Roundup: Jean Valjean at Christmastime and other stories

Here are a few odds and ends which haven't made it into individual Grits posts during a busy week but which merit readers' attention:

Draconian enhancements based on decades-old offenses
Thanks to "enhancements" based on felonies committed two decades ago, a Hays County man received a six-year sentence for stealing $45 worth of ground beef and toys for his children from a Walmart just before Christmas last year. The kicker: Texas Supreme Court Justice Jeff Brown was foreman of the jury who convicted this latter-day Jean Valjean. Les Miserables similes aside, there needs to be some statute of limitations on how long old convictions can be used to enhance new misdemeanors into lengthy prison sentences. Nothing about what this guy did 20 years ago predicts that he's a danger today; in fact, the nature of this latest trumped-up "felony" indicates his priorities have shifted. The fellow committed what otherwise would have been a Class C misdemeanor theft so he could give his kids a modest Christmas, and "To love another person is to see the face of God."

Judges call for independent crime lab
Travis County judges are calling on the city to separate its crime lab from the Austin Police Department, a move presaged by recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences in its landmark 2009 report. Grits agrees with that assessment, with one caveat: They should make the lab truly independent, as was done in Houston. What they shouldn't do is shift those functions to the county medical examiner, as some have suggested. Let's please do this right the first time. In related news, Sen. Cornyn is pushing legislation to reauthorize federal funding for crime labs and reducing rape kit backlogs.

Contempt of cop: A case study
This article from Meagan Flynn at the Houston Press depicts a class example of an arrest for "contempt of cop" by a Harris County Sheriff's deputy.

Can bureaucracy prevent jail suicides?
Despite this Texas Tribune story, Grits suspects that far too much credit is being given to a new intake form when it comes to reducing jail suicides. We'll have to see if reductions hold long-term. But it's just as likely that jails stepped up prevention efforts because the Commission on Jail Standards began making suicides a greater point of emphasis and Sheriffs didn't want to end up in the paper with the next Sandra-Blandesque death occurring in their facility. If that's the case, suicides will continue to fluctuate and may go back up as new incidents arise. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems hard to believe such a small bureaucratic change could make a huge dent in a problem rooted deep in the human psyche. My instincts say to look for a) alternative explanations and b) future increases.

Veterans courts are cool, but don't scale up
This Houston Chronicle article touts veterans courts as an intervention that works, and they do, but it's also true that they're resource intensive and don't scale up well given the volume and gaping needs of the target population. Reported the Chron, quoting the judge in charge of the project: "The common denominator of the veterans in his court is a 'very low sense of self-esteem and self-purpose,' along with self-hate." But couldn't you say that about defendants in every criminal courtroom in America? Strong probation methods work, but they require more resources than most county governments are willing to provide, and you can't place it all on the backs of defendants through expensive court fees. These courts are important experiments, but they are not yet scale-able solutions and are unavailable to most veterans who commit crimes.

Asset seizures skyrocketed since turn of century
Total assets seized by Texas law enforcement increased more than 150 percent from 2001 to 2013, according to Right on Crime. At this point, agencies have become reliant on the income in unhealthy and problematic ways. If the interdiction strategy were working, one wonders, wouldn't authorities seize LESS illicit assets over time?

LWOP for illegal immigrants makes no cost-benefit sense
Here's a legislative proposal that would cost a small fortune with little public safety benefit to show for it: Authorizing life without parole for first-degree felonies committed by illegal immigrants. Life without parole didn't exist in Texas until 2005, when death penalty abolitionists made a deal with the devil, creating the new punishment as the sole alternative available to their clients in death-penalty cases. IMO that legislation threw their clients under the bus. Since then, we've seen hundreds of people sentenced to LWOP while death sentnences dropped. But LWOP is also a death sentence, just in slow motion. Next we had people wanting LWOP for sex offenders, then for sex traffickers, and not for illegal immigrants. There's no public safety argument for this policy and the cost-benefit analysis cannot stand up to scrutiny. This is just pandering to nativist sentiments in a crass and ham-handed way. One hopes cooler, wiser, and more cost-conscious heads will prevail as the bill is considered at the Lege.

1033 program: Not as free as 'free' sounds
Lots of Texas agencies got "free" personnel carriers through the Pentagon's 1033 program, but the Texas Public Policy Foundation points out that that statement masks significant costs to locals from operating the vehicles.

CAN-DO Clemency
Grits was interested to learn of the CAN-DO Foundation, which stands for Clemency for All Nonviolent Drug Offenders. As folks push Obama to maximize his use of clemency on his way out the door,  it's worth mentioning there's still time for him to posthumously pardon the writer O. Henry, as this blog along with Pete Ruckman has long advocated.

Locked up for the holidays
In an item titled, "Locked up for the holidays," the Pew Charitable Trusts' Stateline site examined the impact of the holiday season on inmates and their families and charity work aimed at supporting both.

Pot penalties, jails and mental health, prison heat, recording interrogations, immigration and judges

Here are several items that aren't going to make it into independent Grits posts but which deserve readers' attention:

Pot penalties too harsh on large amounts and small
The Statesman editorial board joined the chorus this week to say the 5-99 year penalty range being applied for pot brownies to a Williamson County teen is too harsh. While I don't believe the kid's at significant risk of spending 99 years in TDCJ for the offense or anything like it, it's true the penalties are out of whack. We've talked about reducing marijuana penalties on the misdemeanor end, but is there any level of marijuana possession that deserves the same first-degree felony charges one would get for murder or kidnapping? Really all Texas marijuana penalties, not just user-level penalty categories, should be ratcheted down one notch.

Harris Sheriff blasts state for failure to fund mental health treatment
Reported Ross Ramsey at the Texas Tribune, Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia says the Department of State Health Services "is not offering the care that it is required to provide." "Given proper treatment, the sheriff argues, some patients would not be committing the crimes of which they are accused. Instead, they end up in Harris County’s jails, where they are a health care and financial burden to the county." Garcia's "recommendations include increasing staff for the hospitals and expanding capacity by contracting with local providers whenever possible" I do find questionable Garcia's claim that "the majority of people who are in my custody who are in this mental illness category are coming here largely because of their illness and not necessarily because of their actions." IMO, that's not true, and the best research on the topic conflicts with that view. Mental-health treatment is an important component for the sub-group of offenders who need it, but it's not a silver-bullet cure all.

Veterans, PTSD, and medical pot
Grits recently spent a morning in San Antonio listening to Texas legislators from two House committees discuss Veterans Courts and treatment services for ex-military personnel charged with crimes who suffered from PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. But nobody addressed the question from the angle taken by Bill Martin in this June 2014 Texas Monthly story, "War Without End": Medical pot. The subhed to his story sums up his well-versed argument: "As veterans return home from combat in the Middle East, many struggle to leave their experiences behind. They are sleepless, anxious, and angry. And medications often make the situation worse. No wonder a growing number of former soldiers are turning to a treatment that makes them criminals in Texas: Marijuana."

Texas heat litigation seeks class-action status
Yet more litigation has been filed related to excessive heat in Texas prisons, this time out "at a Navasota lockup where [inmates] allege it is so hot that metal tables are too hot to touch and metal-walled cell blocks are like ovens." According to the Houston Chronicle, out of all the various heat-related lawsuits against TDCJ, this is "the first one seeking class-action status that could open the prison system up to statewide litigation." See additional coverage from Texas Monthly and the Washington Post.

A law enforcement response to a humanitarian crisis
So thousands of unaccompanied minors show up at the Texas border from Central America: Texas' response: DPS will conduct another pointless "surge" at a cost of $1.3 million per week. If Texas Republicans want to a) show it's untrue they cease to care about children the moment they're not aborted, b) convince Latino voters to stop believing they're a bunch of xenophobic zealots, and c) confront actual problems at the border instead tilting at trumped up fictions, why not respond with humanitarian assistance for the kids instead of overtime pay for troopers to drive around the Valley? Just a thought.

New US Senate filibuster rules haven't busted Texas' federal judge shortage 
Like the Statesman editorial board, I'm glad to see more federal judge slots filled in Texas, but as  Jazmine Ulloa reported, "federal judicial vacancies across the state remain among the highest nationwide, even as the Texas courts struggle to handle some of the busiest and most complicated dockets in the country. Recent budget cuts have compounded the problem." Couple the ongoing shortages with the recent arrival of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children at the Texas border and all the family law issues those cases will entail, and the feds need to fill judicial vacancies in the southern and western districts, in particular. Wrote Ulloa, "Two more vacancies are expected within the next year," so, "If there are no replacements by then, one federal bench in every five in the state will be empty. And there aren't enough judges allotted to Texas' Western district to handle their dockets, even if they were fully staffed at present levels. How is it possible to stiffen up immigration enforcement if the federal judiciary isn't staffed up sufficiently to handle the caseload?

Arguments against recording interrogations falling by wayside
If the FBI can record custodial interrogations, why can't Texas? Momentum on this issue is shifting. The Rodney Ellis/Terry Canales bill requiring police to record interrogations in serious cases has a good chance to finally make it through the Texas legislative process in 2015.

Odds and ends: Successes, failures, and general weirdness

Here are a few items that caught my attention this week but haven't made it into individual posts:

Constitutional challenge to 'improper photography' statute
Reported KDFW TV in Dallas, "An appeals court in San Antonio ruled the improper photography statute unconstitutional because it is overly broad and that violates our First Amendment rights.  The case is now before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals waiting for a final ruling." See prior Grits coverage.

Crappy, unaccountable judges a 'fact of life' in Texas
Reported the Houston Chronicle:

Court reformers say bad judges are a fact of life in Texas, one of only eight states that uses partisan elections to pick its arbiters of justice. They say it is a system that results in unqualified candidates getting swept into office with political cycles and in qualified judges getting booted out for no good reason ­- or not wanting to run in the first place. 

Lawyers also are critical of how rarely Texas judges are publicly disciplined or removed from office once they get there, while some legal scholars note how loosely courts are administered here.

There are some good ones, too, but it's hard to argue with that assessment.

Man with most to lose: Change nothing
A Travis County lawyer who averages 615 appointed indigent criminal cases per year - the most of any attorney and well above the American Bar Association's recommended caseloads - says he sees no need to overhaul the indigent defense system, naturally.

'Bernie' released into custody of movie director
Bernie Tiede, the East Texas murderer who was the subject of an eponymous, dark comedic feature film by Austin-based director Richard Linklater, has been released on bond on the condition that he live at Linklater's house. Surreal, huh?

Gambling, what gambling?
A pair of Johnson County Sheriff's deputies were providing security for a racetrack busted by DPS for illegal gambling. Initial news reports say they didn't know what was going on, but then that calls into question their law enforcement acumen, doesn't it?

No more proxy marriages in prison
A new law inadvertently ended the practice of "proxy" marriages by prisoners, some of which involve women they met as pen pals while serving time. I've known ex-prisoners who've enjoyed long, loving marriages with women married by proxy, while other situations don't work out as well, to put it mildly. It's a strange aspect of prison subculture that receives little attention, so I'm not surprised lawmakers never considered it when the Lege passed a statute last spring requiring both parties to be present during a marriage ceremony. "'We didn't realize we were going to open up a can of worms,' said Scott Riling, chief of staff for Rep. Trent Ashby, the Lufkin Republican who authored the bill to prohibit proxy marriages."

Focus on veterans
The Defense and Veterans Affairs and County Affairs committees next week will hold a hearing in San Antonio related to veterans courts and peer-to-peer veterans mental health counseling for justice-involved veterans with mental health issues, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury.

Bexar County jail population edging up, but down from last fall's peak
So says this TV news report.

Hearne cop shot 93-year old woman
Reported the Waco Tribune Herald, "Authorities are investigating the shooting of a 93-year-old woman by a Hearne police officer who was involved in the fatal shooting of a Hearne man in December 2012."

The CIA's Lone Star weapons cache
The CIA has allegedly used a secret weapons depot in Boerne, TX to ship weapons around the world in secret wars dating back to the Bay of Pigs.

Forensic Fails
Business Insider published a good overview of problems facing America's forensic experts and crime labs that illuminate many of the issues facing Texas on the topic.

Committees begin to hear criminal justice bills

Texas legislative committees are finally beginning to consider bills, with the first criminal-justice related legislation up for hearings today and tomorrow.

This morning at 8:30 a.m., the House Insurance Committee will hear HB 361 by Anchia which would expand the ability of exonerees to purchase health insurance at state rates to their spouses and dependent children. Anyone with a family knows that having everyone covered under the same insurance policy makes lots of sense, and since exonerees are paying for the insurance out of their own pockets, there would be no fiscal impact. This is a small bill, but it's surely important to exonerees, a couple of whom I believe are coming to town to testify.

Later on, at 10:30 a.m. or after the full House adjourns, the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will consider legislation for the the first time, though only three bills are up in their first session.

HB 61 by Guillen is an enhancement for arson, boosting penalties from a second to a first degree felony for setting fire to an agricultural facility or a state park. Readers already know how I feel about enhancements: If the prospect of a second degree felony won't deter someone, changing it to a higher penalty - that most offenders will never know was altered until they're charged - won't increase that deterrence. The bill's  "fiscal note" was deemed insignificant, though that's not really true. With prisoner health costs alone at more than $9 per day, any extra inmates incarcerated for longer stretches will cost the state more money in the long run.

HB 153 by Taylor alters definitions in the law banning sale of firearms to intoxicated persons, deleting a more general definition and adopting the same one used for drunk drivers, including a BAC level of .08. The change seems mostly nonsubstantive, though it slightly broadens the scope of firearm sale prohibition. It's unclear to me how gun sellers are supposed to know if someone's BAC is at .07 vs. .09.

HB 70 by Fletcher is perhaps the most substantive of the three, changing what attorneys refer to as "The Rule" to allow one, designated prosecution witness who may be in the courtroom while others testify. Traditionally, witnesses aren't supposed to be in the room so their testimony won't be tainted by what they hear from others. If the designated witness getting to attend the hearing is a police officer, that person would be forbidden from wearing their uniform in court. The defense side, of course, would not be afforded the same privilege. Houston defense attorney Paul Kennedy last session argued that the bill is "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The only purpose is to make it easier for the state to obtain convictions."

Tomorrow, the House Corrections Committee will hear bills for the first time. They too have just three bills on the agenda.

HB 144 by Raymond expands the scope of "mental examinations" of juvenile offenders to include diagnosing substance abuse.

HB 431 by Riddle (which seems like it ought to have a fiscal note, though as of this writing one hasn't been posted) would expand the categories of offenders ineligible for release under "mandatory supervision," a category which only includes offenders convicted many years ago before the Lege modified "mandatory supervision" to become (oxymoronically) "discretionary mandatory supervision" if the offense involved a child victim. That's already the case for the most serious offenses. Riddle's bill would expand the prohibition to second and third degree felonies, forcing TDCJ to incarcerate those individuals longer. Hard to see how that wouldn't have a budget impact.

HB 634 by Farias would require TDCJ to verify inmates' veteran status via lists held by the Health and Human Services Commission and assist them (presumably upon reentry) with applying for benefits for which they may be eligible from the federal Department of Veteran Affairs. The fiscal note says there would be one-time automation costs to perform this function but suggests the duties could be absorbed in the agency's current budget.

And of course I'd already mentioned that the House Transportation Committee today will consider bills related to banning texting and/or talking on a cell phone while driving.

The game is afoot!

Support growing for jail diversion for traumatized veterans

An advisory group on veterans services convened by the Legislature recommended the criminal justice system be tweaked to accommodate veterans. Reported the Dallas News (behind paywall), "Veterans’ health and mental health needs should be a priority of the criminal justice system, the council’s report said. The Legislature should provide grant funding to local governments for expansion of the Jail Diversion and Trauma Recovery Program, according to the report." (See here for more background on the Jail Diversion and Trauma Recovery Program in San Antonio.)

Arguably, the goal of diverting traumatized or mentally ill veterans from the justice system has wide bipartisan support. Recently Denton County, a conservative bastion, opened its own veterans court, according to the Denton Record Chronicle ("Court program offers new path for veterans," Nov. 11):

For some combat veterans, trauma — mental or physical — is part of their service to our country. Such stress and turmoil can lead some to drinking or other abusive behaviors, and the accompanying run-ins with the law.

County officials see another solution.

The Denton County Veterans Treat­ment Court Program, approved by commissioners in 2009, is finally starting to become active, county officials said.

Denton County’s program is modeled after a successful program in Tarrant County led by Judge Brent Carr and is designed as a collaborative process between the court, defense counsel and prosecutors to treat combat-related mental illnesses that lead to the veteran’s criminal behavior.

“If the veteran successfully completes the program, his or her case will be dismissed by the district attorney’s office — essentially their record will be expunged,” First Assistant District Attorney Jamie Beck said.

Of the crimes committed by program participants, the majority will be drug- and alcohol-related, with some possible violence charges, she said.

“There will have to be consent by the victim for this to happen, and we only take a handful of cases — there is a very rigorous screening process they have to go through,” said County Criminal Court No. 3 Judge David Garcia, who will be hearing the cases.

Grits supports veterans courts but it's important to remember that, in the scheme of things, a "veterans court" is really just a specialized mental health court. So their success hinges on overcoming all the same barriers and shortages that impact non-veteran defendants suffering from mental illness and substance abuse.

Underfunded veterans mental-health care channels them into justice system

The Texas Tribune reported on a hearing of the House Defense and Veterans Affairs committee related to mental health challenges facing veterans. Notably:

Studies by the U.S. military have shown an 80 percent increase in suicides since the start of the war in Iraq in 2003. According to testimony by Lt. Col. Alba Villanueva, the director of joint family support services for the Texas Military Forces, which includes the Texas National Guard, there have been 15 suicides among Texas soldiers in the last three years, and two in the last 30 days.

Suicides and the mental health problems that lead to them are often a matter of untreated post-traumatic stress disorder and the lingering effects of military training.

Further,

the mental health problems that persist, others said, are serious even if returning soldiers are far from thoughts of suicide. "Sometimes the problems aren't surfacing for three or four months, whether it’s drugs or the criminal justice system,” said Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Canton, explaining that returning soldiers do not want to seek mental health treatment because they just want to get on with their lives. 

“When they come home, they want to go home, they don't want to be involved with the system,” he said.

“We're going to have to figure out some way to close that gap.”

Mental health problems often stem from the process of reintegrating into civilian life, [Military Veteran Peer Network statewide coordinator [Sean] Hanna said, adding that "it's not until they begin to enact their plan for what their life will look like that they start to face these struggles."

Hanna said the problem can be addressed by “more boots on the ground” — more funding for hired professionals to coordinate peer networks of veterans, because he says many returning soldiers will only seek help if they get advice from other veterans, and in rural areas of the state other veterans may not be nearby. 

I reference this discussion to point out how disconnected it seems from the reality facing veterans and others suffering from mental illness: An extremely limited base of providers and little public funding for the levels of mental health services needed to play a preventive rather than a reactive role. In the real world, as opposed to some legislative flow-chart, the criminal justice system is the main location where the system proactively provides services to treat serious mental illnesses. So those who most need treatment too often wait until their behavior deteriorates to the point that they wind up in the county jail or a state penitentiary, where mental health care has also been reduced thanks to budget cuts.

Grits also finds it curious that the Tribune account made no mention of how this subject - as with many corrections-related health matters heading into next year - plays into the debate over the proposed Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act to include adults with incomes up to 133% of federal poverty levels, a matter which Texas must decide in the coming legislative session and which may be informed, one might guess, by the outcome of the national Presidential election.

It's fine to say veterans, the homeless and other special populations should receive mental-health care before they enter the criminal justice system, but the harsh reality of operating those systems doesn't allow for "should bes" but must deal with what actually is. Who will pay for preventive mental health care for the indigent if not Medicaid? Counties? I wouldn't hold my breath. And the state's not likely to pony up. Plus outside the largest cities, there's a stark shortage of behavioral healthcare providers, even if there was money available to pay them. Medicaid would create a market for those services and the hope is providers would follow the dollars.

 My own view is that, if Texas would participate in the mostly federally funded (90/10, when it rolls out completely) Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, it would have an enormous palliative benefit for the justice system, particularly as it regards creating a funding mechanism to pay for preventive mental health care for at-risk populations, including but not limited to veterans. It would also make much simpler an array of reentry concerns about continuity of care to have a ready insurance plan available for the 70,000+ people released from Texas prisons each year, not to mention the hundreds of thousands more on the probation rolls.

Right now, the state's approach is mostly to ignore mental health issues until they fall into government's lap via the criminal justice system. Part of the reason the Harris County Jail has become one of the largest mental wards in the nation is that front-end care has been under-valued by legislative budget writers while funding for jails and prisons until very recently was considered sacrosanct. Now the budget crisis has become so severe that even sacred cows like prison and jail funding are on the table for potential reductions, which is a marked change in the terms of debate even from just a few years ago. In that context though, it's also difficult for the state to come up with extra money for up-front care.

Though Governor Perry has already announced his opposition to Medicaid expansion, Grits doesn't for a long shot consider that a fait accompli because of the billions of dollars the state's medical industry would be leaving on the table in the wake of such a decision. Economist Ray Perryman has a column making the rounds in several Texas papers declaring that, from an economic perspective, Texas only has "one rational choice" available, which is taking the money under Obamacare and expanding Medicaid. That's certainly been my view and I suspect once the partisan winds of election season have passed, more than a few Texas legislators struggling with issues like veterans mental health care and recidivism reduction will see the same thing and press to accept the much-needed federal dollars for that purpose.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/28/4067482/on-healthcare-ruling-texans-offer.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/28/4067482/on-healthcare-ruling-texans-offer.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/28/4067482/on-healthcare-ruling-texans-offer.html#storylink=cpy

See prior, related Grits posts:

• Medicaid expansion and addressing severe mental illness through the justice system
• Texas decision to reject Medicaid expansion would hasten trend toward using justice system as mental health substitute
• Obamacare provision a boon to budget writers on state prison health costs but complicates UTMB negotiations 
• Banking on Obamacare for future prisoner hospital costs
• Will Texas expand Medicaid coverage under Obamacare to include prisoner hospital costs?

'Veterans Defender Resource' from Indigent Defense Commission

Received this press release from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission that may interest those concerned with specialty courts: 

INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION MEETS, PUBLISHES VETERANS DEFENDER RESOURCE

AUSTIN –The Texas Indigent Defense Commission published the Veterans Defender Resource for county and court officials who are interested in the creation of a new Veterans Court or enhancing their existing problem solving courts with the addition of a defender component. A law recently passed by the Texas legislature authorized counties to establish a Veterans Courts. According to Senator Leticia Van de Putte, “Senator Rodney Ellis and I authored legislation to create Veterans Courts in Texas counties because we saw the need to recognize the unique challenges faced by service members who have endured the stresses of combat. Our war fighters have sacrificed so much for us; they deserve special consideration in helping deal with the complexities within the criminal justice and legal system.”

Defendants are eligible to participate in a veterans court program only if the attorney representing the state consents to the defendant's participation in the program and if the court in which the criminal case is pending finds that the defendant is a veteran or current member of the United States armed forces, including a member of the reserves, national guard, or state guard; and suffers from a brain injury, mental illness, or mental disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder, that resulted from the defendant's military service in a combat zone or other similar hazardous duty area and materially affected the defendant's criminal conduct at issue in the case.

The Texas Indigent Defense Commission provides an array of support to counties that wish to implement initiatives that will improve access to the right to counsel. The Veterans Defender Resource provides information about how counties can access this support through the Commission’s discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the Resource includes a directory of the currently operating Veterans Courts programs throughout the state. Many of the judges who have chosen to run Veterans Courts may be valuable sources of wisdom and advice as a new court is formed. According to Judge Brent Carr of Tarrant County, “The veteran’s court has been an incredible experience.  This program is not a gift to a veteran, it is an opportunity.  By completing a professionally designed course of therapy and treatment, the veteran has the opportunity to correct destructive behavior and have his or her good name restored.  This is good for the veteran, the veteran’s family, and the community.  It’s the least we can do.”

The Veterans Defender Resource is available on the Commission’s website (pdf).

TCJC on reentry, DWI, veterans in the justice system

There were several recent items of interest in the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition's most recent newsletter, including an announcement of the publication of their long-awaited Texas "Reentry Guide." Here's the full contents of their 7/14 e-newsletter.

"A New Start: A Re-Entry Guide for Texas "

TCJC proudly announces A New Start: A Re-Entry Guide for Texas - Key Information for Successful Reintegration.    This guide provides valuable information about re-entry related policies, as well as numerous regional resources in various areas of re-entry - housing, health services, employment, benefits and assistance, education, and community involvement.   Our goal with this guide is three-fold.  Primarily, we want to help re-entering individuals seeking to live successfully in their communities.  The guide can point them to community groups and agencies that will assist them in improving their lives and those of their families.  The guide is also a tool for organization and agency leadership, as well as their supervisory personnel and local service providers.  They can use this resource to provide particularized information to their clients and other staff members.  Lastly, the guide will help policy-makers meet requests for information from their constituents. Please click here to download this guide, and feel free to forward it to your colleagues or others who may benefit!

Re-Entry Survey Results
The statewide Reentry Task Force's Community Reentry Working Group, chaired by Commissioner Roy C. Brooks of Tarrant County and vice-chaired by our own Ana Yáñez-Correa, created an online survey intended to evaluate the challenges facing re-entry providers and others in both rural and urban communities.

We sent the survey to a diverse group of recipients, including TCJC's internal list of criminal justice practitioners, members of the Texas Reentry Task Force, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, staff members of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and its Community Justice Assistance Division, the Texas Association of Counties, the Urban County Association, participating providers of 2-1-1, and many other critical groups who are knowledgeable and care deeply about improving re-entry practices throughout Texas.     We are grateful for the support of these groups and for their willingness to forward the survey to their own internal lists of relevant contacts.  Over a period of two weeks, 645 respondents provided their feedback.  We thank all the respondents for taking the time to offer their invaluable input!   Click here to review the survey results.

Key Policy Testimony Preventing and Reducing Incidence of DWI

On July 8, 2010, the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice heard testimony on Charge 2: "Review statistics regarding the crime of driving while intoxicated, including accident statistics, alcohol-related deaths and injury, and other impacts on the community.  Examine enforcement options used nationwide to deter driving under the influence and make recommendations to reduce the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities and accidents in Texas."    Click here to find out what TCJC had to say.    Also, a broadcast of the hearing is available online; you can watch the hearing by clicking here and selecting the July 8, 2010 broadcast.     Helping Veterans Impacted by the Criminal Justice System   On July 13, the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and Subcommittee of Defense & Veterans' Affairs heard testimony on Joint Interim Charge 4: "Monitor the implementation of SB 1940 (81R), which established veterans court programs in Texas, and examine the link between combat stress disorders of war veterans, including post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, and the onset of criminal behavior."     Click here to read TCJC's invited testimony before this joint committee.    Also, you can view the hearing online by clicking here and selecting the July 13, 2010 broadcast.

Dallas launching latest TX veterans court

Following Houston's lead, Texas' second most populous county will experiment with the veterans court model authorized by the Texas Legislature last year, reports Christy Hoppe at the Dallas News ("Dallas County creating court for veterans with combat trauma," March 31):

Soldiers who survive combat only to fall into addiction and depression could face a different kind of justice in Dallas County starting next month.

Specialized courts are starting up in major counties to identify military veterans who show signs of post-traumatic stress disorder or head injuries that could have sparked their crimes. Harris and Tarrant counties already have such programs, and Bexar, Travis and El Paso counties are joining in.

"The veterans have unique problems that come from their service not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's still some from Vietnam," said state District Judge Mike Snipes, who aims to hold the first Dallas veterans docket in April.

The courts, fashioned after drug courts, will be run by certain judges in each county. They will oversee the cases of veterans in which treatment and therapy can replace jail time and probation, and veterans can address their problems without compiling a criminal record.

"We're seeing more and more examples of people coming out of there with post-traumatic stress disorder, unique mental difficulties that have to do with combat-related issues," Snipes said Tuesday. He was in Austin for a forum on the special courts, which included information from other states that have already started such programs.

In 2008, Texas' prison system reported that 4,500 offenders entering the state's prisons had served in the military. That's about 6 percent of all new prison inmates.

The Legislature authorized counties last year to start the specialized dockets in existing courts, but didn't provide money for them. And so counties and interested judges have been scrounging for seed money.

Texas' first specialized court docket was held four months ago in Harris County. In one of the first cases heard, a man arrested for evading arrest after a minor traffic accident told the judge that he saw police lights and panicked.

The incident happened two years after he'd returned from patrol duty in Iraq. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and he had no prior criminal record.

Houston state District Judge Marc Carter said he has heard 20 such cases since he began holding hearings for veterans – many of them dealing with addiction, which is how some have tried to cope with the stress.

Veterans courts are essentially similar to mental health courts that (in theory, at least) use evidence-based strong probation methods, except with a more exclusive list of eligible participants. They're well-intentioned but also new and unproven. Veterans are underrepresented among offenders and it's unclear that their common background has any particular criminogenic relevance that would justify segmenting them out as a class. These specialty courts are an experiment, though, that quite a few Texas jurisdictions have now embraced, so we'll find out over the next few years one way or another how well they work.

See related Grits posts:

• Texas veterans courts an aggressive version of problem solving jurisprudence

• Travis County planning to launch veterans court

• Stronger probation praised in drug court setting

• Excellent coverage of Travis County specialty courts

Travis County planning to launch veterans court

Having written over the weekend about the rise of Texas veterans courts, I was pleased to see Travis County announce they'd also create one in addition to their existing mental health court ("Travis County looking to set up court for veterans," Dec. 16):

Travis County officials say not enough is being done locally to identify veterans in need of mental health treatment.

"Obtaining a criminal conviction or serving jail time ... will not resolve the problems underlying the offense," said Travis County Constable Maria Canchola. "Intervention for our veterans is essential."

The possible creation of a local veterans court was hailed by veterans groups as a vital step. "Treatment is far more effective and far less expensive," said Paul Sullivan, head of the Austin-based group Veterans for Common Sense.

Travis County Attorney David Escamilla said a team of prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges will need to work out several details before a veterans court becomes reality, including determining which offenses would be eligible and what services would be offered. Officials will also need to identify funding for the court.

"But there's a great deal of momentum to move forward with this," Escamilla said, adding that the court would probably begin handling misdemeanor cases but could take on felony cases.

According to the Statesman:

Last month, Harris County set up a veterans court pilot project, and Tarrant County last week decided to accept a $200,000 grant from Gov. Rick Perry's office to hire staffers to manage a veterans court there. The Texas Legislature passed a law this year allowing counties to create veterans courts.

This new veterans court model - which garnered little focus, at least by me, when it passed this spring during the 81st legislative session - already appears quite popular, with three of Texas' largest five counties already choosing to launch an innovation that existed nowhere in the world this time two years ago.

I welcome the use of alternative sentencing and stronger probation methods through these type of specialty courts, though I recognize that, if they became popularized, veterans courts may pose equal-protection questions, as several Grits commenters pointed out. Since Travis County also has a mental health court for civilians, though (and since veterans courts are basically mental-health courts that cover post-traumatic stress), maybe this won't be too big a concern.

In the big picture, though, veterans courts are a terrific experiment: They apply evidence-based strong probation tactics from drug courts and other specialty-court settings theoretically to any type of offense. So they give an opportunity to test whether techniques that most judges agree are working pretty well on specialized caseloads for addiction-related offenses could be applied more broadly to all types of crimes. For that reason, I view such courts as pilot programs presaging how we may sentence and supervise non-veteran offenders in the future if it all works out. Perhaps that's too optimistic, but veterans courts definitely take the gloves off the old drug-court model by allowing it to apply to any offense, and the approach is clearly going to be tested in the near term, at least in these jurisdictions and probably more before all is said and done.

MORE: Murray Newman has a post up on Houston's new veterans court.

Texas veterans courts an aggressive version of problem-solving jurisprudence

During the 81st Texas Legislature a little-noticed amendment to SB 1940 may have launched the most comprehensive, aggressive brand of "problem solving court" I've yet seen in the Lone Star State: "Veterans courts."

The bipartisan amendment authorizing them, which was essentially similar to SB 112 by Rodney Ellis, was proposed by Reps Frank Corte and Allen Vaught on third reading, accepted by bill sponsor Solomon Ortiz, then approved by the House 146-0.

If authorized by a county commissioners court, Texas veterans courts can be used for any misdemeanor or felony offense - with no limitation - when the veteran defendant has a brain injury, mental illness or mental disorder, including post-traumatic stress, that "resulted from" military service in a combat zone.

By contrast, a veterans court in Colorado Springs, CO - which was the first I've heard of this new breed of specialty court - opened earlier this year with only a misdemeanor caseload. According to the LA Times, veterans courts began in Buffalo, NY in 2008 and more are opening around the country.

In veterans court, Texas' statute mandates that the DA and criminal defense attorney participate in a "nonadversarial" fashion to create an "individualized treatment plan" for the offender. The prosecutor must agree to the approach and the defendant may also choose not to participate. If the veteran successfully completes the program, charges may be dismissed "in the best interest of justice."

Tarrant County plans to open a veterans court using federal grant money distributed through the Governor's office. I don't know how many other counties will establish veterans courts, how many defendants prosecutors might admit into such programs, for what offenses they might be used or even whether the idea will work. The bill says programs must notify the Governor's Criminal Justice Division before commencing, so I'll check with them in the coming week. But my gut tells me this will be a successful approach, though perhaps not for the reasons the amendment-authors conceived.

Recently I wrote about research on the relationship between mental health, criminality and community supervision by Dr. Jennifer Skeem. She concluded that specialty mental health caseloads succeeded not because mental health problems promoted crime per se, but rather because courts and probation officers in those settings were more likely to use evidence-based practices when dealing with the offender instead of more punitive, authoritarian approaches.

That analysis strikes me as likely applying to veterans courts as well, since at the end of the day they're basically specialized mental health courts. They are likely to succeed, based on Skeem's analysis, if only because they're mandated under this statute to use a best-practices approach aimed at helping the defendant succeed instead of only punishing them when they fail.

I also like that veterans courts would be open to any type of offense, not just drug and alcohol-related crimes. Drug court judges like John Creuzot in Dallas for years have said that a greater array of offenses should be included in problem-solving courts like his DIVERT court in Dallas; Texas' veterans courts, though, tear down that artificial barrier entirely. There is no offense, even murder, that's not in theory eligible for veterans court diversion (though I doubt any prosecutor would ever agree to it in that type of case).

The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee was told to monitor the rollout of veterans courts as one of its "interim charges" assigned by the Speaker of the House, so there will be more opportunities next year to learn where and how these courts are being used.

RELATED: From Sentencing Law & Policy, "Judge suggests more sentencing options for war veterans."

USAA cancels insurance due to spousal incarceration

A reader sent me this account via email and I thought it was worth sharing (excerpted to protect the writer's identity):

I don't know if you are familiar with USAA. It was originally the United States Army Automobile Association. It is now both an insurance and banking operation that is headquartered in San Antonio. They serve primarily the military and military veterans. My father was a career Naval officer and 40 year member of USAA. His membership qualified me as a member. I've been a member of USAA for nearly 13 years. I have nearly $50,000 in various bank and investment accounts with them. I have two credit cards with them, I have a mortgage with them. I have a car loan. I have previously paid off a mortgage to them, and numerous car loans. (I have very good credit, I'm no risk to them). Anyways, you have be member to be insured by them, etc.

Last week, I logged on to my accounts and decided to update my profile and add my wife. Just added her as a family member (spouse). This caused USAA to contact me (electronically) about updating my auto policies (I have two cars insured with them). I replied that my wife didn't currently reside with me and that she didn't even have a driver's license so they I couldn't add her to my auto policies if I wanted to. USAA then replied that they needed to know why she didn't have a driver's license (was it suspended, revoked, etc.) This kind of irked me, but I went ahead and replied that, although it was none of their business, she was, in fact, currently incarcerated.

I received the following message from USAA this afternoon:

Dear Mr. [Name deleted],

We appreciate your honesty in the matter. USAA has made a business decision not to offer or continue any property and casualty products for individuals with criminal activity, a felony conviction, or previous incarceration. We are of the opinion that this is demonstrative of behavior and judgment characteristics that present an increased and unacceptable risk of loss insured under our policies.

We will review your Automobile and Homeowner's policies as they come up for renewal.

Thank you,
Jeff Tryk
USAA

I called USAA to inquire exactly what "We will review our Automobile and Homeowner's policies as they come up for renewal." meant. I was that it meant that USAA would not renew my policies. Even though my wife did not live with me, or that I had asked them for any coverage for her, because she was now a "member of my household," they now longer wanted my business. Mind you now, they have a lien on one car, and hold my mortgage. They'll finance me, but won't insure the very property they've financed.

Needless to say, I was livid. ...

Here is a case of not only punishing someone for their crime they've already served their time for, now they are punishing me for falling in love with her. How is anyone who has ever been in prison, Texas or anywhere else, supposed to succeed in this world with policies like this confronting them?

I understand that a company has the right to set their own policies and procedures. But these policies just perpetuate failure for parolees. ...

Basically I think this policy sucks. For me and for my wife and anyone else to have something like this happen to them.

That's a pretty low blow, especially for a company that services veterans and their families. More than a few vets later have scrapes with the law, the Washington Post reported recently. Once they've paid their debt to society, though, it's counterproductive to shun them from routine, productive commerce.

I try to pretty much stay away from the national healthcare debate but I agree with Barack Obama on one thing - you really can't trust an insurance company to do the right thing.