interview with the whistleblower alleging violations at the APD crime lab.
Dumped
Video: Littlefield, Texas: 'Meet town bankrupted by private prisons."
Dumped?
Liberty County is considering un-privatizing their jail and letting the Sheriff run it. The facility is currently run by Community Education Centers.
It's the checkpoints, stupid
No surprise to Grits readers, but the Texas Tribune reports that most contraband crossing into Texas from Mexico comes in at the checkpoints, not through the empty regions in between, which is one of many reasons this blog always opposed a border wall as misdirected enforcement.
Senate Criminal Justice interim charges
Interim charges (pdf) for the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee include studies of money laundering, the Crime Victims Compensation fund, the bail bond industry, solitary confinement (ad seg) at TDCJ, prescription drug abuse, and school discipline.
Senate Homeland Security charges
Interim charges (pdf) for the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee of interest to Grits' topic areas include the effect of drug trafficking and cartel violence on the economy, 911 staffing, limitations of using national guard for border security, the anticipated impact of the Panama Canal expansion, oversized vehicle enforcement (as it relates to preventing road damage), and pursuing toll scofflaws.
Okie prosecutors seek probation profits
In Oklahoma, prosecutors have begun taking on probation supervision duties for low-risk offenders, the Wall Street Journal reports, with an eye toward a new revenue source from offender fees. But critics wonder exactly how much supervising is going on.
Lawyers v. Journalists, innocence edition
Unless you've been on the inside of such fights - and Grits has occasionally found himself on both sides, over the years, as well as in the middle of such feuds - it's difficult to grasp the good-faith conflicts that arise thanks to the differing roles of journalists and lawyers. This story from the ABA Journal about innocence project work at Northwestern University captures some of those conflicts better than most depictions.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Upcoming criminal justice events in Austin
These upcoming events in Austin may interest some Grits readers:
- UT Law School conference to address developments in civil rights litigation since 9/11, February 3, 2012 (see the conference website)
- Legislative Budget Board (LBB) staff discuss adult correctional population projections, February 3, 2012, 1:30-3 pm.
- LBB staff discuss adult recidivism data, March 9, 2012, 1:30-3 pm.
- Mental health and substance abuse seminar, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Criminal Justice Integrity Unit, March 22-23
What grants might be cut if counties don't update crime data?
Earlier this week Grits published a list of Texas counties at risk of losing eligibility for federal Justice Assistance Grants if they don't meet minimum standards for recording judicial data, and at the time I asked the Governor's office for a list of those grants: Here are the grant awards for 2012 so far; they aren't in every county, but a lot of the bigger ones and all those along the border. Grant awards include funds for quite a few drug, mental health and other specialty courts, equipment purchases, border security grants, overtime pay, and an array of other specialized projects. Counties may become ineligible for these grant funds, the Governor's Criminal Justice Division has announced, if they don't update records to include at least 90% of criminal case dispositions from '06-'10. The CJD has said they're willing to assist counties with grant funds to upgrade local data systems.
Florida to close 7 prisons, why couldn't Texas?
Florida recently announced they will close seven prisons and four work camps under a gubernatorial plan from Republican Rick Scott that's being tarred by Democrats and prison-guard unions as soft on crime and evidence of an "extreme Tea Party agenda." The state was able to close the units because of declining prisoner populations: “No inmates will be released early as a result of this decision, and there will remain adequate bed space to accommodate projected prison admissions, which have steadily decreased since FY 2007-08,” the corrections department said in a statement.
Regular readers know Grits believes Texas could have realized similar savings in the 82nd Texas legislature last year (we have more prisons and prisoners, by a longshot, than the Sunshine State) with just a few key policy tweaks, but the Lege instead cut funding, mostly for prisoner healthcare, without doing anything to reduce the inmate population. Within months, the state was paying $5 million per month over budget in an interim contract for healthcare costs with UTMB. When 2013 comes, if they want to cut TDCJ's budget they'll have to reduce the number of people incarcerated there.
Last week the Texas Public Policy Foundation held a panel at their annual policy conference (thanks to Marc Levin and David Guenther for the invite) featuring outgoing House Corrections Chairman Jerry Madden, chief Harris-County judicial cat-herder Caprice Cosper, House Rep. Marisa Marquez, and Adam Gelb from the Pew Center on the States.
Gelb's presentation focused on five "myths" about crime and punishment, but one of them spoke directly to the fallacy that "crime rates drive incarceration rates." In fact, he said, policy changes are the primary driver where states have reduced incarceration. That's how Texas avoided new prison building throughout most of the last decade, and it's the only way to reduce costs now.
Much was made at the event, and rightly so, of Texas 2007 investments in probation and diversion programs which have been oft-credited with keeping TDCJ's population 17,000 prisoners lower than had been projected five years ago. But in the "what have you done for me lately?" category, protecting those investments was the main accomplishment claimed for 2011.
In the Q&A section, I got to ask the panel why the Lege hadn't enacted more policy reforms to reduce inmate numbers and prison costs, "doubling down" on their earlier success to actually empty out and close prisons, as is happening in Florida. Madden replied that recidivism studies take three years and in 2011 they didn't have enough data to judge outcomes from the 2007 investments. While it's clear they worked overall, he said, the 2007 budget investments financed an array of different programs, and the Lege needed to wait on data to see which worked and which didn't to decide how to proceed.
That's a fair point, but in some ways the answer dodges the central conundrum facing the state on corrections spending. After all, the Lege slashed healthcare spending at TDCJ utterly without forethought or regard for reality, while failing to pass legislation that reduced the number of prisoners (particularly the sickest and/or elderly prisoners who cost the most money) commensurate with the smaller budget. Now, for this biennium, TDCJ will be coming in nearly nine-figures over budget, if the $5 million per month premium to UTMB continues, with 2013's budget expected to be even tighter. Last year they cut prisoner food, bled prisoner commissary accounts, reduced programming and educational opportunities, and likely cut all they reasonably can without addressing the elephant in the room: How can they change policies to reduce incarceration costs?
For the most part in 2011, that didn't happen, and there are few signs it's being seriously considered now (though one of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee's interim charges asks them to study diversion programs in part with an eye toward "reductions in correctional populations"). Tight budgets, though, have a way of forcing radical decisions on legislators that no amount of external advocacy could ever persuade them to make. At a minimum, it'd be helpful for TDCJ to reduce inmate numbers enough to end some of its contract arrangements with private-prison companies instead of paying for each marginal, extra inmate on a per diem basis.
As Chairman Madden pointed out on the TPPF panel, in the near future TDCJ's Sunset process is the most likely vehicle for enacting such fundamental reforms. Grits hopes the Sunset reviewers evaluate the agency and make recommendations with an eye toward revamping TDCJ to correspond to these new budget realities, strengthening probation and parole while seeking creatively ways to emulate Flordia, New York, Michigan, and other states which have reduced incarceration and shut down prisons. That's the recipe for budget stability in Texas corrections - a lot of insiders already know it - and really the question becomes more one of political courage than budget sense. In that context, tight budgets could force legislators to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, letting them scale back mass incarceration without paying the same kind of political price one might pay, say, from closing neighborhood schools, by pointing out that's the tradeoff. Caprice Cosper echoed that sentiment, saying the budget crunch was an opportunity to think creatively.
Time will tell. Texans like to boast, I commented to the panel, and Madden was right to boast about the 2007 budget reforms - they were a great accomplishment. I'm glad this session they were mostly protected. But it's time to acknowledge that their effects have pretty much played out and more will need to be done in 2013 to actually cut the budget, much less avoid new prison building (or expanding use of contract beds) by the end of the decade.
Regular readers know Grits believes Texas could have realized similar savings in the 82nd Texas legislature last year (we have more prisons and prisoners, by a longshot, than the Sunshine State) with just a few key policy tweaks, but the Lege instead cut funding, mostly for prisoner healthcare, without doing anything to reduce the inmate population. Within months, the state was paying $5 million per month over budget in an interim contract for healthcare costs with UTMB. When 2013 comes, if they want to cut TDCJ's budget they'll have to reduce the number of people incarcerated there.
Last week the Texas Public Policy Foundation held a panel at their annual policy conference (thanks to Marc Levin and David Guenther for the invite) featuring outgoing House Corrections Chairman Jerry Madden, chief Harris-County judicial cat-herder Caprice Cosper, House Rep. Marisa Marquez, and Adam Gelb from the Pew Center on the States.
Gelb's presentation focused on five "myths" about crime and punishment, but one of them spoke directly to the fallacy that "crime rates drive incarceration rates." In fact, he said, policy changes are the primary driver where states have reduced incarceration. That's how Texas avoided new prison building throughout most of the last decade, and it's the only way to reduce costs now.
Much was made at the event, and rightly so, of Texas 2007 investments in probation and diversion programs which have been oft-credited with keeping TDCJ's population 17,000 prisoners lower than had been projected five years ago. But in the "what have you done for me lately?" category, protecting those investments was the main accomplishment claimed for 2011.
In the Q&A section, I got to ask the panel why the Lege hadn't enacted more policy reforms to reduce inmate numbers and prison costs, "doubling down" on their earlier success to actually empty out and close prisons, as is happening in Florida. Madden replied that recidivism studies take three years and in 2011 they didn't have enough data to judge outcomes from the 2007 investments. While it's clear they worked overall, he said, the 2007 budget investments financed an array of different programs, and the Lege needed to wait on data to see which worked and which didn't to decide how to proceed.
That's a fair point, but in some ways the answer dodges the central conundrum facing the state on corrections spending. After all, the Lege slashed healthcare spending at TDCJ utterly without forethought or regard for reality, while failing to pass legislation that reduced the number of prisoners (particularly the sickest and/or elderly prisoners who cost the most money) commensurate with the smaller budget. Now, for this biennium, TDCJ will be coming in nearly nine-figures over budget, if the $5 million per month premium to UTMB continues, with 2013's budget expected to be even tighter. Last year they cut prisoner food, bled prisoner commissary accounts, reduced programming and educational opportunities, and likely cut all they reasonably can without addressing the elephant in the room: How can they change policies to reduce incarceration costs?
For the most part in 2011, that didn't happen, and there are few signs it's being seriously considered now (though one of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee's interim charges asks them to study diversion programs in part with an eye toward "reductions in correctional populations"). Tight budgets, though, have a way of forcing radical decisions on legislators that no amount of external advocacy could ever persuade them to make. At a minimum, it'd be helpful for TDCJ to reduce inmate numbers enough to end some of its contract arrangements with private-prison companies instead of paying for each marginal, extra inmate on a per diem basis.
As Chairman Madden pointed out on the TPPF panel, in the near future TDCJ's Sunset process is the most likely vehicle for enacting such fundamental reforms. Grits hopes the Sunset reviewers evaluate the agency and make recommendations with an eye toward revamping TDCJ to correspond to these new budget realities, strengthening probation and parole while seeking creatively ways to emulate Flordia, New York, Michigan, and other states which have reduced incarceration and shut down prisons. That's the recipe for budget stability in Texas corrections - a lot of insiders already know it - and really the question becomes more one of political courage than budget sense. In that context, tight budgets could force legislators to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, letting them scale back mass incarceration without paying the same kind of political price one might pay, say, from closing neighborhood schools, by pointing out that's the tradeoff. Caprice Cosper echoed that sentiment, saying the budget crunch was an opportunity to think creatively.
Time will tell. Texans like to boast, I commented to the panel, and Madden was right to boast about the 2007 budget reforms - they were a great accomplishment. I'm glad this session they were mostly protected. But it's time to acknowledge that their effects have pretty much played out and more will need to be done in 2013 to actually cut the budget, much less avoid new prison building (or expanding use of contract beds) by the end of the decade.
Nuther challenge to Harris Co. ME: Called administrative and judicial officers by county at different times
A second attorney has filed claims that Harris County medical examiner reports are invalid based on researcher and occasional Grits commenter David Fisher's findings that most of them had not signed constitutionally required oaths of office or bribery statements which are seemingly required for them to perform their duties. Michael Reed at Houston Community Newspapers proivides a good overview of the issues at stake based on recent court filings ("Legal standing of Harris County medical examiner at issue," Jan. 13):
Other counties faced the same dilemma and most went ahead and had their ME file the relevant oath and bribery statement, but it's an open question what the implications would be if a court found MEs work in past cases was invalid, and it's not just Fisher and a few defense attorneys who suspect that may be the case. As Grits noted last year when this came up, "The Webb County Attorney had declared that 'Until such time as she has taken the oath with the appointment as medical examiner then everything she did prior to that is void.' Which raises the question, what happens to older cases that the medical examiner evaluated without the oath and bribery statement? Are they 'void' as well?"
I can't speak to which legal position is correct, but even if Fisher and Co. are right, it would take great courage for a judge to side with them, raising questions about dozens if not hundreds of inquests in murder and manslaughter cases performed while documentation was inadequate, not just in Harris County but potentially in many jurisdictions, if a single judge cracks the door open. Scott Durfee at the DA's office told Reed that they're paying little attention to the issue at the moment (perhaps distracted by proceedings at the grand jury), but "that would change, if an adverse ruling were reached." Indeed, if that happens, a lot of things could change. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost ...
In a Sept. 15, 2011 opinion, ... Glen Van Slyke, assistant county attorney, wrote that the medical examiner is not an appointed public “officer,” but rather an “administrative employee” of the Commissioners Court. As such, holding the position does not require taking an oath of office or providing any written statements.The underlying issues may seem like bureaucratic trivialities, but at the same time, the county clearly is in a bind, having argued to an appellate court in 2009 that the ME is a judicial officer (when they wanted to maximize the office's authority to override family religious prerogatives), but now contradicting themselves to say the ME is an administrative employee in order to wiggle out of the Catch-22 they're caught in.
Oddly, in 2009, Harris County went before the 1st Court of Appeals to argue that Sanchez was a judicial officer and as such could not be barred from performing an autopsy opposed by the deceased’s family for religious reasons.
Harris County was joined in its position by Tarrant, Dallas, Bexar, El Paso and other medical examiner counties. When challenged later, each of these, unlike Harris County, executed the oath and statement as required by the state Constitutional.
Sanchez, through a spokesman, declined to comment Friday.
In the 2009 case, Harris County vs. Afsaneh Saghian, the court ruled “the Medical Examiner of Harris County is a judicial officer and that it is manifestly improper for a district court to enjoin him from performing duties which he deems — in a valid exercise of his discretion — to be necessary and required of him by statute.”
That may be for the best from the county’s vantage point. If the medical examiner is not a judicial officer, according to the defense attorneys, an even bigger problem arises — one that could result in criminal charges, rather than constitutional violations.
Unlike in many other states, physicians in Texas are prohibited by state law from taking part in “corporate practice of medicine.” In other words, doctors cannot practice medicine that is “any way controlled or directed” by a non-physician. This, according to Bollinger, includes partnerships and employee relationships.
“A non-physician cannot hire a physician to be a physician except in very limited exceptions,” Bollinger’s motion said. “None of those circumstances or exceptions apply to the claimed relationship between the Commissioner's Court and the Harris County Medical Examiner.”
Possible penalties for practicing corporate medicine include $1,000 fine for each violation with each day a separate infraction, and the possibility of third-degree felony changes for each violation against the doctor in question.
“Each of these penalties could be applied to both Sanchez and the employer, who the county attorney claims is the Harris County Commissioner's Court,” the motion said.
That would entail roughly 1,750 civil violations and criminal offenses on the part of the both parties since Sanchez took office, January 2003.
Other counties faced the same dilemma and most went ahead and had their ME file the relevant oath and bribery statement, but it's an open question what the implications would be if a court found MEs work in past cases was invalid, and it's not just Fisher and a few defense attorneys who suspect that may be the case. As Grits noted last year when this came up, "The Webb County Attorney had declared that 'Until such time as she has taken the oath with the appointment as medical examiner then everything she did prior to that is void.' Which raises the question, what happens to older cases that the medical examiner evaluated without the oath and bribery statement? Are they 'void' as well?"
I can't speak to which legal position is correct, but even if Fisher and Co. are right, it would take great courage for a judge to side with them, raising questions about dozens if not hundreds of inquests in murder and manslaughter cases performed while documentation was inadequate, not just in Harris County but potentially in many jurisdictions, if a single judge cracks the door open. Scott Durfee at the DA's office told Reed that they're paying little attention to the issue at the moment (perhaps distracted by proceedings at the grand jury), but "that would change, if an adverse ruling were reached." Indeed, if that happens, a lot of things could change. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost ...
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Trials of Eroy Brown
Eroy Brown, a TDCJ prisoner serving time in a South Carolina prison to protect him from state retaliation, is up for parole, reports Mike Ward at the Austin Statesman ("Brown case highlights reluctance to parole long-time offenders," Jan. 18). "Brown is serving 90 years as a habitual criminal for robbing a Waco convenience store of $12 and some candy bars." His story is the subject of a recent book, which I've not yet read, but based on that account, Ward describes in broad strokes the incident that made Brown notorious:
Within the prison system, he is most noteworthy for what happened during a deadly struggle on April 4, 1981, alongside a drainage ditch called Turkey Creek in the farm fields at the Ellis Unit near Huntsville. When it was over, the farm manager, Billy Moore, lay dead from a gunshot from the warden's pistol and the warden,
Wallace Pack, was drowned. Brown claimed self-defense, saying that Moore had been stealing tires from the prison and was afraid Brown was about to snitch on him.
The trial transcript, detailed in a 2011 book about the case, "The Trials of Eroy Brown: The Case That Shook the Texas Prison System," details the events of that day:
Moore drove Brown to the ditch and called for Pack to join them.
"You ain't going to be able to tell a (expletive) thing on me. You ain't going to tell (expletive) on me," Brown testified Moore told him.
Pack pulled the pistol from his car's trunk, and with Brown handcuffed by his left wrist, threatened to shoot the convict, with the revolver cocked at his temple.
"Shut your (expletive) up, boy. I will splatter your brains all over this street here," Brown testified the warden told him.
Spread-eagled astride Pack's car, Brown struggled to wrest the gun from Pack.
The gun went off five times. Brown was shot in the foot. Moore was fatally shot in the head. A third shot grazed Pack's hand. Pack and Brown continued to fight for the gun, rolling into the water-filled ditch. Pack pushed Brown's face into the muddy water, trying to drown him. Brown rolled on top of the warden in the water.
"I laid on him and laid on him," Brown testified. "I don't know how long I laid on him. He stopped moving."
Prison officials insisted the deaths were murder, and prisons were later named for both Moore and Pack.
Brown went to trial three times. Each time, he was acquitted. The acquittal of a black convict in the deaths of two white prison officials never went over well in the hidebound world of Texas prisons, where prison farms were run like plantations and inmates often called their guard supervisors "boss."Go here for more on the book, The Trials of Eroy Brown, by Michael Berryhill from the University of Texas Press.
By 1984, Texas had agreed to settle a separate federal civil rights case ensuring that Brown and about two dozen other convicts who had assisted in the investigation and other cases would never have to serve time in Texas prisons because it would be too dangerous for them.
That's why Brown has spent the past 26 years in federal prisons in California and South Carolina for the Waco robbery. His attorneys blamed the long sentence on publicity about the prison murders.
Obama Administration hands lucrative, belated Christmas gift to private prison industry
In a major victory for private prison lobbyists, the Obama Administration has announced a dramatic change in incarceration policy regarding economic migrants, aiming to incarcerate pre-trial and adjudicate a much larger percentage of non-criminal immigration cases instead of using "voluntary returns," or just shipping economic immigrants back to Mexico, typically without processing through the court system. Illegal immigration has plummeted since the onset of high unemployment in the United States, so this policy props up a massive federal immigration bureaucracy built up during the last two presidential administrations with a new, enhanced raisson d'etre. Reported the El Paso Times ("US will toughen voluntary returns," Jan. 18):
As a byproduct of that electoral political agenda, private prison companies and potentially even counties that built speculative prisons might see a wave of new, taxpayer-funded contracts. That's a disappointment for anyone who hoped federal expenses might fall after the rate of growth in immigration detention finally seemed to be receding with the deflated economy. As usual, though, incarceration rates are driven mostly by policy decisions as opposed to the actual scope of the problem the state is trying to solve. That's why immigration detention may increase while illegal immigration drops, just as incarceration rates may rise even while crime is dramatically falling.
A US Attorney in California explained the fundamental difference in the new approach to CBS News: "It has not been the practice ... to target and prosecute economic migrants who have no criminal histories, who are coming in to the United States to work or to be with their families. ... We do target the individuals who are smuggling those individuals." Now in many cases that could change, if the Border Patrol gets their way. Prosecuting non-criminal migrants themselves opens up such a vast new pool of incarceration possibilities that I won't be surprised to see stocks at Geo Group (GEO) and Corrections Corporation of America (CXW) jump in response.
As a middle-aged man, from a purely selfish perspective, I want as many immigrants as possible here, low-waged and high, all legal, amnestied, documented, and paying into social security and Medicare, preferably, if only so there will be enough workers footing the bill when it's my turn to benefit from those programs. Immigration benefits the economy, just as a large proportion of Texas' much-admired economic miracle may be attributed to large-scale migration to the state (including illegal immigration, most of which IMO should have been formally allowed), but that's a different polemic for another day. Setting aside one's big-picture stance on immigration, this particular policy is a solution quite literally searching for a problem (except, I suppose, for the problems of the punishment-for-profit crowd), providing little additional deterrent or benefit, but with a large price tag attached and lucrative new contracts handed out like candy to private-prison interests. Pointless policy, dumb idea.
El Paso lawyer Carlos Spector, who specializes in immigration and asylum issues, said he does not believe there are enough federal prosecutors and judges to handle all the potential cases that could be referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office. "We have about 5,000 cases on the docket of the Downtown courthouse," Spector said. "We are waiting two to three years to get a hearing for some cases.Not only are there dangers from cartels (busloads of economic migrants have been massacred as part of the savage violence in northern Mexico), but "Officials of Mexico's National Commission for Human Rights, a government agency, said that 3,000 Mexican migrants died while crossing the border between 2000 and 2010, many of whom got lost without food and water in the desert." So incredibly desperate people are already willing to risk their lives from cartels and the elements - the death penalty, if you will - to get into the United States. That's far more people than have been executed over the same period for capital murder! Think about it: As a practical matter, will the possibility of a year or two in a Geo-Group run prison and formal deportation really be a big deterrent for such folk? This policy is much more about Democratic positioning among independents and conservative Dems before a presidential election than addressing dysfunctionality in the immigration system.
"With the apprehensions being down so much, the Border Patrol really needs to justify all the money it's been getting for its budget," Spector said. "It's like bringing the soldiers back from Afghanistan, and then once they're here, what do you do with them?"
Spector said Mexico's drug cartel wars also have created new dangers for immigrants seeking to cross the border illegally. Mexican authorities have implicated violent cartels in the kidnappings and murders of hundreds of immigrants, usually stemming from disputes between rival human smugglers associated with the drug cartels.
As a byproduct of that electoral political agenda, private prison companies and potentially even counties that built speculative prisons might see a wave of new, taxpayer-funded contracts. That's a disappointment for anyone who hoped federal expenses might fall after the rate of growth in immigration detention finally seemed to be receding with the deflated economy. As usual, though, incarceration rates are driven mostly by policy decisions as opposed to the actual scope of the problem the state is trying to solve. That's why immigration detention may increase while illegal immigration drops, just as incarceration rates may rise even while crime is dramatically falling.
A US Attorney in California explained the fundamental difference in the new approach to CBS News: "It has not been the practice ... to target and prosecute economic migrants who have no criminal histories, who are coming in to the United States to work or to be with their families. ... We do target the individuals who are smuggling those individuals." Now in many cases that could change, if the Border Patrol gets their way. Prosecuting non-criminal migrants themselves opens up such a vast new pool of incarceration possibilities that I won't be surprised to see stocks at Geo Group (GEO) and Corrections Corporation of America (CXW) jump in response.
As a middle-aged man, from a purely selfish perspective, I want as many immigrants as possible here, low-waged and high, all legal, amnestied, documented, and paying into social security and Medicare, preferably, if only so there will be enough workers footing the bill when it's my turn to benefit from those programs. Immigration benefits the economy, just as a large proportion of Texas' much-admired economic miracle may be attributed to large-scale migration to the state (including illegal immigration, most of which IMO should have been formally allowed), but that's a different polemic for another day. Setting aside one's big-picture stance on immigration, this particular policy is a solution quite literally searching for a problem (except, I suppose, for the problems of the punishment-for-profit crowd), providing little additional deterrent or benefit, but with a large price tag attached and lucrative new contracts handed out like candy to private-prison interests. Pointless policy, dumb idea.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Most Texas counties don't meet governor's new crime data criteria, may lose grants
Grits mentioned earlier this month that the Governor will withhold a portion of federal grant funding from counties beginning next year if they don't adequately update criminal history records, particularly dispositions of cases after an arrest has been made. Of the largest counties, Harris and Bexar have no worries, but Dallas, Travis, Tarrant, El Paso, and many other counties all have significant remedial work to do to avoid losing grant funds. (Find a complete list of non-compliant counties below the jump.) I asked the Governor's office for a copy of the memo, and here's the text:
John Bradley named '2011 Worst Prosecutor of the Year'
 |
| Your Winner: 2011 Worst Prosecutor of the Year, John "Marty" Bradley |
Meanwhile, Grits feels compelled to point readers to this hilarious video clip of a scene from a WWII film in German which somebody subtitled with biting dialogue drawing on themes from the Michael Morton exoneration. Normally Grits disdains Hitler references on the web, deferring to my college pal Mike Godwin's dicta regarding the uselessness and disrespectful nature of such comparisons. However, this piece doesn't compare Bradley's actions to those of Hitler's, which is the usual Godwinian trope. Instead, it uses the scene to explore the emotional state of a megalomaniac in free fall. Anyway, it made me laugh.
On a more serious, related note, last week the Texas Tribune interviewed Michael Morton's attorney John Raley about the case, and published excerpts in video and transcript form. And Wilco Watchdog is going through old John Bradley posts from the District and County Attorneys user form and finding lots of controversial opinions expressed that don't always jibe with his comments to the MSM.
Bradley's GOP primary opponent, Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty, has been racking up law-enforcement endorsements and this week received the endorsement of the former Williamson County DA Ed Walsh, who preceded Ken Anderson and John Bradley in the office. A reader from Williamson County emails to say, "There are bandanas appearing on his signs all over the county. People are really sick of him and no longer scared to speak out."
What a difference a year makes! This time in 2011 Bradley was on top of the world, with many anticipating that by the end of the year his long-time patron Governor Perry may even appoint him to the Court of Criminal Appeals. But first the Texas Senate rejected JB's nomination as chair of the Forensic Science Commission, then the Michael Morton exoneration splashed his and Ken Anderson's names across the national press as poster children for indifference toward valid innocence claims and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Now, not only is appointment to Texas' high criminal court a pipe dream, he might not even win reelection in Williamson County. Grits remains flabbergasted by Bradley's eye-poppingly rapid downfall, which will reach truly epic proportions if he actually loses the April primary. I'm sure the DA himself must be stunned at the development.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Counties seeking jail population reductions
A pair of stories out of smaller jurisdictions provide examples of ways Texas counties are attempting to save money by reducing jail populations:
In Coryell County, commissioners are hoping local judges will begin using personal bonds more frequently for non-violent defendants, allowing them to be supervised pretrial by the probation department to clear up space in the jail. Meanwhile, in Angelina county a retired judge is assisting to process cases more rapidly, reducing the jail population by more than 50 people per month in a facility with a capacity of 279.
In Coryell County, commissioners are hoping local judges will begin using personal bonds more frequently for non-violent defendants, allowing them to be supervised pretrial by the probation department to clear up space in the jail. Meanwhile, in Angelina county a retired judge is assisting to process cases more rapidly, reducing the jail population by more than 50 people per month in a facility with a capacity of 279.
Peer pressure promoting police binge drinking begins in academy
Tanya Eiserer at the Dallas News has a crackerjack story on the hot-button topic of alcoholism and law-enforcement culture ("They drink when they're blue: Stress, peer pressure contribute to police's alcohol culture," Jan. 16, behind paywall). Here's a notable excerpt:
A treatment provider said that "suppressing trauma and stress" is a root cause of alcoholism in law enforcement, but it's also clear that peer pressure to participate in police drinking culture begins well before officers ever hit the street. According to one expert quoted, "Rookies are indoctrinated into the brotherhood in blue and the culture of alcohol consumption at the police academy." One of the ex-Dallas officers interviewed said that's where her problems started:
Drinking is part of the police culture.The article is filled with examples of officers binge drinking with other officers then getting in serious accidents. The story opened with these anecdotes:
“They drink a lot, and they drink together,” said John Violanti, a research associate professor at the University at Buffalo and a former New York state trooper who studies police stress and alcohol use. “It’s part of the macho image, part of being a cop.”
Experts on police, and many officers, say cops drink because of peer pressure and high stress levels. They get into trouble with alcohol because they feel invulnerable and, as society’s helpers, are less likely to show weakness by seeking help. As mores change and technology advances, they’re more likely to get caught and their colleagues less likely to risk assisting them in covering up their problems.
Kelly Beemer drank heavily at a South Dallas bar before hitching a ride home in a squad car, where she fired a gun through the floorboards.Other tales included an officer who showed up at a SWAT assignment with alcohol on his breath and later, in another incident, was found passed out in a running city vehicle with a can of Foster's in his lap. Despite those lapses, he was allowed to remain on the force eleven more years until another DWI forced his resignation. So some of these issues arise form lax police management giving second and third chances to chronically alcoholic officers, even when they drink on the job.
Rachel Nicely downed margaritas at a Greenville Avenue bar before climbing behind the wheel, hitting a parked car and being arrested for drunken driving.
Jesus Cisneros had eight beers and four shots at a birthday party and later slammed his city vehicle into another car, killing the driver.
All were police officers with promising careers. All drank heavily with other off-duty officers on the day they got into trouble.
Their careers were ruined.
A treatment provider said that "suppressing trauma and stress" is a root cause of alcoholism in law enforcement, but it's also clear that peer pressure to participate in police drinking culture begins well before officers ever hit the street. According to one expert quoted, "Rookies are indoctrinated into the brotherhood in blue and the culture of alcohol consumption at the police academy." One of the ex-Dallas officers interviewed said that's where her problems started:
Former Dallas police officer Shelly Pierce said in an interview that she drank a lot while in the academy and afterward. She typically drank, off duty, with other officers and a shared expectation that it was going to be a wild night.First-rate reporting by Eiserer on a seldom-discussed subject. As she'd reported in a 2009 story, roughly 89% of police suicides (which occur far more frequently than deaths in the line of duty) involve alcohol abuse, so this subject not only impacts the safety of the public (nobody wants a drunk in uniform wielding a gun or arrest authority) but also the officers themselves.
“When we go out, we’re going out,” said Pierce, who lost her job over a 2006 drunken-driving arrest. “We’re getting drunk. We’re going to be the loudest. All the attention is going to be on us. … It’s because of that whole ‘shock and awe’ thing. I’m going to be the one that shocks.”
Laura Brodie, a California-based psychologist who worked with the Los Angeles Police Department’s employee assistance program, said she has found a lack of moderation prevalent in the police culture.
“It’s all or nothing,” she said. “When they get into drinking, they start competing in their drinking.”
'Neither punished nor treated, just jailed'
At the Dallas News, columnist Steve Blow had a piece yesterday ("Mental illness leaves man trapped in county jail," Jan. 15) about a defendant named Reveau Skinner suffering from paranoid schizophrenia who was declared incompetent to stand trial but then waited in jail more than a year (so far) for a state hospital bed to open up to provide competecy restoration services (i.e., treatment to stabilize and medicate the iillness so the defendant is competent to participate in his own defense). Notes Blow:
The judge apologized to Skinner, but with that apology and a dollar he perhaps could get a soda at the commissary, but not much else. IMO, after such a long time the judge should have flat-out ordered the state hospital to take this fellow, as judges in other jurisdictions have begun to do.
The Legislature this year gave with one hand on competency restoration while taking away with the other. They passed a statute for misdemeanor defendants requiring their release if they don't get timely competency restoration, but for those charged with a felony, as in this case, there's no such safety valve. Meanwhile, they actually cut funding for state hospitals and mental health treatment, heightening scarcity and increasing time on waiting lists for competency restoration treatments.
This situation has lingered as long as your correspondent has been paying attention to county jail issues, and it's an area where underinvestment by the state heaps big problems and costs onto counties. To make matters worse, the only legislator who last session made the issue a real priority - Rep. Will Hartnett - is retiring from the Lege and will not return. Texas desperately needs somebody to take leadership on this question, but a betting man would likely wager the malaise and inaction will continue indefinitely, particularly with large budget shortfalls projected again in 2013. The situation is difficult for local officials but impossibly frustrating and cruel for the defendants themselves.
Indeed, in some ways the system seems more incompetent than the defendants. We understand that mental illness caused Skinner's incompetence, but what explains the incompetence of legislators, the governor, and the Department of State Health Services (which operates state mental hospitals) to cease this recurring nightmare? At least Mr. Skinner has a good excuse.
See prior, related Grits posts:
If it were his heart or a hip that malfunctioned, he would undoubtedly be in treatment. But since it’s his brain that has the problem, he sits in jail month after month.Earlier, a plea bargain was struck that would have released Skinner on probation - the victim in the domestic violence that sent him there incident had no desire to press charges. But after the court declared him incompetent, he couldn't even enter a guilty plea until after he'd been restored to competency, and that part of the process has stalled because of the shortage of state hospital beds.
He should have been released a long time ago. But now he’s caught in the abyss between our criminal justice and mental health systems, neither being punished nor treated. Just jailed.
The judge apologized to Skinner, but with that apology and a dollar he perhaps could get a soda at the commissary, but not much else. IMO, after such a long time the judge should have flat-out ordered the state hospital to take this fellow, as judges in other jurisdictions have begun to do.
The Legislature this year gave with one hand on competency restoration while taking away with the other. They passed a statute for misdemeanor defendants requiring their release if they don't get timely competency restoration, but for those charged with a felony, as in this case, there's no such safety valve. Meanwhile, they actually cut funding for state hospitals and mental health treatment, heightening scarcity and increasing time on waiting lists for competency restoration treatments.
This situation has lingered as long as your correspondent has been paying attention to county jail issues, and it's an area where underinvestment by the state heaps big problems and costs onto counties. To make matters worse, the only legislator who last session made the issue a real priority - Rep. Will Hartnett - is retiring from the Lege and will not return. Texas desperately needs somebody to take leadership on this question, but a betting man would likely wager the malaise and inaction will continue indefinitely, particularly with large budget shortfalls projected again in 2013. The situation is difficult for local officials but impossibly frustrating and cruel for the defendants themselves.
Indeed, in some ways the system seems more incompetent than the defendants. We understand that mental illness caused Skinner's incompetence, but what explains the incompetence of legislators, the governor, and the Department of State Health Services (which operates state mental hospitals) to cease this recurring nightmare? At least Mr. Skinner has a good excuse.
See prior, related Grits posts:
- Growth in forensic commitments exacerbates shortage of state mental hospital beds
- Judge orders state hospital to take more competency restoration patients
- Competency restoration process sounds crazy to columnist
- Few bills proposed at Lege to remedy statewide crisis in competency restoration
- Harris County pleads case for mental health, probation/diversion funds in state budget
- Jail deaths implicate state oversight, competency restoration funding
- Mental health cuts by state would shift costs to local jails, emergency rooms
- 'Harris County jail not the place to treat mental illness'
- The making of an unfunded mandate: Cuts to mental health would dump costs on county jails
- Cuts to state mental hospitals would be massive unfunded mandate for county jails
- Mentally ill languish in Bexar jail awaiting assessment, competency restoration
- Cuts to state mental health treatment would shift costs to local jails
- Cutting state psych hospital budgets could backfire
- Legislature's underspending on competency restoration beds creates havoc
- Priorities: Mentally incompetent inmates languishing in Texas county jails
- 75-year old mentally incompetent grandmother stranded in Lufkin jail most of 2006
- Legislature should prioritize mental health funding that relieves local jails
- Chincy state hospital funding leaves mentally incompetent defendants stranded
- Unfunded mandate: Counties struggle to pay for mentally incompetent defendants' care
- More counties grumbling at backlog of incompetent defendants in county jails
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Feds nix grants subsidizing SHSU crime lab
Texas' newest crime lab, run by Sam Houston State University in Montgomery County, opened in 2010 with the promise of three years of federal startup funding. But after budget cuts associated with raising the debt ceiling, that funding dried up and the lab has had to nearly double some of its fees. Reported the Conroe Courier (Jan. 6):
Unaddressed in the story, though, are the costs of delay: If the defendant is unable to make bail, say, in a controlled substance case, that also tacks on thousands of dollars in additional jail costs while wating for tests to come back. When that happens, the overall cost-benefit analysis still favors using the local lab, even at the higher price. Problem is, different revenue streams pay for lab testing and the jail, with different elected officials managing each sliver of the process. So budget myopia may cause prosecutors to send out for testing, even if in the long run it costs Montgomery County more money.
Attorney Paul Kennedy at The Defense Rests adds an additional concern about a possible fix suggested by the local DA:
Grits' view: By the time you add in additional jail costs from delays, the county in most cases is still better off paying to process cases more quickly. Balking at a $300-$400 fee seems foolhardy when the result is $40-$50 per day extra jail costs for up to nine months. (The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.) The criminal justice system is just that, a system, with a lot of moving parts, so one can never look at cost figures like this in isolation. It's common for "savings" in one part of the system to result in even greater costs elsewhere. So federal subsidies are nice, but if Texans want a massive criminal justice system that, at any point in time, supervises more than 3/4 million adults in prison, jail, on probation and on parole (roughly the population of Austin), then paying for ancillary services like crime labs is an unavoidable expense.
Kennedy suggested three takeaway lessons from the episode: "First, for entities involved in the criminal (in)justice system who rely upon government funds to operate - those funds will diminish or vanish at some point, even if the entity is there to help the state. Second, the lab should have charged a more realistic rate for their services; the excess would allow for a "cushion" when the funding was cut or dropped. Third, no one gives a rat's ass about the people accused of committing a crime." That pretty much sums it up.
The Sam Houston State University Regional Crime Lab, which is operated by the university’s College of Criminal Justice and located in The Woodlands, started taking evidence from five counties, including Montgomery, in November 2010. A $1.5 million federal grant got the lab up and running.
But those agencies using the lab had agreed to three years of federal funding, after which the lab would complete its transition to becoming self-sustaining through fees, said Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam, chief of the Vehicular Crimes Division for the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office.
So the the county can pay $290-$386 for testing at the lab and get results back in 2 weeks, or send the sample to DPS and have it done for free, but not see results for up to nine months.
Diepraam said District Attorney Brett Ligon and SHSU officials have asked U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, to help find additional federal funds to supplement the fees paid by agencies.
“We are hopeful some funding will be found,” Diepraam said.
Montgomery County supplied 86 percent of the lab’s business, and the lab was charging a $200 flat fee for all drug and alcohol tests, Diepraam said.
Now, with the cut in funding, the lab will charge agencies $386 for alcohol tests and $290 for drug toxicology tests used for driving while intoxicated cases.
From November 2010 to October 2011, the lab ran 1,034 drug toxicology tests and 900 of those were from Montgomery County, Diepraam said. During that same time period, the lab analyzed 4,335 controlled substance evidence items, with 86 percent of them coming from Montgomery County, according to a casework overview by the lab.
The Regional Crime Lab will continue to run the drug toxicology and blood-alcohol tests, but all controlled substance evidence tests now will be sent to the Texas Department of Public Safety lab in Austin.
The average length of time for the Regional Crime Lab to turn around controlled substance tests is about two weeks, while the DPS lab can take up to nine months because of the volume of cases it gets from across the state, Diepraam said.
Unaddressed in the story, though, are the costs of delay: If the defendant is unable to make bail, say, in a controlled substance case, that also tacks on thousands of dollars in additional jail costs while wating for tests to come back. When that happens, the overall cost-benefit analysis still favors using the local lab, even at the higher price. Problem is, different revenue streams pay for lab testing and the jail, with different elected officials managing each sliver of the process. So budget myopia may cause prosecutors to send out for testing, even if in the long run it costs Montgomery County more money.
Attorney Paul Kennedy at The Defense Rests adds an additional concern about a possible fix suggested by the local DA:
MoCo District Attorney Bret Ligon now wants to use the asset forfeiture fund to pay for the tests.For the reasons mentioned above, I understand why the DA would want to subsidize the lab. But I agree with Kennedy it's problematic to rely on asset forfeiture funds for any government entity's base budget. Back when Texas used grant money to prop up dozens of regional narcotics task forces around the state, many of those local entities used asset forfeiture funds to pay for local matching under their grants, leading to skewed enforcement priorities.
The problem, of course, is the increased incentive to seize property and file forfeiture actions against defendants. Forfeiture actions serve to tie up defendant's assets and make it that much harder to muster a defense against the state. You will also find out that the vast majority of defendants either default or negotiate settlements in which they receive just a portion of the value of the items seized. The asset forfeiture funds then become a private slush fund for whoever's running the DA's Office (just ask former MoCo DA Michael McDougal). Of course there's no telling where the property seized in Tenaha went.
Grits' view: By the time you add in additional jail costs from delays, the county in most cases is still better off paying to process cases more quickly. Balking at a $300-$400 fee seems foolhardy when the result is $40-$50 per day extra jail costs for up to nine months. (The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.) The criminal justice system is just that, a system, with a lot of moving parts, so one can never look at cost figures like this in isolation. It's common for "savings" in one part of the system to result in even greater costs elsewhere. So federal subsidies are nice, but if Texans want a massive criminal justice system that, at any point in time, supervises more than 3/4 million adults in prison, jail, on probation and on parole (roughly the population of Austin), then paying for ancillary services like crime labs is an unavoidable expense.
Kennedy suggested three takeaway lessons from the episode: "First, for entities involved in the criminal (in)justice system who rely upon government funds to operate - those funds will diminish or vanish at some point, even if the entity is there to help the state. Second, the lab should have charged a more realistic rate for their services; the excess would allow for a "cushion" when the funding was cut or dropped. Third, no one gives a rat's ass about the people accused of committing a crime." That pretty much sums it up.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Forensic commission reviewing Austin, El Paso crime labs
The Forensic Science Commission directed their complaint screening committee today to consider a new case out of the Austin crime lab, discussed here on Grits, in which a fired analyst claimed that reports were issued without performing the underlying testing. They will decide at a future meeting whether to form an investigative panel based on the Complaint Screening Committee's recommendation. The Commission also questioned why Austin or Travis County officials hadn't forwarded the allegations about "drylabbing," in the industry terminology, at the time they first heard of the complaint. (The City had requested the Department of Public Safety look into the allegations, so they were clearly aware before now and could have notified the FSC.)
In other developments at the FSC, most of their day was spent discussing management shortcomings at the El Paso PD crime lab, were a lab worker who analyzed controlled substances turned out to be unqualified and incompetent. About 7-8 folks were there from El Paso including the District Attorney, an assistant city manager and various crime lab personnel.
Bottom line, while most of the media attention has focused on a single lab worker who couldn't pass basic competency tests, Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan, to the nodding affirmation of her peers, strongly urged that that lab worker not be used as a "scapegoat" to avoid bigger changes. When the El Paso lab began its certification process in 2006, the accrediting body found a list of shortcomings they asked them to fix, and which the lab claimed to have resolved. In 2011, though, when the incompetent lab worker came to light, a new assessment identified virtually all the same problems at the lab, still unresolved, that were cited in 2006.
The biggest problems involved the culture of the lab, which until recently was run by a police sergeant with no scientific background who had ultimate decision making authority, including the authority to resolve conflicts among scientists. The Quality Assurance manager, until recently, was disempowered and couldn't stop work when something went wrong. Indeed, during one period in 2010, two different people both thought they were the official quality manager; one of them was mistaken, but clearly there was a lot of confusion.
At times, very junior staff newly qualified in their field were put in the position of doing technical reviews of others' work and performing other high-level functions that were likely over their head. Kerrigan likened it to someone just getting their drivers license and then being hustled off to race in a Grand Prix.
The lab's internal culture discouraged questioning other examiners: "trust the examiner" was the office philosophy, said Kerrigan, but unfortunately not all of the examiners were trustworthy. Kerrigan mentioned one staffer who at different times came back with positive and negative results from the same sample. At least one false positive has been identified - a case where the test came back negative 44 times and positive once, so the lab reported the result as positive without mentioning the 44 negatives.
Kerrigan said their review of more than 1,400 pages of records and interviews with numerous officials during a site visit had revealed a fundamental lack of scientific leadership at the lab. The lab in particular still cannot find a qualified manager. A recent job search turned up empty, and they're reposting the position on January 23. Another commissioner expressed that it sounded like the lab was staffed by technicians instead of scientists able to engage in independent thinking. Kerrigan noted that lab staff attended training that taught correct practices, but nobody ever connected the dots when they came back to El Paso and things operated in a more rudimentary, less professional way. Another odd red flag: Caseloads at the EPPD crime lab are exceedingly low and it's not clear everyone employed in the controlled substance testing division is really needed. In 2010 they processed 863 cases; in 2011 it was 504. By contrast, a crime lab chief sitting next to me at the meeting said his analysts processed 150-200 samples per month, apiece!
The El Paso crime lab was put on probation last year by the accrediting body, which extended probation in September but finally took them off two days before Christmas. A representative of the accrediting body, though, told commissioners that ending "probation" didn't mean all is well or that El Paso is off the hook. They only have until April 6, he said, to find a qualified lab director and fix the other problems identified by the accrediting agency.
The Department of Public Safety agreed to perform a fairly extensive audit of the EPPD crime lab's controlled substances division within the next 30 days, so there will be more to come on this story.
In other developments at the FSC, most of their day was spent discussing management shortcomings at the El Paso PD crime lab, were a lab worker who analyzed controlled substances turned out to be unqualified and incompetent. About 7-8 folks were there from El Paso including the District Attorney, an assistant city manager and various crime lab personnel.
Bottom line, while most of the media attention has focused on a single lab worker who couldn't pass basic competency tests, Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan, to the nodding affirmation of her peers, strongly urged that that lab worker not be used as a "scapegoat" to avoid bigger changes. When the El Paso lab began its certification process in 2006, the accrediting body found a list of shortcomings they asked them to fix, and which the lab claimed to have resolved. In 2011, though, when the incompetent lab worker came to light, a new assessment identified virtually all the same problems at the lab, still unresolved, that were cited in 2006.
The biggest problems involved the culture of the lab, which until recently was run by a police sergeant with no scientific background who had ultimate decision making authority, including the authority to resolve conflicts among scientists. The Quality Assurance manager, until recently, was disempowered and couldn't stop work when something went wrong. Indeed, during one period in 2010, two different people both thought they were the official quality manager; one of them was mistaken, but clearly there was a lot of confusion.
At times, very junior staff newly qualified in their field were put in the position of doing technical reviews of others' work and performing other high-level functions that were likely over their head. Kerrigan likened it to someone just getting their drivers license and then being hustled off to race in a Grand Prix.
The lab's internal culture discouraged questioning other examiners: "trust the examiner" was the office philosophy, said Kerrigan, but unfortunately not all of the examiners were trustworthy. Kerrigan mentioned one staffer who at different times came back with positive and negative results from the same sample. At least one false positive has been identified - a case where the test came back negative 44 times and positive once, so the lab reported the result as positive without mentioning the 44 negatives.
Kerrigan said their review of more than 1,400 pages of records and interviews with numerous officials during a site visit had revealed a fundamental lack of scientific leadership at the lab. The lab in particular still cannot find a qualified manager. A recent job search turned up empty, and they're reposting the position on January 23. Another commissioner expressed that it sounded like the lab was staffed by technicians instead of scientists able to engage in independent thinking. Kerrigan noted that lab staff attended training that taught correct practices, but nobody ever connected the dots when they came back to El Paso and things operated in a more rudimentary, less professional way. Another odd red flag: Caseloads at the EPPD crime lab are exceedingly low and it's not clear everyone employed in the controlled substance testing division is really needed. In 2010 they processed 863 cases; in 2011 it was 504. By contrast, a crime lab chief sitting next to me at the meeting said his analysts processed 150-200 samples per month, apiece!
The El Paso crime lab was put on probation last year by the accrediting body, which extended probation in September but finally took them off two days before Christmas. A representative of the accrediting body, though, told commissioners that ending "probation" didn't mean all is well or that El Paso is off the hook. They only have until April 6, he said, to find a qualified lab director and fix the other problems identified by the accrediting agency.
The Department of Public Safety agreed to perform a fairly extensive audit of the EPPD crime lab's controlled substances division within the next 30 days, so there will be more to come on this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
