Would bank accounts for ex-prisoners reduce crime?

Here's an issue that arguably merits consideration when Texas' new reentry task force meets later this week, via Dr. Karen Franklin's excellent blog on forensic psychology: Establishing bank accounts for offenders when they're released on parole. In a post last month Franklin wrote:

Ever thought about how hard it would be to take care of basic business without a bank account or credit cards?

In the UK, an experimental project to open bank accounts for paroling prisoners has led to a remarkable finding: The ex-cons who got bank accounts were only half as likely as other parolees to reoffend.

And here's another remarkable finding: Four out of five of these guys had never had a bank account before.

A university-based study is presently evaluating the effort; see a report (pdf) released in December analyzing the outcomes so far. Researchers note that "without a bank account, measures to enable ex-prisoners to gain access to settled accommodation, employment and education are more complex and difficult to implement." More than 70% of ex-offenders for whom bank accounts were established continued to use them after release - a particularly striking finding considering how many had never before had any banking relationship.

In Texas, offenders are given a small sum in cash when they leave prison. How much more difficult would it be to establish a bank account with an institution in the town they'll be released and give them a debit card and pin number instead? In the best of all possible worlds, preparation for reentry would also include classes in personal financial management - especially if, as in the UK, most offenders never had a checking account before. Among account holders in the UK study, "52% said that they currently needed money advice" but "Only 14% of inmates had ever sought money or debt advice in the past."

Ex-prisoners' problems establishing bank accounts historically have been exacerbated by difficulties getting proper ID, but this year the Texas Lege passed HB 2161 which requires TDCJ to enter a memorandum agreement with the Department of Public Safety to get parolees a state ID card before they're released from prison. (Any readers with knowledge of how that initiative has played out during implementation, please let us know in the comments.) With the ID hurdle cleared up front, it seems like establishing a bank account prior to release wouldn't be that big of a stretch and could result in significant recidivism reductions.

Manufactured Memories

Notes Paul Kennedy at The Defense Rests:

According to this article in the new issue of Scientific American, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, were able to manufacture memories for 25% of the subjects in a memory study. The ability to "create" memories of events that never took place places further doubt about the reliability of identification testimony by eyewitnesses.

The implications for the justice system of this observation are quite significant, not just in the area of eyewitness testimony but also regarding false confessions.

Public tired of Willlie Horton? Whither 21st century clemency?

Referring to the case of Maurice Clemmons - the mentally ill man whose 108-year sentence was commuted in 2000 to 47 years by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for crimes committed as a juvenile, and who last year killed four Washington state police officers in a coffee shop - former US Pardon Attorney Margaret Colgate Love offers up an item in the National Law Journal titled "Goodbye to Willie Horton" (Jan. 11), suggesting that, "The American public is tired of hearing about Willie Horton. The case of Maurice Clemmons has given our elected leaders an opportunity to move on."

No politician needs to be reminded of the iconic 1988 rampage by a furloughed prisoner that dashed Michael Dukakis' presidential hopes and ushered in two decades of harsh justice. For anyone aspiring to elective office, Horton has come to symbolize the hazards of any association with a high-profile crime. Since then, despite declining crime rates and escalating prison budgets, politicians have been cautious to the point of paralysis when it comes to criminal justice issues.

Nowhere has the spell cast by Horton been more powerful than where pardoning is concerned. Although attacks on chief executives related to particular pardons are nothing new in our history, never before has mere anticipation of attack ­succeeded in shutting down the pardon power altogether. With a few notable exceptions, recently governors and presidents alike have let their constitutional power atrophy, fearful of being labeled soft on crime or of being held personally responsible for a heinous act that might even tenuously be linked to them. Pardons and commutations have become essentially unavailable in many states and in the federal system, whether to release a dying prisoner, to rectify a sentencing error or to remove a barrier to employment. This creates special problems in jurisdictions where parole has been abolished, and where records cannot be expunged no matter how dated the conviction.

This is regrettable. The framers of our Constitution understood the unique and indispensable role of pardon when they entrusted the president with an unreviewable power to override the law. For most of our history, and until fairly recently, pardon played an integral operational part in the justice system. The Supreme Court has repeatedly relied upon the pardon power to save excessive or unjust punishments from constitutional infirmity. If pardoning is among a chief executive's toughest jobs, there is no time in memory when it has been more necessary to a just system. As Justice Anthony Kennedy has said, "A people confident in its laws and institutions should not be ashamed of mercy."

She further opines that:

The Seattle tragedy would be compounded if it were allowed to derail pragmatic proposals to reduce prison terms for nonviolent offenders, to increase the availability of drug and mental health treatment in and out of prison and to facilitate prisoner re-entry. It would be equally unfortunate if fear of forgiving sidelined pardon as a tool of law reform for another generation.

Of course, the vast majority of those who receive pardons don't reoffend, but in the minds of politicians, fear of outcomes like Maurice Clemmons too often outweigh arguments for clemency. Since becoming President, Barack Obama has issued more pardons to Thanksgiving turkeys than to ex-offenders.

As Texas Governor, Rick Perry has not completely sidelined his pardon power, but he has used it quite sparingly and refused to offer clemency to the majority of offenders for whom the Board of Pardons and Parole recommended it during his tenure. When he has given pardons, frequently it has either been for DNA exonerees or for petty, long-ago crimes that make you wonder why many others aren't also eligible.

Too seldom have we seen Governor Perry issue pardons "to release a dying prisoner, to rectify a sentencing error or to remove a barrier to employment," as Love suggests - particularly when one considers the volume of folks convicted in the Texas justice system. I hope she's right that Mike Huckabee's defense of his pardons will mark a turning point that changes perceptions about clemency by chief executives. It's been quite a while - perhaps dating back to Gov. Ma Ferguson's tenure - since pardons in Texas have been the kind of systemic safety valve preventing error and injustice that Love describes in her essay.

H/T: Pardon Power.

Forensic psychologist inflated IQ scores to secure death penalty

According to an excellent investigative article in the Texas Observer by reporter Renee Feltz ("Cracked," Jan. 8), seventeen men currently on Texas' death row were evaluated by a forensic psychologist using "junk science" who improperly inflated IQ scores to make them eligible for the death penalty despite Supreme Court caselaw banning execution of the mentally retarded.

Among the cases Dr. George Denkowski apparently tainted was that of Michael Richard, who was executed for capital murder in September 2007. This case was heretofore better known because Judge Sharon Keller at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied receipt of Richard's final habeas claim with her infamous "We close at 5" comment. That led to the Commission on Judicial Conduct to initiate fact-finding proceedings that may yet lead to her removal.

Feltz reports that:

After the Atkins decision in 2002, Denkowski became the first choice for Texas prosecutors. He would ultimately testify in 29 cases—nearly two-thirds of such appeals in Texas to date. ...

In 29 cases, Denkowski has found defendants retarded only eight times. By 2006, when he tested Plata, Denkowski had garnered an “almost Dr. Death status” among defense lawyers, according to attorney Robert Morrow. Morrow represented Alfred DeWayne Brown during his 2004 trial for killing a clerk and a security guard at a Houston check-cashing store. Morrow said “Denkowski pretty much thought that if you had engaged in criminal behavior you were not retarded,” Morrow says. Brown remains on Death Row.

The work was lucrative. Denkowski charged prosecutors hourly rates of $180 for evaluations, and $250 for court testimony. Most of the cases he worked on were in Harris County, which until 2009 pursued more death-penalty sentences than any other county in Texas. Between 2003 and 2009, Harris County paid him $303,084 for his services, according to the Harris County Auditor.

The case of Daniel Plata brought the issue of Denkowski's credibility to a head when a federal judge found that Denkowski had improperly inflated IQ scores and all of his testimony “must be disregarded due to fatal errors.” Then, "On Jan. 18, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and commuted Plata’s death sentence to life in prison. He was transferred to the Hodge Unit in Rusk, where he is now housed with other mentally retarded prisoners." At that point, writes Feltz:

The decision ended Daniel Plata’s 12-year stay on Texas’ Death Row. It might also lead to the end of George Denkowski’s career as a licensed psychologist. Judge Ellis’ decision emboldened one of Denkowski’s colleagues, Jerome Brown of Bellaire, to file a complaint with the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. If Denkowski loses his license, the cases of 17 other Texas men on Death Row—men he determined were not mentally retarded—could be re-examined. And Texas’ status as a national outlier in cases involving mental retardation could be changed for good.

Brown worked as an expert for the defense on five capital cases in which Denkowski worked for the prosecution. He says Denkowski used the same estimation techniques and showed the same deference to prosecutors’ evidence in those cases as he did in Plata’s, and that it was “essentially junk science. It is science that appears to be scientific, but it doesn’t have any background of validation to it.”

The professional psychiatric community apparently agrees:

After the judge rejected Denkowski’s findings in the Plata case, Brown enlisted Jack Fletcher and a Florida-based psychologist named Tom Oakland to jointly file a complaint against Denkowski. Oakland co-authored the adaptive-behavior test. Their complaint cited the Richard case, as well as those of Plata and DeWayne Brown.

Last February, the state Board of Examiners of Psychologists upheld the complaint, finding that Denkowski had made “administration, scoring and mathematical errors” in all three cases. The board sent the complaint to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Denkowski will have a chance to defend himself in a hearing scheduled for Feb. 16 in Austin. He could lose his license.

The broader psychological community has also rejected Denkowski’s methods. He is mentioned by name in the 2010 edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities’ diagnostic manual. In a section about how cultural or economic factors should impact scores on adaptive behavior tests, the authors “strongly caution against practices such as those recommended by Denkowski.”

Given all that, it's hard to disagree with

Daniel Plata’s lawyer, Kathryn Kase, [who] argues that all of the appeals on which Denkowski worked should be re-heard. “When you have junk science in a case, it’s like pouring poison into a punch bowl,” she says. “You aren’t going to get the poison out. So you have to pour out the punch, clean the bowl, and start all over again.”

Congrats to Feltz and the Observer for excellent reporting on a story that really needed to be told.

TDCJ: 'Freakonomics' too racially charged

Steven Levitt was surprised when TDCJ rejected his book "Superfreakonomics" on the grounds that it's "sole purpose" was to "Achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or security threat group activity." Eric Dexheimer at the Austin Statesman followed up and determined that a mistake had been made: TDCJ meant to ban the book's predeessor, "Freakonomics," for the same reason, and confused the two books. Prison administrators, it turned out, were concerned about the use of the phrase "nigger" in several old quotations in an historical discussion of the Ku Klux Klan.

I read Freakonomics when it came out, but not the sequel; the idea that it might contribute to "the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption" is an awfully slim reed indeed.

Weighing benefits and detriments of US public information policies about crime

A couple of recent items related to making police information public caught my eye. First, from Matt Kelley at Change.org's Criminal Justice Blog:

Arrests are public information, but exactly how public should they be? Twitter is testing the limits.

Every arrest in Denton, Texas, is chronicled on an unofficial twitter feed, built by an art student seeking to explore the possibilities opened by social platforms like twitter to share public information.

The mugshot at left shows a woman arrested yesterday for assault causing bodily injury. She hasn't been tried or convicted. Should her photo be on twitter (or on change.org)?

When Montgomery, Texas, District Attorney Brett Ligon threatened last week to post people arrested for driving under the influence on his twitter feed (he apparently hasn't started yet), some in the defense community balked at the idea of shaming people accused of crimes.
Law blogger Paul Kennedy wrote: My question is: should the DA dismiss a case against a motorist or should a motorist be acquitted by a jury of his peers, will (the DA) offer a public apology on Twitter as well?

I'm of two minds on this. Kennedy is right that district attorneys shouldn't pursue a shaming policy until they have a conviction. But at the same time I applaud the initiative of Brian Baugh, the University of North Texas student behind the Denton twitter blotter. He's not out to shame, he's out to make public information truly public.

I wrote in March that a 21st-century police blotter could be a new revenue stream for flagging media organizations. Baugh's twitter mashup takes us in that direction. If law enforcement agencies take up twitter blotters, they will need to include strong disclaimers that accounts posted are accusations and that nobody has been convicted. But initiatives like this aren't pure sensationalism -- they're one part sensational and one part public service.

We're obsessed with crime, and that's our problem, not one to be solved by the media or the police. If a news organization can use a crime map, an interactive live blotter or a mugshot gallery to drive revenue that pays for investigative reporting and arts coverage, then I'm all for it.
Public information isn't always pretty, but it's public for a reason. The more transparent we make our law enforcement agencies, the more we can hold them accountable for injustice. Would you prefer an online public blotter or indefinite secret detention?

On the other end of the spectrum, I was interested to read this account from a Baltimore Sun reporter on assignment in London about the differences between US and UK crime coverage, which largely stem from differences in access to information and the ability of reporters to publish details about cases pretrial:

I'm working to get my feet set and haven't hit the streets yet, but in chatting with reporters here at the Independent, I'm already hearing some pretty significant differences in how reporters cover crime here.

In Baltimore, and the U.S. generally, an arrest in a criminal case marks a big moment in the reporting process. Authorities have to file charging documents with the court, requiring certain evidence to be laid out. With the suspect formally identified and charged, the digging then begins on trying to find out more about the case and the suspect.

Here, it is the opposite. Once an arrest is made, there is essentially a blackout on information. Reporters are prohibited by the government from publishing information about the case, particularly anything about the defendant, out of concern that it will influence potential jurors.

Doing so runs the risks of fines and contempt of court charges. If a reporter gets major information on a case, but an arrest is made while they're putting their article together, they will have to sit on that info until the case has been adjudicated.

Of course, in America, our courts will call hundreds of people if necessary to find 12 who have not heard about the case, and they are instructed by the judge not to seek out information in newspapers or on TV during the proceedings. Reporters here couldn't believe what I was telling them about our access to court records and our ability to write about a case after arrest, and leading up to and during a trial. One expressed reservations that the media accounts would indeed sway a jury unfairly.

Another big difference is that police scanners, a fixture in U.S. newsrooms, aren't a factor here. They wait to hear from police about major crimes, and alerts can sometimes take days, reporters said. And remember, because of the contempt of court issues, if they find out about a crime after an arrest is made, they're essentially powerless to do any meaningful reporting because of the jury bias issues.

I was fascinated to read this account of UK crime reporting because their approach challenges some of my own beliefs that I've admittedly seldom adequately questioned.

On one hand, I value public information and grew up with a system where most court information is public; I've grown comfortable (complacent?) with that system, I'll admit, and it's been a long time since I've seriously considered my own first-order assumptions on that topic. On the other hand, much US crime coverage is quite poor, sensationalistic, frequently misleading, one-sided, and often flat-out counterproductive. In Texas, there are at most half a dozen news reporters who I consider to produce high-quality crime beat coverage, and most of the rest often do more harm than good. That's not a great ratio.

Is releasing limited information resulting in half-assed coverage hyping sensationalist spin slanted heavily toward police sources better than a situation where the release of information is delayed until after disposition of the case, the way we do, for example, with police officer disciplinary cases? I'd have to know more about when, how and what information is released in the UK to form an opinion.

There was a time years ago when I'd have automatically said the US approach is better, but after many years traveling around this block I'm no longer 100% confident that the way we handle information about criminal charges in the United States always serves the interests of justice. The whole "trial by media" phenomenon has gotten wildly out of hand and there don't seem to be many good solutions to the problem that I can see short of restricting information like they do in the UK.

Bexar and Collin DA's races: Who gets to wear the bandoliers?

Having recently rounded up some of the more interesting criminal-justice related and appellate judicial elections in the offing in 2010, I should add two District Attorneys' races to the list that I failed to mention:

Bexar County DA: Dems' time?
A couple of different folks have now told me to watch Democrat Nico Lahood out of Bexar County as a strong challenger to incumbent Republican DA Susan Reed. Offhand, his bio looks solid, and from a campaigning perspective, the fact that he sits on a major hospital board and is active with St. Mary's alumni and the local criminal defense bar perhaps indicates he can raise TV money. He'll need it. Susan Reed will be a tough opponent and that would be a big Democratic get in a year when the county party is in disarray. In 2006 Reed won with 60+% of the vote, but she's also taken a few hits since then and the countywide vote tipped consistently Democrat in 2008.

Collin County DA: Who gets to wear the bandolier?
Meanwhile, at Frisco DWI Lawyer we find the most detailed account I've seen of the candidate field for Collin County District Attorney, which is open this year after John Roach decided to call it quits. The GOP primary race looks to be a highly competitive contest: Greg Willis, a Perry appointed judge who resigned to run for DA; Jeff Bray, the senior legal advisor to the Plano Police Department; James Angelino, who is a former ADA from Denton County; and criminal defense lawyer and former Dallas ADA John Reed. Democrats have a pretty qualified challenger lined up in Rafael de la Garza, a former Dallas ADA and Western District Assistant US Attorney, but his candidacy on paper is a longshot; he'd need resources, luck, and maybe help from an inept opponent to win.

Question One to all these Collin County candidates: Do you support incumbent John Roach's efforts to outfit and deploy a DA Office SWAT-like tactical team using asset forfeiture money? Question Two: Will you rescind his decision? Really. That's not a joke or misprint. The outgoing DA is putting together his own tactical team equipped for forced entry for which he recently sought to purchase:

2 DPMS "AP4" 5.56 caliber Panther Carbines
2 Remington Model 870 12 gauge shotguns with 7 round magazines, pistol grips and folding stocks.
2 LED lights for the shotguns
2 Tactical Ballistic shields
10 Ballistic helmets
2 shoulder ammo bandoleers (a la Pancho Villa?)
2 Blackhawk Tactical backpack kits, includes a heavy duty ram, a bolt cutter and a hooligan tool (for breaking down doors).
6,000 rounds of 5.56 caliber NATO ammunition.
etc....

Those are gonna be the best-armed prosecutors I've ever heard of, but it could be the source of intra-office jealousy: Which prosecutors do and don't get helmets? And who gets to wear the bandoliers? I wonder if, for liability purposes, using a ram, bolt-cutter or "hooligan tool" would qualify the DA's office for "absolute immunity"?

The Collin County Observer helpfully provides a link to the relevant agenda item and backup documentation.

Reentry Task Force ramping up

The first meeting of Texas' new Reentry Task Force authorized by the Legislature last year will meet in Austin next Friday. See:

• Reentry Task Force Agenda
• Reentry Task Force Members

The task force launches its work just as new federal money becomes available for reentry work. According to The Crime Report:

The new federal appropriations law signed this week by President Obama provides more funds for prisoner re-entry work than had previously been reported. Last [month], Crime & Justice News noted that congressional negotiators had agreed on $100 million as the main appropriation for Justice Department programs in the relatively new Second Chance Act. The Council of State Governments Justice Center reports that the law also includes $14 million for reentry initiatives in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and $108,493,000 to the Department of Labor for ex-offender activities.

Among specific line items for prisoner re-entry are $37 million for re-entry demonstration projects, $15 million for mentoring grants to nonprofit organizations, $10 million for reentry courts, $7.5 million for family-based substance abuse treatment, and $13 million for reentry substance abuse and criminal justice collaboration. The law also includes $10 million for a justice reinvestment grant program, which will provide technical assistance, incentive grants, and other activities in support of evidence-based criminal justice reform and recidivism-reduction efforts by states.

Public Defender Revolution

A pal from my days at The Daily Texan, Carol Huneke, who is now a public defender in Washington state, emailed today to let me know she recently launched a blog titled "Public Defender Revolution," which "advocates for the rights of public defenders and our clients." So far, the blog covers some of the same terrain you'll find on Grits except without the Texas focus and with a much better sense of humor.

The policy stuff is great, but what'll bring you back are posts like Carol's subtle improvements to a "Formal Apology" form used in her office and her opening post on the blog, "The Power of 'Yep'," in which she describes a dressing down by a judge during a video hearing at the jail known as "the stinky docket," and the priceless reaction in solidarity by her fellow PDs.

Carol's co-blogger in the venture also operates the blog, "Federal Criminal Defense Investigator." Stop by to say "Howdy" and "Welcome to the blogosphere!"

Top 5 TX private prison stories of 2009

The blog Texas Prison Bidness recently published its list of the top 5 stories related to private prisons from 2009:

1. Family detention ends at T. Don Hutto
2. Protests of conditions at Geo Group's Reeves County Detention Center
3. Private prison proposals defeated in Texas communities
4. Small companies, big scandals
5. 81st Legislature ends without increased oversight

AG: Governor may issue posthumous pardons

Via Kimberly Reeves at the Quorum Report, I learned that Attorney General Greg Abbott issued his first opinion of 2010 in response to questions from state Sen. Rodney Ellis declaring that, contrary to his earlier assertions, Gov. Rick Perry has full powers under the Texas Constitution to issue posthumous pardons in cases like Timothy Cole's.

While such a pardon would require that the Governor seek a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Parole, said the AG, the Perry has full power to issue pardons in all cases except impeachment or treason, with no other limitations.

The Governor had relied on an old AG opinion stating that posthumous pardons were impossible because a pardon must be "accepted," but this new opinion points out that since then the US Supreme Court called that stance "a legal fiction at best" and has not relied on the notion since 1833. In any event, Abbott said the "acceptance" requirement only made sense when pardons are "conditional" and does not apply in posthumous innocence cases.

Abbott also noted that the Texas Legislature had authorized compensation for false convictions "including a person who received a posthumous pardon," language which "appears to recognize the shift in United States Supreme Court precedent."

All this clears the way for Governor Perry to ask the Board of Pardons and Parole for a pardon recommendation for Timothy Cole, who was falsely convicted of rape and died in prison before DNA cleared his name last year. Cole's family has been adamant demanding the Governor pardon their departed relative, and with this opinion I see no reason that process wouldn't proceed.

See the full opinion.

UPDATE: I just got a call from Tim Cole's half-brother Cory Session, who informed me that Mary Ann Wiley from the Governor's office contacted him and his mother this morning to congratulate them on the opinion. Wiley told them Gov. Perry wanted to see the pardon happen as quickly as possible and to expect action in a matter of "weeks." Congratulations to Cory, his mother and the rest of Tim's family.

RELATED: See coverage from the AP, the Dallas News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Texas Tribune, and the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. The Houston Press quotes a positive statement from the Governor.

Feds: 12% of youth in custody sexually abused; 2 TYC facilities among worst offenders

In light of the TYC sex abuse scandal a couple of years ago, it's remarkable to see this new survey of youth in custody from the Bureau of Justice Statistics which found that "About 12% of youth in state juvenile facilities and large non-state facilities ... reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months."

Of those, "About 2.6% of youth ... reported an incident involving another youth and 10.3% reported an incident involving staff." (Honestly, I'd have expected those numbers to be reversed.) Further, according to the accompanying press release:

Nearly half of the youth victimized by another youth reported they had experienced physical force or threat of force (46 percent), 30 percent had been offered favors or protection, and 17 percent had been given drugs or alcohol. Among youth victimized by facility staff, more than two-thirds (69 percent) did not report any force, threat of force, or offers of favors, protection, drugs, or alcohol to engage in the sexual activity. Nearly 20 percent of youth sexually victimized by another youth reported being injured in the incident, compared to five percent of youth victimized by staff.

The survey also found gender-based differences in sexual abuse reports. "Males were more likely than females to report sexual activity with facility staff (10.8 percent compared to 4.7 percent), but less likely than females to report forced sexual activity with another youth (2.0 percent compared to 9.1 percent)."

Even assuming there are some false accusations in the mix, those are pretty startling data.

MORE: Two Texas Youth Commission facilities - Corsicana and Victory Field - reported among the highest rates of sexual abuse of all secure juvenile facilities: respectively, 23.7 and 24.6 percent of youth at those facilities claimed to have engaged in sexual contact with facility staff, while 13.7 percent of youth at Corsicana said they'd been sexually victimized by other youth in the past 12 months. See Table 5 on page 8 of the pdf.

Also, "Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female."

It should be noted that, under the law, any sexual contact between youth and staff is considered per se abuse, even if the youth consented or sought out the contact. However, 8.9% of youth at Corsicana and 11.7% at Victory Field reported that staff sexual misconduct involved use of force (Table 6).

AND MORE: See initial coverage from the Texas Tribune and from AP. Here's an excellent post from the New York Review of Books Blog.

'Texas parole reforms lowered crime, costs'

The title of this post is the headline of an effective op ed in the Dallas News by Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Here's how the piece opens:

Public safety is job one, but recent improvements in Texas parole outcomes demonstrate that we can be safer while saving money.

In 2008, 1,016 fewer Texas parolees were alleged to have committed a new crime than in 2007. Net savings may exceed $96 million. These gains continued in 2009, though scaling back parole supervision could reverse this progress.

Why are so many fewer parolees committing crimes? For starters, substance abuse treatment resumed in 2005. Prior to 2007, drug tests were sent to a laboratory, creating a delay of a few weeks. Now, results are instant and most parolees with a drug problem admit to it before being tested. Violators who do not pose a public safety risk are immediately referred to outpatient treatment.

Graduated sanctions such as curfews and increased reporting have been enhanced, ensuring a swift but commensurate response to each rule violation. Parolees who repeatedly violate the rules or commit a misdemeanor are often sent to an Intermediate Sanctions Facility for approximately 90 days, in lieu of being revoked to prison. Some parolees at these facilities receive drug treatment along with follow-up counseling upon release. Literacy, GED and workforce preparation programming are available at some facilities.

Parole officers have increasingly been oriented towards helping parolees succeed while some states are known for simply "trail'em, nail'em, and jail'em." Funding for parole chaplains was restored in 2007. Parole resource centers emphasize decision-making based on concern for others and the victim. Texas also has smaller caseloads than many states, ranging from 15 to 75.

Employed ex-offenders are far less likely to re-offend, and 65 percent of Texas parolees are working. In contrast, 80 percent of California parolees are unemployed. Job placement and training for parolees has been enhanced since 2007 through closer ties between parole offices and local workforce centers.

FBI investigating corruption allegations at Bexar Sheriff's narcotics unit

Over the holidays, the SA Express News reported on a possible brewing corruption scandal at the Bexar County Sheriff's Office narcotics division. According to reporter Guillermo Contreras ("Bexar narcotics deputies probed," Dec. 27):

The FBI is investigating the Bexar County sheriff’s narcotics unit over allegations that some of its deputies might have been unlawfully taking evidence or stealing money and property from people they detain or arrest, the San Antonio Express-News has confirmed.

The two-year-old probe includes allegations of civil rights violations, but has expanded as agents learned about deputies who are living beyond what their county pay could afford — group trips to Las Vegas and the purchase of a large property in South Texas, for example.

“There have been many complaints about that narcotics division,” said one law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation, one of several who confirmed its existence. “The complaints include stuff about rogue cops and deputies running roughshod, arresting people without cause and stealing money.”

“It’s not the whole (narcotics) division, but four or five names keep coming up,” another source in the criminal justice system said. “But it doesn’t end there. They’re also looking up the chain to see what they knew.”

Independent of those sources, the Express-News confirmed FBI agents have approached several defense attorneys to interview their clients about the allegations.

Among the accusations are claims that deputies, while moonlighting in private security jobs, took advantage of their roles as law officers and shook down people at apartment complexes where deputies were hired to provide security. Some complained to federal officials about the deputies using excessive force and threats.

Most appellate court races not competitive outside Houston

Now that filing deadline has past, I'm disappointed to see that Dems fielded no additional candidates besides Keith Hampton for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals this year, though they've got horses in all the Supreme Court of Texas races, including Bill Moody who topped all Democratic statewide vote-getters in 2006. (I predict Moody and Hampton will top all other D vote-getters in the November election.)

At the appeals court level, the majority of incumbents got a pass and only three of the 14 courts will see more than one contested general election. Seven appellate courts won't have any contested general election races at all, demonstrating that the practice of gerrymandering "safe" districts isn't limited to legislative seats.

The dearth of candidates also demonstrates that the Democrats' inability to find strong contenders extends to judicial races on the appellate level. It's particularly pathetic that Dems couldn't find someone willing to run against Larry Meyers on the CCA.

By far, the most action among appellate court races comes at the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeal in Houston.

The First Court boasts the most interesting judicial race in the state (to me, anyway), with Democrat and former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Morris Overstreet challenging incumbent Chief Justice Sherry Radack, whose husband is a Harris County Commissioner. Two other Republicans on the court - Evelyn Keyes and Michael Massengale - drew both primary and general election opponents. At the 14th Court of Appeals there will also be three competitive general election races and one contested Republican primary for an open seat.

In each of the last two election cycles, First and Fourteenth Court general elections have been decided by one or two percentage points, making these races extremely competitive heading into November.

There are also two competitive general election races in the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas, with Lawrence Praeger and Bonnie Lee Goldstein challenging incumbents Robert Filmore and Lara Myers, respectively. These appellate seats did not flip to Democrats along with county-level judicial seats in Dallas' 2006 and 2008 elections, but they've been getting more competitive and last go-round GOP incumbents barely fended off Dem challengers by a roughly 52-48 margin, putting them within striking distance depending on the dynamics of the race.

On the Third Court of Appeals out of Austin, Democrat Kurt Kuhn will face the winner of a primary battle between Melissa Goodwyn and Scott Field for an open seat in what will likely be a hotly contested race. Another possible close one may be Democrat Rebecca Martinez's challenge to incumbent Marialyn Barnard at the Fourth Court of Appeals in in San Antonio.

I'd be surprised if any of the other races in the appellate courts ended up being competitive in November. I don't know enough about the candidates to guess whether any GOP primary challenges might succeed. That said, as Ross Ramsey at the Texas Tribune noted, the list of candidates may still be incomplete:

Candidates had to file with the political parties by the close of business on Monday. The parties have ten days to get their ballots formalized and into the state's hands. And many candidates — two-thirds of the House, for instance — file with their local party officials instead of going to the state office. Those locals operate at what you might call different levels of efficiency, and not all of their candidate lists are available. The lists — and our database that results from them — will have some nicks and dents until the process is over.

And of course, there'll be a lot more action, too, in local criminal court races, to which I have only begun to pay closer attention. Perhaps the most immediate question: Will Harris County Democrats' judicial gains from 2008 continue in a mid-term election, or will the GOP stage a comeback?

Overall, with the exception of races for the Houston courts, the Dems half-assed slate in appellate court races reminds me of Jim Hightower's old quip that if God had intended people to vote, He'd have given them candidates.

See related Grits posts:

• 2010 criminal justice elections to watch
• Court races will be spearpoint of Dems future statewide success

No "absolute immunity" for County Attorney who participated in illegal search

SCOTUS may not get the chance to decide on the limits of prosecutorial immunity, but the 5th Circuit recently ruled in a case out of Seguin that prosecutors' immunity for trial activities does not apply to investigative work or to "the prosecutorial function of giving advice to police." Reported the Courthouse News ("County attorney can be sued over pet seizure," Dec. 18):

A Guadalupe County attorney is not immune from a lawsuit accusing her of illegally entering a Texas woman's home and helping to remove 47 dogs and cats, the 5th Circuit ruled.

Prosecutorial immunity shields a prosecutor's role of evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses before trial, not the detective work that forms the basis of a complaint or prosecution, the New Orleans-based appeals court noted.

County attorney Elizabeth Murray-Kolb and three other county officials took the pets from Suzanne Hoog-Watson based suspicions of animal neglect. They had also heard that Hoog-Watson moved to a mental institution - a rumor that turned out to be false. ...

The district court dismissed the federal claims, and Hoog-Watson appealed.

She argued that the county attorney's involved role in the search and removal of her pets disqualified Murray-Kolb for prosecutorial immunity. The 5th Circuit agreed, reversing dismissal of the federal claims and reviving the claims against Murray-Kolb.

Though prosecutors are immune for their role in evaluating evidence, "this is not the case, because Murray-Kolb evaluated the conditions at Hoog-Watson's property as part of the effort to assemble evidence," Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod concluded (original emphasis).

See the full opinion (pdf). The court expressed no opinion on whether the county attorney might be entitled to "qualified immunity" for her role, declaring that the issue should be argued on remand.

Via TDCAA.

Large backlogs for DPS forensic testing

A local story from the Wilson County News highlights how backlogged Texas state crime labs have become in processing evidence from violent crimes ("Clark murder probe stalls in DPS crime-lab backlog," Jan. 5):

On Jan. 19, six months will have passed since 50-year-old Sylvia Perez Clark was found dead in her home on Twin Oaks Drive south of here. The murder shocked residents here, prompting Neighborhood Watch meetings and more.

Wilson County residents had not seen the likes of such a crime since exactly 11 years earlier when 66-year-old Gloria Flores was shot to death outside her home on F.M. 1303 near the intersection of C.R. 155 northwest of Floresville. Flores’ murder remains unsolved.

As of Dec. 29, no one has been charged in connection with Clark’s murder, said Wilson County Sheriff Joe D. Tackitt Jr. The Wilson County Sheriff’s Office and the Texas Rangers are investigating the case.

Evidence collected from the crime scene was sent to various Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) crime laboratories for further analysis. But as of Dec. 29, Tackitt said there is no word on when those analyses will be complete.

According to its Web site, DPS maintains 12 labs throughout the state, with the nearest labs located in Austin and Corpus Christi. As with the rest of the labs, these two have suffered from a case backlog.

“We do have backlogs; the length of time analysis takes depends on what they’re analyzing for,” DPS spokesman Tela Mange said Dec. 30. “DNA right now can take as long as eight months; firearms analysis can take 12.”

Efforts are under way to ease the backlog, with the expansion of laboratory space and the hiring of additional forensic scientists.

“However, both take time -- it takes about a year to get someone trained up -- to start making a difference,” Mange said.

Years later, victim of Dallas fake drug scandal comes home

Here's another strange, sad postscript to the Dallas fake drug scandal: Until recently, one of the innocent people set up by lying cops and informants couldn't get back into the United States after being deported because of the (false, overturned) drug conviction on his record. Reported the Dallas News ("Fake drug victim gets a fresh start," Jan. 4):

As the immigration case before the U.S. Consulate in Juárez dragged on, so did despair, [Jaime] Chavez said. His wife struggled with house payments in McKinney, and eventually the bank foreclosed on the home. Chavez traveled back and forth to Juárez from his hometown in the Mexican state of Michoacán.

"Juárez is horrible," he said, recounting the drug violence of warring cartels. "Every day they kill people there."

But by Sept. 17, 2009, a letter came from the vice consul of the U.S. government in Juárez. "Our office is taking quick steps to avoid an 'ironic travesty of justice,' " wrote Miriam Elise Tokumasu.

The U.S. government canceled the administrative procedures that were delaying Chavez from returning to his U.S. family. In late November, Chavez was reunited with his wife and daughter. And now, with the stability of permanent legal residency, Chavez spent this Christmas united with two other children from a previous relationship.

To get Chavez to this point, his attorney carefully prepared a packet of news clips and legal pleadings about the Chavez case and the charges against Mark Delapaz, the Dallas police narcotics detective who was the central figure in the scandal. Delapaz is serving a five-year sentence on a 2005 conviction for lying to a judge, aggravated perjury and tampering with evidence.

Under the scheme, victims, mostly citizens of Mexico, were arrested and jailed after being set up by a paid informant on drug charges in which the seized "drugs" later proved to be either finely ground Sheetrock or billiards chalk. Some cases were deemed tainted by the involvement of two suspended Dallas police officers or their discredited paid confidential informants who used real cocaine or methamphetamines.

The charges against Chavez were dismissed in 2003, according to court documents. In Washington, the State Department didn't comment on the foul-ups in the case.

See related Grits posts:

• Dallas County to settle lawsuit with whistleblower from fake drug case

• Dallas fake-drug informant shows how 'cooperation' benefits can promote crime

• First officer from Dallas fake drug scandal heads to prison

• Conviction upheld for only cop prosecuted in Dallas fake drug scandal

• Dallas fake drug case shows why many distrust informants

• Dallas PD 'snitch' reforms don't do enough

• Dallas PD hasn't learned fake drug lessons

• Truth trickling out in Dallas fake drug case

Settlement prevents SCOTUS opinion on limits of prosecutorial immunity

SCOTUS won't issue a decision in a case questioning whether prosecutors have absolute immunity for fabricating evidence because the parties entered a $12 million settlement, according to SCOTUSBlog:

A case testing the immunity of prosecutors to damage lawsuits for obtaining and using false testimony ended in the Supreme Court Monday, with the two sides agreeing to dismiss it, without specifying reasons. The case was Pottawattamie County, et al., v. McGhee, et al. (08-1065). The Justices had heard argument in the case on Nov. 4, and were weighing a decision when the two sides moved for dismissal under the Court’s Rule 46. The press release from the respondent’s counsel describing the settlement is here.

My guess: Attorneys for the prosecutors thought they were going to lose in a big way and chose to settle rather than have SCOTUS formally strip them of immunity.

Too bad. I was quite looking forward to the opinion on this one.

BLOGVERSATION: From the Volokh Conspiracy, "Looking forward after Pottawatamie." From Norm Pattis, "Pottawatamie Lost." From Text and History, "Pottawatamie Dropped: Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors Lives On." From Section 1983 Blog, "The Next Pottawatamie County?" From Gamso For the Defense, "Blowin' in the wind."

See related Grits posts:

• A 'perverse' position on prosecutors fabricating evidence ... from the Obama Administration
• Prosecutors ask SCOTUS for 'absolute immunity' when fabricating evidence
• Prosecutorial hubris, entitlement, on display in recent cases

Public transit can prevent DWIs

On New Year's Eve, Clayton McLeskey at the Dallas News Opinion Blog offered this astute observation about the Dallas transit system:

Did you hear the news?! The DART trains are running until 2 a.m. tonight!

I hate to break it to the friendly folks over at DART, but 2 a.m. ain't that late. Take a look at the public transit systems in places with world-famous nightlife, like Berlin, where trains and trams runs through the night. In Munich trains run until about 3 or 4 in the morning. That's standard in European cities. It's the key to a vibrant nightlife. You can go out, eat, drink, make merry and then take the train home.

So, whose brilliant idea was it to have the DART trains shut down at the exact same time the bars close on New Years Eve, the night on which even the boring people go crazy? DART should at least keep trains running until 3, so that partyers can catch the train after last call. That'd keep a whole lots of drunks off the road.

That's exactly right. I've always believed that public policy contributes greatly to drunk driving rates. Zoning regulations prevent neighborhood bars and often isolate drinking establishments in districts where most people must leave their home and drive to get there. More importantly, they must drive to get home. (In "dry" jurisdictions, the problem is even worse.) Add to that a failure by most Texas' cities to invest in adequate public transit, and anyone who wants to drink at a bar is virtually required to either drive home or find a designated driver.

More than 5,000 Texans are currently imprisoned at TDCJ for having three or more DWI convictions. Would many of them take public transit if it were convenient, available and ran at the times when they needed it? Not all, but I think many of them would.

Relatedly, Austin is preparing to open a commuter rail that happens to have a train stop just a couple of blocks from my house, ending downtown near the convention center and the entertainment district. When I first saw the proposed route, I thought, "Great! I can take the train downtown when I want to go to a bar and not have to worry about driving home. But the schedule for the train is even less sensible than DART's, entirely fixated on commuters from Austin's suburbs instead of facilitating in-city transit. So the train won't actually run during them times when Austinites might use it to avoid drinking and driving.

The solution to every social problem cannot be cops, courts, jails and prisons. Where non-punitive strategies can prevent crime and promote public safety, that should be the preferred approach.

Dallas News: Keystone Kops don't need SWAT teams

Over the holidays, I'd missed a notable Dallas News editorial published Christmas Day criticizing Metroplex-area constables for wasting resources on redundant, unnecessary and inadequate SWAT teams instead of focusing on their core duties. Opined the News::

Those who would compare our local "constables gone wild" with the Keystone Kops risk the grave disservice of insulting real Keystone Kops everywhere.

Danny Defenbaugh, the former FBI agent conducting a civil investigation into Precinct 1 Constable Derick Evans and Precinct 5 Constable Jaime Cortes, has filed complaints with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel that they violated federal campaign laws. Specifically, employees say the two constables threatened and intimidated them into working on their re-election campaigns. The constables' attorneys accuse Defenbaugh of conducting a political witch hunt for county commissioners; perhaps these lawyers should consider whether they represent witches.

In Precinct 4, Constable Roma Skinner has operated a heavily armed, helmeted and hooded SWAT-like tactical unit since 2001. Other Dallas County constables followed suit. While we'll acknowledge that dressing in paramilitary gear and training for hostage rescues has to be more fun than serving arrest warrants or civil papers, do county taxpayers need this duplicative expenditure?

The Dallas Police Department has a full-time, 40-member SWAT team recognized as one of the nation's best. The Dallas County Sheriff's Department has a 30-member team. Considering how infrequently these necessary units are called upon, isn't that enough door-kickers for one county?

(And that goes for the Dallas Independent School District police tactical unit, too. If a SWAT-worthy situation developed on a DISD campus, wouldn't you want the highly trained city police or sheriff's unit trying to resolve it, instead of the school district cops?)

Dallas County constables don't fund their tactical units through raffles, but if they are so flush in asset forfeiture funds, surely they could find a better use than SWAT Lite. National tactical experts warn that teams of less than 12 members are too small for high-risk operations. The Precinct 4 team claims eight members. It's telling that Skinner refuses to discuss what he spends on his unit or its training and enlisted the Dallas County district attorney's office to defend against this newspaper's request for records.

A superior approach is the way some smaller departments in southern Dallas and Ellis counties have banded together. The Southern Regional Response Group pools talent and resources to create a 36-member team that really could do some good, if called upon.

RELATED: Do small agencies need SWAT capacity? Budget crisis changing the debate.

TX House Committees to begin work on interim charges

A couple of Texas House legislative committees will hold hearings in the next couple of weeks on criminal-justice related topics. The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will meet Monday, January 11:

The Committee will meet to discuss appropriate procedures for presenting scientific evidence during the trial of criminal cases. The Committee will only hear invited testimony.

And the House Corrections Committee posted notice on these items for a hearing scheduled January 28:

The Committee will meet to take invited and public testimony on the following items:

Charge 5 - Review the range of services provided to females in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems and recommend changes to ensure responsiveness to gender-specific issues. Review should include institutional and community supervision programs and utilization of correctional facilities that house non-adjudicated populations.

Charge 6 - Monitor the agencies and programs under the committee's jurisdiction.

Transitioning from Prison to the Community

A helpful reader pointed out that Texas is among the states chosen by the National Institute of Corrections for the second round of their Transitions from Prison to Community initiative. According to NIC:

Six Sites Selected to Participate in the National Institute of Corrections’ Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative

Six jurisdictions have been invited by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to participate in its Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative, a project designed to help states articulate a comprehensive and strategic approach to transition from prison. The States of Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming will work together with NIC and its Cooperative Agreement Partners, the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) and the Urban Institute (UI).

This assistance is intended as a resource for state jurisdictions willing and able to work with NIC technical assistance providers to put into place the principles, approaches, and strategies that make up the Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Model (please visit the NIC Web site at http://www.nicic.gov/Library/022669 for a full discussion of the Model and for more information about previous iterations of this initiative.) Assistance will be provided in the form of a “site coordinator” who will provide advice, facilitation, and access to other project resources such as cross-site exchanges, and access to a network of practitioners from the original eight TPC sites.

The project will also include the support of an evaluation specialist from the technical assistance team to guide each participating jurisdiction’s efforts to design and implement a measurement and evaluation strategy.

A just-created, still-somewhat minimalist website created in support of the program includes an online version of a reentry handbook describing in detail the TPD methodology and the results from their first round of pilots.

'Indigent Defense Summit' coming in February

Those interested should plan on attending an interesting looking "Indigent Defense Summit" at the Texas capitol in Austin on Feb. 24. Here's the agenda (pdf), and here's the registration information (pdf).

The event is being organized jointly by the Texas Fair Defense Project, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, and the Travis County Mental Health Public Defender's Office. Co-sponsors include Sen. Rodney Ellis' office, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the TX Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Constitution Project.

Texas counties can unlock kids and savings

The headline of this post is the title of a new policy brief (pdf) from Marc Levin at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Here's a notable excerpt:

A Dallas County detention bed costs $54,955 a year to operate. Nationally, two-thirds of youths in detention are held on allegations of non-violent offenses. Additionally, after controlling for offense severity and other factors, detained youths are three times more likely to enter costly long-term residential placement. Evidence suggests that, by mixing low-risk youths with more deviant peers and disrupting family life and schooling, detention actually increases re-offending. Moreover, detention does not help the victim obtain restitution.

Dallas and Harris counties implemented the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) in 2007. Since then, Dallas has reduced its detention population by 48 beds, resulting in annual savings of $1 million. Similarly, Harris County closed a detention center and reduced detention costs 25 percent. Some 95 percent of Houston youths diverted from detention show up for their court date.

While JDAI sites receive support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Dallas probation director Mike Griffiths believes other Texas counties can use similar strategies to downsize detention and achieve net savings.

A key element of JDAI is use of a risk assessment instrument—an inventory of factors proven to more accurately predict whether youths will miss their court hearing or re-offend than a purely subjective determination. Factors may include the most serious alleged offense, number of charges, prior adjudications, and any prior instances of failing to appear. The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission should provide a statewide detention screening instrument for the vast majority of probation departments that don’t have one.

Another component of JDAI is alternatives to detention. Among those used in Dallas is a day reporting center, in-home probation officer visits, GPS monitoring, and home detention.

Only 4.5 percent of Dallas youths in an alternative program have re-offended prior to adjudication, compared to 10 percent of youths not in a program. At the four original national JDAI sites, juvenile arrests fell between 37 and 54 percent following implementation.

Two different views, both accurate, of Texas' overincarceration woes

Two recent editorials from the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Statesman look at the same set of facts regarding incarceration in Texas, with the Chron declaring the glass half-full while the Statesman sees it as half empty.

• Houston Chronicle: "Unlikely role model: Tough on crime Texas leads the way in prison reforms"
• Austin Statesman: "Tough on crime? Check. Smart on crime? Not so much"

The Chron views as a positive development the fact that:

As of December, Texas prisons had 1,050 fewer inmates than in 2008.

Among the many programs contributing to these positive results, Whitmire cited one that has seen an impressive 25 percent decrease in parole violators being sent back to jail. It's a new Houston facility with 400 beds, housing parolees who have not committed new crimes but have violated conditions of parole.

“We used to just send them back to prison,” he told the Chronicle. “This allows them to get out of prison, get back on track. It's a win-win situation. We're lowering the recidivism rate and making productive citizens, which also allows us to focus time and resources on our hard-core inmates.”

By contrast, according to the Statesman:

Numbers from recent years show Texas near the top in adults on probation or parole, prisoners in state correctional institutions, inmates under 18 in state prisons and (here's the punch line) crimes per capita.

Somehow, somewhere, we have been doing something wrong. And that adds up to an unsatisfactory return on what will be a $10.8 billion investment in public safety and criminal justice in the state's 2010-2011 budget.

That's almost 10 percent of state tax dollars. By comparison, 6.7 percent goes to business and economic development and 1.2 percent goes to natural resources.

The reality is that crime stats, more than being a measure of our success in fighting crime, are a measure of our failure in so many other areas.

Both these assessments are accurate. Texas' recent reforms were both welcome and noteworthy, but our overincarceration crisis had reached such extreme levels before those changes were enacted, we still look like an incarceration behemoth compared to most other states, much less the rest of the globe.

Dallas County to settle lawsuit with whistleblower from fake drug case

At the Dallas News Crime Blog last week, Kevin Krause had a postscript to the Dallas fake-drug scandal, describing the 5-year legal saga over a DA's office investigator fired for blowing the whistle on lying cops who falsified evidence:

[William] Hughes told the feds in 2002 that prosecutors failed to do anything about cops lying under oath in felony drug cases. In 2004, Hughes shared his information with a Dallas County grand jury -- the one that was investigating Dallas' infamous fake drug scandal.

Hughes later accused former District Attorney Bill Hill and others in his office of trying to pressure him into changing his story.

The grand jury determined that Hill and two subordinates did not commit witness tampering.

According to Hughes, at least two cops lied when they testified that they found drugs after random traffic stops. It turned out the suspects had been under surveillance by a federal drug task force, according to Hughes.

One of those cops, former sheriff's deputy Romeo Rodriguez, was fired for perjury.

Hughes also discovered that drug evidence was unavailable for testing because it had been lost or destroyed; witnesses couldn't be found; and some officers intentionally falsified reports and lied in their sworn testimony, according to court records.

Hughes maintained prosecutors ignored his alerts and intentionally negotiated plea deals -- mostly involving poor Hispanics -- when they knew no evidence or witnesses existed.

The county reportedly will settle the suit after fighting it for years rather than go to trial later this month.

N.b., the deputy described was "fired for perjury," but apparently not prosecuted for it. Do you suppose that's what would happen if you or I were found to have lied under oath?

Despite high unemployment rate, law enforcement slots hard to fill

A couple of seemingly related recent stories about law-enforcement recruitment caught my eye:

First, in Dallas, the Sheriff's Office had 200 people take the test to become deputies, but only 50 passed the written test and just 16 of those met the physical requirements, reported Kevin Krause at the Dallas News Crime Blog. "Those 16 will now go on to the next phase -- a background check, a psychological evaluation and a polygraph test."

That's a pretty poor ratio of successful applicants.

Last month at The Crime Report, an article by a pair of academics examined long-term hiring trends for police and corrections officers:

A study we concluded last year, shows that the median age of U.S. police officers increased five years to 38.7 years between 1991 and 2008, while the median age for correctional officers increased by seven years to 40.8. Many of these criminal justice personnel are baby boomers who are now eligible for retirement. Replacing these workers will become increasingly difficult: population projections from the Census Bureau show that the proportion of the population aged 25-44—the age group representing over two-thirds (68 percent) of all patrol officers in 2008—will decrease over the next four decades.

This shrinking pool of potential workers will force law enforcement and corrections agencies to shift their hiring and retention practices. Their job will be complicated by the increasing competition for bright and capable personnel among the military, justice systems, and corporations, who all recruit from the same pool of job candidates. Justice systems are further challenged because they require workers with high levels of physical fitness, integrity, commitment, and clean drug-use histories. These expectations clash with the fact that large numbers of young persons have experimented with drugs, owe more money, and have high levels of obesity—all potential disqualifiers for law enforcement careers.

In addition to overall demographic trends, the fact that the United States has large numbers of troops deployed in two active wars - not to mention the dramatic expansion in the last five years of Border Patrol personnel - means there's more competition for qualified officers than ever before.

Federal judges don't do much judging when it comes to misconduct among their peers

I've never paid close attention to how federal judges police misconduct among their ranks, but a Houston Chronicle story by Lise Olsen published on New Year's Eve gave an excellent account of the process and problems related to secrecy and an apparent lack of accountability ("Judging the judges: Veil of secrecy stirring calls for change," Dec. 31):

Just 12 chief federal judges wield almost exclusive power over secret misconduct investigations of more than 2,000 fellow jurists — though some have themselves been accused of botching reviews or committing ethical blunders, according to a Houston Chronicle review.

At least four current or former chief circuit judges have been the subject of recent high-profile complaints about their behavior; one posted photos of naked women painted to look like cows and other graphic images on his publicly accessible Web site; another manipulated the outcome of a vote in a death penalty case.

Not one faced formal discipline.

Nationwide, the integrity of the federal judicial misconduct system relies heavily on chief judges. Each oversees complaints — more than 6,000 in the last 10 years — against all circuit, district, senior, bankruptcy and magistrate judges in multi-state regions called circuits. ...

In seven circuits, according to the Chronicle analysis, supervising judges took no public disciplinary action at all in the last decade, meaning not a single federal judge faced any sanctions in 29 states with more than 875 full-time federal judges, despite thousands of complaints.

Defenders of the system, like Scott Gant, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, argue that under-enforcement is a small price to pay for strong federal judges.

According to the Chron's national analysis:

• 3,357: Number of misconduct complaints filed nationwide between fiscal years 2003 and 2008.
• 98 percent: Complaints dismissed.
• 2 percent: Concluded with apologies, corrective actions or events
• Less than 1 percent: Referred to a special investigating committee
• 4: Number of judges formally disciplined.

Olsen also compiled a list of suggested reforms, including:

• Creating an inspector general who reports to the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice.
• Establishing disciplinary committees or specially trained ombudsmen, instead of relying on busy chief judges.
• Changing laws to make more disciplinary documents public, including complaints, investigative reports, judges' responses, and hearing records after complaints are verified.
• Posting all decisions on the Internet. Four out of 12 circuit courts already do; others are available only at the circuits' courthouses.
• Standardizing decisions. In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted uniform rules for handling disciplinary matters to replace a hodgepodge of procedures. In the works is a national decision database.
• Providing more hot line counseling services for judges. Only the 9th Circuit currently offers this help to judges with financial crises, addictions, disabilities and other problems.

Texas' 2009 judiciary by the numbers

The FY 2009 annual report on the Texas Judiciary (pdf) from the Office of Court Administration came out last month and included a number of notable tidbits related to criminal cases that deserve Grits readers attention.

Trials extremely rare

In district courts, "Less than 2 percent of all cases (excluding transfers and motions to revoke probation) went to trial in 2009. Trial rates were significantly higher, however, in capital murder and murder cases, which went to trial in 24.3 percent and 20.2 percent of cases, respectively." In county courts, which handle misdemeanors, only one percent of cases went to trial.

Prosecutor background predominates among judges

Among Texas' 434 district judges, 37% had prior experience as a prosecutor, while just 15% had experience as a lower court judge.

Ousting judges at the ballot box

Among state appellate and district judges, 6.6% in 2009 left office as a result of losing a primary or general election in 2008 - a bit of a surprising number which was bolstered substantially by Democratic gains in the judiciary in Harris County. An equal number resigned or chose not to seek reelection.

Some types of cases growing faster than population, crime rate

According to the annual report, "Four categories of criminal cases increased more than 100 percent over the past 20 years. Misdemeanor assault cases (filed in county-level courts) increased 169 percent; felony assault or attempted murder cases increased 131 percent; felony and misdemeanor drug offense cases increased 144 percent; and “other” felonies increased 116 percent."

These growth rates far outstrip Texas' population expansion over the same period and come during a time when crime overall has been declining. As such, these types of cases contribute to a bloated justice system, and particularly highlight the role of prosecutorial discretion: Incidents that 20 years ago would not bring criminal charges now are more likely to face accusations of misdemeanor assault. More serious assaults are more likely to be charged as felonies or attempted murder. Drug crimes - mostly possession cases - are being prosecuted at much higher rates than before. And as for "other, this is a function of the proliferation of boutique crimes through the dozens of new crimes and "enhancements" passed by the Texas Legislature every two years (including 59 new felonies created in 2009). These data explain why incarceration pressures continue to increase even during periods of reduced crime rates.

Juvie cases decline rapidly

One of the most startling pieces of data came on the juvenile front: "The number of cases addedto the juvenile dockets of district and county-level courts in 2009—44,257 cases—was 10.1 percent lower than the number added during the previous year and was the lowest number added since 1999 (44,003 cases)." Some of that's the result of demographic shifts and declining juvenile crime, but I wonder what other factors contributed? That seems like a big one-year dropoff.

Local practices clearly vary widely. In Harris County, youth are charged with crimes at double the rate of kids in Dallas or Fort Worth. In Harris, 3.0 new cases per 1,000 kids were filed in 2009; in Dallas and Tarrant Counties the figure was 1.3 and 1.2 respectively. A few rural counties have rates as high as 4-10 cases added per every 1,000 kids.

Juries giving fewer death sentences

At the trial court level, the percentage of capital murder convictions statewide resulting in the death penalty has declined remarkably steadily since 1990 from 24.4% to just 5% last year. Some of that's a function of the creation of life without parole as a sentencing option in 2005, but a chart on p. 41 of the report shows that the decline actually began in the mid-90s.

Fewer opinions from the CCA

Judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals issued 447 opinions in 2009, which is the lowest number of opinions issued since 1994 when Sharon Keller was elected Presiding Judge. Less than one-third (29.3 percent) of 2009 opinions were signed, 47.4 percent were per curiam, 12.5 percent were concurring, and 10.1 percent were dissenting.

Discretionary review by CCA varies widely by appeals court

There was wide variation in how frequently the CCA granted petitions for discretionary review in criminal cases from the various Courts of Appeals, from 2.5% from the 14th court in Houston, to 35.5% from the 3rd Court of Appeals out of Austin. A lower rate means the CCA agrees with the court more often, and vice versa. I compiled the rates for each appellate court in this table:

Interestingly, though the 14th court in Houston has the lowest number of PDRs granted, Harris County according to the report has the largest number of criminal cases overall appealed to higher courts.

Cashing in on court collections

Justice of the Peace courts have turned into cash cows, but the amount of revenue they generate may have peaked.

The amount of fines, fees and court costs collected by justice courts generally increased over the past 20 years; however, in 2009, courts collected approximately $372.5 million—a decrease of 1.5 percent from the amount collected the previous year. The amount collected in 2009 was 230 percent higher than that collected in 1990, or 90.3 percent higher when adjusted for inflation.

By contrast, municipal courts have seen even greater revnue growth, which continued last year and seems to know no limits:

In 2009, [municipal] courts collected approximately $734 million—an increase of 1.2 percent from the previous year. The amount collected in 2009 was 287.3 percent higher than that collected 20 years previously in 1990, or 123.1 percent higher when adjusted for inflation.

These growth rates far outstrip population growth.

These are just a few highlights from the jam-packed 89-page report, so those interested in more detail should check out the whole thing.

Via CourTex.

Biggest Texas criminal justice stories of 2009

At the beginning of the new year, it's worth taking a moment to recall some of the biggest Texas criminal justice stories of 2009. It's a partial list, cut short by babysitting duties this morning, so let me know in the comments what I missed.

Sharon Keller on the dock: The Commission on Judicial Conduct ordered a fact finding hearing to determine whether Presiding Judge Sharon Keller deserves to be removed from the bench for rejecting a last-minute death penalty appeal on bureaucratic grounds ("We close at 5") without notifying the duty judge whose job it was to evaluate it. The results should be reported in 2010.

Asset forfeiture shakedown: The East Texas town of Tenaha made national headlines for using asset forfeiture laws to shake down passing motorists of whatever they happened to be carrying with them in exchange for not filing trumped up criminal charges. Legislation to remedy those abuses died as a result of the end-of-session voter ID meldtown in the Texas House of Representatives.

No more juvie LWOP: The Texas Legislature abolished life without parole for juveniles, setting the max sentence for juvenile offenses at 40 years.

"Zero tolerance" on contraband fails spectacularly: TDCJ spent most of the year combating contraband - especially cell phones - at Texas prison units, only to have an inmate successfully smuggle a gun onto a prison medical transport and escape from custody. (He was recaptured without incident a week later.) TYC's Ombudsman, a former judge from Dallas, was indited for intentionally sneaking contraband including a weapon onto a TYC facility. Federal legislation to allow cell phone jamming was filed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and passed the US Senate.

Death sentences decline: Only nine new additions to death row in 2009; none of them from Houston, notably, despite its long-time reputation as the nation's death penalty capital. Twenty-four men exited through the execution chamber.

Sex Parte: In the Charles Dean Hood case, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a judge and prosecutor sleeping together during a capital murder trial isn't enough to force a mistrial if they successfully conceal their misconduct for a long enough period of time. Likely this ruling was more personal favor than policy decision: the judge involved, Verla Sue Holland, was appointed after the case by Gov. George W. Bush elected in 1996 and served with 8 of the 9 current CCA members as a Court of Criminal Appeals Judge.

Juarez at war: El Paso's sister city has all but turned into a war zone, with cartels fighting both one another, for access to the bridge, and also the Mexican military, which has been occupying the city for the last two years under what amounts to martial law.

Timothy Cole's posthumous exoneration: Tim Cole died in prison before his name was finally cleared, even though the real offender had claimed credit for the rape he was convicted for in correspondence to Lubbock prosecutors from prison. DNA testing finally confirmed the real offender's story, and soon-to-be-retiring Travis County District Judge Charlie Baird presided over the state's first ever posthumous exoneration hearing. In the aftermath, the Legislature improved its compensation package for the falsely convicted in legislation bearing Cole's name. The Lege also created an advisory panel named after Cole that will evaluate potential innocence reforms for the 2011 session.

Innocence legislation needlessly dies: This is how I spent my spring, working at the time as Policy Director for the Innocence Project of Texas. Several bills proposed to prevent future false convictions - including eyewitness ID reforms, requiring policies on recording interrogations, and lowering barriers to accessing the courts for writ procedures - all died an ignominious death when the Texas House melted down in an unrelated debate over voter ID. In particular, the Criminal Justice Integrity Unit established by the Court of Criminal Appeals had said the eyewitness ID legislation should have been the highest priority for preventing future false convictions: However, it wasn't a high enough priority for partisans to put aside their differences and allow the bill to proceed.

Politics prevents arson reconsideration: A discussion that should have been about faulty arson science morphed into a pointless death penalty debate. Days before the Forensic Science Commission was to receive a commissioned report on shoddy arson science used to convict Todd Willingham (who was executed in 2004), Gov. Perry ousted Chairman Sam Bassett and appointed Williamson County DA John Bradley in his stead, who promptly canceled the meeting and shut down all the commission's ongoing activities. Bassett was one of the Dallas News' "Texan of the Year" finalists.

Dog scent lineups: DNA exonerations and an Innocence Project of Texas report demonstrated erroneous "scent lineups" run by Deputy Keith Pikett of the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department are unreliable, and dog experts say he fails to use best practices. The Court of Criminal Appeals recently accepted a case to evaluate whether Pikett's dogs' testimony is acceptable as evidence.

DPS leadership in transition: After long-time Col. Tommy Davis retired under duress in the wake of the Governor's mansion fire, his replacement Stanley Clark resigned abruptly over allegations of sexual harassment. He was replaced with Gov. Perry's homeland security advisor Steve McCraw, solidifying the Governor's grip on the historically independent department.

Assigning 'Condition X': Federal District Judge Sam Sparks ruled that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles violated parolees due process rights when it labeled them sex offenders without due process, even when the offense for which they were convicted was not a sex crime. Sparks said of parole board chair Risssie Owens, "Her inattention is mystifying, and it shows her to be some combination ... of 'indecisive, insensitive, inattentive, incompetent, stupid, (or) weak-kneed.'"

See also Jordan Smith's Top 9 criminal justice stories from the Austin Chronicle and her list of top nine drug policy stories.