Judicial Conduct Commission facing Sunset review in April

Grits hasn't had a chance to read the Sunset Advisory Commission report (pdf) on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, nor the agency response (pdf), nor the agency's self-evaluation (pdf), but I at least wanted to give readers the links as well as point out bloggerly critiques at Texas Watchdog and the Burnt Orange Report, both of which fault the agency in particular for a lack of transparency. A public hearing April 10 will focus on the agency (with TDCJ and correctional managed health care up in June, see their meeting schedule [pdf]).

One key Sunset recommendation for the Judicial Conduct Commission, the first one, in fact, harks back to the Sharon Keller fiasco where the commission imposed what turned out to be an illegal sanction after adopting findings of fact critical of the judge's decision making and forthcomingness with her fellow judges in the whole "We Close At 5" brouhaha. Sunset Staff recommended Texas adopt a "Constitutional Amendment," to "Authorize the Commission to use its full range of sanctions following formal proceedings."

Another key problem identified by Sunset staff was also readily apparent in the Keller fiasco, in retrospect: "Inconsistencies Between Its Statute and Rules Create the Potential for Litigation and Inefficiencies in the Commission's Operation." Indeed, discussions by commissioners during that episode made it clear this was an ongoing issue that arises for them frequently, whereas the first recommendation was more or less unique to Keller's situation.

Other recommendations and critiques, say the two blog posts, related to a lack of transparency even (perhaps particularly) with Sunset staff. I'd have to read the reports themselves to say more, but anyone interested in participating in the agency's Sunset process should find all they need in the above-linked documents to get engaged.

Gitting tuffer on plea deals boosting McLennan County Jail costs

The changing of the guard at the McLennan DA's Office (Waco) in 2010 appears to have resulted in an overcrowded, over-budget county jail as the new District Attorney rejects more plea deals, forcing defendants to wait in jail longer, judging from a Waco Tribune Herald report this week ("McLennan County Sheriff out of money for prisoner overflow," March 21, behind paywall). The Sheriff has requested emergency funds for the jail, blaming "the rapid spending on an unexpected and prolonged increase in the county’s jail population." Reported the Trib:

[Sheriff's Captain Paul] Wash said when the sheriff’s office prepared its current budget last spring, the county on average was housing 30 to 40 inmates each day at Harwell.

But by the time the commissioners court approved the budget in August, the inmate population at the county jail started climbing. In the fall months, the sheriff’s office sent an average of 175 to 200 inmates to Harwell [a privately run facility where the county must pay by the head].

The county had 130 inmates at Harwell as of midnight Monday. Plemons said the county jail had only 28 vacant inmate beds.

The Sheriff's office couldn't give a definitive cause, citing classification issues (male/female, violent, non-violent) sometimes creating inefficient allocations. But Wash said the main problem is quantitatively more inmates housed at the jail, stemming either from "an increase in arrests made by law enforcement agencies throughout the county, or [else] fewer inmates are being offered or accepting plea deals, thus staying in jail longer while awaiting trial," the paper reported.

The data isn't available yet (to me, anyway) to tell for sure, but Grits believes DA decision making and policy changes are the more likely cause of extra inmates than increased arrests. After all, crime statewide has been declining and Waco is among the cities that saw a massive drop in traffic enforcement by local police in 2011, with municipal courts processing just under 14,000 traffic cases in 2011 compared to 19,582 in 2010. That's more than a 28% drop. Since so many arrests on other charges originate at traffic stops, it seems unlikely there were significantly more arrests in McLennan County in 2011 with traffic tickets down that much and overall crime trending downward. Indeed, just last year the same reporter was lamenting declining inmate numbers at the jail and exploring the cause of lower crime rates to explain them.

Instead, it's far more likely changes in plea bargaining stances by rookie DA Abel Reyna account for the biggest difference. There was a report just last month about  the DA's office implementing a strict policy on DWIs that caused Reyna's former law partner Damon Reed to predict rising costs for the county:

Reed said the result of the new policy is not justice and only will force defendants to plead “open to the court” seeking a better deal with a judge. In “open” pleas, offenders plead guilty and ask judges to set punishments without the benefit of plea agreements.

The other option is to go to trial, further clogging court dockets and costing taxpayers more to operate the judicial system, Reed said.

“Abel is clearly doing all this for political purposes,” Reed said. “I don’t understand why he has a budget for so many assistant prosecutors when they are not allowed to do their jobs. I’ll buy him a rubber stamp and he can lay a half-dozen prosecutors off and save the county a whole lot of money.

Now we see it's not just court dockets clogged as a result of this and similar plea-bargain policies but also the county jail. If the DA is negotiating fewer plea deals with DWI (and presumably other classes of) defendants, no wonder the jail population is rising! Moreover, the timing of Waco's jail population rise coincides roughly with the new DA's changes in plea bargaining policies.

In fact, the McLennan DA's example is almost a case study of tuff-on-crime policies equating directly to getting tuff on the taxpayers, with little identifiable public safety benefit. Jails and criminal justice generally are behemoths in county budgets, and small policy changes can have big budget consequences. Whether county commissioners, reporters or for that matter McLennan County voters make the connection is another matter. But those who want to avoid county tax hikes should dislike Reyna's new plea policies based on budget considerations unless a stronger case can be made that increased pretrial detention boosts public safety. In most instances, certainly on routine DWIs, the cost-benefit analysis just isn't there to support it.

DA race highlights Travis diversion program populated mainly by better-off defendants

Grits is thankful for Travis County's contested DA primary if only because it means we get some actual journalism on otherwise obscure courthouse subjects when the challenger attacks the  incumbent, and vice versa. In that vein, Steven Kreytak at the Austin Statesman has a story today titled, "Blacks, poor underrepresented in Travis County second chance program," March 24) which opens:

Defendants who are black or unable to hire their own lawyers have been underrepresented in a Travis County district attorney's office program that gives select felony defendants a rare chance to escape their charges without a criminal record, according to an Austin American-Statesman analysis.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said she is concerned about the imbalance and hopes to further diversify participation in her pretrial diversion program, which she started in 2010, with more education for defense lawyers about it.

Lehmberg said she hopes to encourage defense lawyers to be on the lookout for clients who would qualify and succeed, especially African Americans.

But defense lawyers interviewed said they know about the program, and some believe that it's Lehmberg's rule that disqualifies anyone with a prior criminal record that has led to the dearth of participation by black defendants and people represented by court-appointed lawyers.

They said many defendants who require court-appointed lawyers often have a disqualifying criminal record.

This is coming up because District Judge and Democratic DA challenger Charlie Baird has made it an issue in the race:

The program has been criticized by former District Judge Charlie Baird, Lehmberg's challenger in the May Democratic primary for the county's top felony prosecutor position.

Baird called the entry requirements discriminatory, saying he does not believe that prosecutors are rejecting applications because of the race or ethnicity of defendants. He said he would allow defendants convicted of some misdemeanor crimes to participate and would expand the list of crimes considered for the program, although he said he is still developing specifics on his proposed new criteria.

Baird said he wants more people to get the chance to avoid a felony conviction, which can forever affect a person's ability to secure things such as loans, jobs and housing.

"The collateral consequences of a felony conviction are just devastating to an individual who is truly repentant, remorseful and who otherwise would live a good, solid, happy life supporting themselves and their family," he said.

The American-Statesman analysis comes after a review of court files, data from Lehmberg's office and data from the Travis County court administration office.

The analysis found that although African Americans made up about 32 percent of those arrested in Travis County on new felony charges during 2010 and 2011, they account for 9 percent of the 131 defendants who have been accepted into the pretrial diversion program since its creation in 2010.

About 73 percent of felony defendants in Travis County during the previous two years were found to be poor and given a court-appointed lawyer. About 11 percent of defendants accepted into the pretrial diversion program were represented by court-appointed lawyers.

Lehmberg said she has already taken some steps aimed at ensuring the program is fairly administered.

Late last year she added two trial court prosecutors — Monica Flores, a Latina, and Craig Moore, an African American — to the panel that decides who gets into the program. That panel had previously had three veteran white male supervisors in her office.

"I do not agree with (Baird) that the answer to this is to throw open the doors to the program to anybody," Lehmberg said. "This program is intended to provide an opportunity to nonaddicted defendants with no record who made a mistake and want to accept responsibility and go on with their lives."

I don't believe the reason the program has few black folks in it is that there weren't enough minority prosecutors in decision making slots. Instead, there's something about the criteria set by the DA - perhaps especially surrounding prior convictions or indigence - that's playing into those distinct ratios, something probably more related to class than race. When just 11% of defendants in the program have appointed counsel compared to 73% overall, that tells you there are barriers to entry that for the most part only the well-heeled are overcoming. Maybe the answer isn't to "open the doors ... to anybody," but perhaps it's worth considering cracking the door a bit wider to avoid such disparate outcomes.

Competency restoration: Clinical vs. forensic assessments

One often hears folks in the system say that, though it's lamentable to use jails as a substitute for mental health treatment, at least sick people get services there. Seldom discussed, though, is that the process begins with a concerted effort to prove that mentally ill defendants are not, in fact, sick so they can be shown competent to stand trial. A presentation this morning at the Texas Criminal Justice Integrity Unit's mental health seminar by Dr. Bryan Scott - who assesses defendants' competency for Bexar County - identified some of the key distinctions between his forensic role and that of a clinical diagnostician, both in his discussion and his own demeanor and attitude toward the work.

Scott emphasized the radical differences between the role of a forensic mental health examiner vs. clinical psychologist psychiatrist. In a clinical assessment, he would typically run down a checklist of symptoms: Do you hear voices, etc.? In a forensic setting, he said, he doesn't interrogate symptoms, assuming malingerers would cop to all of them. but instead lets defendants bring symptoms to him. And when they do, he views them very skeptically, with his main task - and to hear him tell it the most "fun" part of the job - that of rooting out alleged malingerers (I say "alleged" because in one prominent example he insisted a man was faking though a jury had overruled him).

For example, instead of listing possible real symptoms, Scott will often suggest phony symptoms (e.g., are symptoms worse when you lie down, stand up, urinate, etc.?) to trip them up if they agree with items not associated with the possible illness. Or he'd ask a series of 50/50 questions ("Does a cow have three legs or four? Is a quarter worth 25 cents or a dollar.? Many mentally ill people, he pointed out, will answer those questions just fine. If they get most wrong, not 50/50 as you might if guessing, he assumes they're likely malingering. So that line of questioning is aimed at tripping up malingerers and merely wasting the time of the actually sick, and is not something you'd see in a clinical assessment.

In some cases, things that might cause a clinical diagnostician to think a mental illness more likely, said Dr. Scott, may mitigate against him believing a defendant. For example, mental illness (particularly bipolar and schizophrenia) are to some extent inheritable, so a family history normally implies it's more likely a patient will have the same problem. In the case of defendants, though, Scott said if their mother suffered from schizophrenia, a malingerer might have more intimate knowledge of symptoms and be able to mimic them. For this reason, he considers family history both "a rule-in and a rule-out" criteria.

Another key difference, said Scott: Forensic examiners determining competency do not have a doctor-patient relationship, though he does tell defendants "I'm here to help you." But his role is "not therapeutic," said Scott, who said it's a "totally different role than seeing a patient." He's not there to get them treatment. There is "no confidentiality," and he lets them know that up front. Indeed, he said, often defense attorneys will sit in on the interviews. That alone is a huge difference between the mental health treatment in jail and out: Is the client the client, or is the court the client?

Scott emphasized he wasn't assessing mental illness per se but legal competency to stand trial, declaring "Just because someone is delusional doesn't mean they're incompetent."

Dr. Scott's gleeful tone as he recounted "tricks of the trade" for identifying (or at least accusing) malingerers was difficult to suppress, and mostly he didn't really try. I don't say that to criticize him, at least too harshly (though at times it did seem a bit much). Malingering happens and somebody has to try to root it out. I certainly don't envy the task. Problem is, everybody including the legitimately ill, who are processed through the system in large numbers, get treated as potential malingerers on the front end, where possible diagnoses aren't probed so much to identify problems as to find excuses to ignore them. What a strange, almost perverse aspect of the system.

In jail, but not 'in custody'

Liberty and Justice for Y'all has the story of a recent US Supreme Court case ruling that an inmate questioned while in jail for an unrelated crime is not "in custody" for purposes of requiring a Miranda warning. Talk about a term of art, when you can be in jail, but not "in custody"!

Hays County 'moveable jail' looking to settle down

Here's a bit of Texas carceral history I was unaware of; reports the Hays County Free Press:

The Hays County Jail’s Moveable Jail Cell in San Marcos is one of nine sites that a statewide preservation group has named to its ninth annual list of Texas’ Most Endangered Historic Places.

The moveable jail cell was constructed for the Hays County Jail in Kyle and, today, it is a rarity of its kind. The cells were referred to as a “calaboose,” the Spanish word for jail, and were constructed using the cribbing method where the walls are arranged in sets of logs or timber in a log-style cabin formation to create a rising rectangle or square.

The jail cell remained in use until 1925 as Kyle’s city jail and, later, was moved to the Texana Village at Aquarena Springs. Due to lack of funding, the jail cell along with other buildings and artifacts were removed from the Village. At the eleventh hour, the jail cell was saved and moved to its current location at the San Marcos Academy.

The jail cell is a valuable piece of Hays County history but for generations it has been shuffled around the county. It needs a permanent home where it can be restored and appreciated, Preservation Texas argues. Local advocates are working to raise funds and to increase public support to preserve the moveable jail cell in order to tell a broader story of the county’s history.

Here's a picture of Hays County's two-man "moveable jail":

Looks like it could be mistaken for a deluxe outhouse! The story says "calaboose" is the "Spanish word for jail," but to clarify, "jail" in Spanish is typically "cárcel," while "calabozo" has more the dark, dank implications of the English "dungeon." Sitting out in the sun during a hot Texas summer, though, this structure would have felt more like some sadistic, claustrophobic sweat lodge.

Is there a place in the modern world for a moveable jail? What functions did mobility fulfill (work crews, perhaps?) that a stand-alone structure wouldn't? Or was it just the case that until 1925, Kyle didn't need more than that?

You can see the idea might be taken to an extreme, if perhaps in the realm of fiction. In my mind's eye I imagine prisons designed as mobile pods with prison transfers accomplished by cranes picking up whole sections filled with inmates and stacking them on trains like boxcars. Or then, perhaps I shouldn't give TDCJ any ideas!

A moveable jail ... who'da thunk?

Overcriminalization Folly of the Week: Felony driving without a license

Grits went to read an important new US Supreme Court opinion (pdf) out this week, Missouri v. Frye, related to whether a plea deal never submitted to a client by his attorney was grounds for post-conviction relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel. It's an interesting question, but I did a double, then a triple take when I read the opening lines describing the underlying case in the opinion, then couldn't get past it: "Respondent Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license. Because he had been convicted of the same offense three times before, he was charged, under Missouri law, with a felony carrying a maximum 4-year prison term."

Huh? A max four-year prison term for driving without a license? Even for the fourth offense, that seems extreme. According to this source, actually, in Missouri it's a felony on the third offense. That seems borderline totalitarian - "Show me your papers, comrade, or I'll slap you in prison for four years." Yikes! You can fill up a gulag pretty darn quickly that way! Even with that extreme penalty, though, one in ten Missouri drivers have no license.

This is overcriminalization run amok. With incarceration costs running in the $20,000 per year range, it'd be a lot cheaper to remove barriers to licensure and spend the money you would have spent on prosecution and incarceration to give out free bicycles and bus passes. The absurdist cost-benefit analysis behind making driving without a license a felony worthy of prison time boggles the mind.

Reduction in federal pork one cause of reduced Texas traffic tickets

A commenter on the last Grits post suggested that a key reason the number of traffic tickets written by Texas police went down last year in Austin and elsewhere may have been cuts to the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program" (STEP), which are federal pass-through grants distributed to law enforcement through the Texas Department of Transportation to pay for overtime devoted to traffic enforcement. And indeed, that may partially, but not fully, explain the recent decline in traffic tickets written by Texas police.

Searching around on TXDOT's website, I found this memo to law enforcement agencies (pdf) from April 2011 detailing 30% cuts to STEP grants - from $20.2 million to $14.2 million statewide - with a table at the end showing how much each department's grants were cut.

Houston, which has seen its number of traffic tickets decline, lost $360,000 with the reduction in STEP grant funds; Dallas' grant fell by a like amount. The Department of Public Safety took the biggest hit with a $424,521 reduction.

Austin lost about $158,000 in grant funding for overtime with that 30% reduction - not chump change, but not remotely enough to account for the 26% reduction in tickets they recorded in 2011. Austin PD says it wrote fewer tickets because of a policy change - "because the Highway Enforcement Command shifted its mission from citywide traffic enforcement to a focus on the major highways such as IH-35, MoPac and 183" - which seems like a more plausible explanation.

Plus, data from the Office of Court Administration showing a statewide decline in tickets processed in municipal court covered the state fiscal year from September to August, so cuts that took effect April 29 wouldn't have impacted most of that year. In other words, there are indications the decline in ticketing a) predated cuts to STEP grants and b) are too large to be completely explained  by them. That's certainly one of several contributing factors, though, and perhaps reason to think the trend might continue in the near term without local traffic enforcement getting artificially pumped up through federal pork.

See related Grits posts:

• Austin police gave 26% fewer traffic tickets in 2011
• Most larger Texas police departments wrote fewer traffic tickets in 2011
• Why are Texas cops writing fewer traffic tickets?

Austin police gave 26% fewer traffic tickets in 2011

It turns out Austin's decline in the number of traffic tickets given out last year was even greater than Grits had supposed according to the city's recent racial profiling report (pdf), which I noticed via this story by Patrick George in the Austin Statesman. Grits has earlier reported that tickets processed in municipal court in Austin had declined from roughly 233,000 to 205,000 from 2010 to 2011 - part of a statewide trend.

The racial profiling report shows Austin officers last year gave far fewer tickets last year. "Austin police officers made 179,882 motor vehicle stops in 2011 compared to 232,848 in 2010," according to the city's racial profiling report. One caveat: That's comparing calendar year to calendar year whereas the Office of Court Administration is measuring the fiscal year (September to August).

Still, that's an amazing 26% fewer tickets from year to year! Said the report: "Overall, the number of stops is lower in 2011, in part, because the Highway Enforcement Command shifted its mission from citywide traffic enforcement to a focus on the major highways such as IH-35, MoPac and 183. As a consequence, the number of traffic citations declined from 224,662 in 2010 to 165,757 in 2011, a 26% reduction. The overall number of motor vehicle stops also decreased by 23%." That has trickle down effects at the jail and throughout the court system because so many arrests originate at traffic stops.

Austin also saw the number of consent searches at traffic stops decline last year, from the highest total since they began tracking in 2010 (19,519) to a more modest 2011 total (11,719)), for a 40% drop.

I went to check the same data source for other cities and was disappointed to see this on the TCLEOSE website: "Note: The link to the 2010 Racial Profiling reports from the TCLEOSE website is no longer available on-line, but may be purchased for $35 (CD disk) through Open Records Request." That's pointless. How much space does it take to archive past years' reports for comparison? I might go ahead and get a couple of years worth for comparison purposes, but that's gratuitous. At least leave the last 3-5 years of reports online to supply some context for the annual data.

• Most larger Texas police departments wrote fewer traffic tickets in 2011
• Why are Texas cops writing fewer traffic tickets?

SCOTUS expands habeas access on ineffective assistance claims

The US Supreme Court issued an important habeas corpus decision (pdf) this week that may have implications in prominent Texas cases, and though Grits hasn't had time to read through it and digest the implications, I thought I'd at least round up the relevant links, if only so I can go through them myself soon. First, here's how Brandi Grissom at the Texas Tribune described the case:

The nation’s highest court ruled that the failure of initial state habeas lawyers to argue that their client’s trial counsel was ineffective should not prevent the defendant from making that argument later on. Lawyers across the country, including those for at least two Texas death row inmates, were eagerly awaiting the court’s ruling in the Martinez v. Ryan case out of Arizona, which could expand appeals access for inmates.

“A procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing those claims if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in the proceeding was ineffective,” the court majority held.

Habeas lawyers investigate issues that could or should have been raised during a defendant’s original trial.

The ruling may have direct implications for a case mentioned recently on Grits:

The ruling could also be a boon for death row inmate Rob Will, who was convicted in 2002 of fatally shooting a Harris County sheriff’s deputy. Will says that the man he was with that night was the real shooter and that he is innocent.

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison denied Will’s pleas for a new trial but wrote that he lamented doing so because of “disturbing uncertainties” raised about his guilt.

Will is hoping the court’s ruling in Martinez will allow him to argue that he should get a new trial because both his trial lawyer and his state-appointed habeas lawyer were ineffective when they failed to track down several witnesses who have testified that the other man confessed to the killing.

See the SCOTUSBlog Wiki page on Martinez v. Ryan, good guest blogging on the subject at Sentencing Law & Policy, as well as Adam Liptak's coverage in the New York Times and notable commentary at the ABA Journal, the Courthouse News Service, and the Habeas Book Blog.

Prosecutor Misconduct Roundup: 60 Minutes to feature Michael Morton exoneration Sunday

The TV news show 60 Minutes will broadcast a segment about Michael Morton's exoneration and the struggle to hold Williamson County prosecutors accountable through a court of inquiry this Sunday, March 25 (6:00-7:00 PM, CT) on CBS.

Relatedly, the blog Wilco Watchdog has been diligently chronicling Williamson County DA John Bradley's re-election foibles, including a recent rumpus with a local police union that endorsed his opponent and accused Bradley of misrepresenting their political motives.

That is a hot, hot DA's primary fight in Williamson County. So despite his latter-day conversion, another turn in the barrel for the Michael Morton case in the national media likely won't do Bradley's re-election campaign much good. The man fought for years to keep Mr. Morton from getting exculpatory evidence tested, a record that earned him the distinction of Worst American Prosecutor of 2011, according to a reader poll at The Agitator blog. And Judge Ken Anderson, the former DA accused of withholding evidence in Morton's case 25 years ago, is Bradley's patron, mentor and even sometime writing partner, though JB now says they're on the outs.

Hopefully coverage on the respected 60 Minutes will also ratchet up pressure for reforms at the Texas Legislature next year aimed at stemming prosecutorial misconduct - a subject on which Grits has been compiling reform suggestions. Bradley's future isn't nearly as important as whether the state learns from mistakes like this or allows prosecutors to throw up a smokescreens to prevent legislative intervention. It's clear the courts and/or existing statutes aren't up to the task, so if one wants stronger incentives for prosecutors to play by the rules, the legislative branch is perhaps the best hope.

Finally, I wanted to alert readers in Austin to a timely event on this topic that Grits plans to attend:

Prosecutorial Oversight: A national dialogue in the wake of Connick v. Thompson

Thursday, March 29, 2012
1:30 to 3:30 PM
Francis Auditorium
University of Texas School of Law – Austin, Texas

Please join us for the Texas stop of a national tour to address the issue of prosecutorial oversight.  The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Connick v. Thompson rejected civil liability for Brady violations in lieu of what it took to be effective status quo mechanisms for training, supervising, and remediating prosecutorial disclosure issues. A discussion followed by Q&A will address existing oversight mechanisms in Texas, assess their adequacy, and explore possible avenues of reform.

Speakers include:

• Betty Blackwell – Attorney, former chair of the Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline
• Jennifer Laurin (moderator) – Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law
• Jim Leitner  - First Assistant District Attorney, Harris County
• Michael Morton – Freed after 25 years in prison in Texas following DNA exoneration and revelation of concealed exculpatory evidence
• Hon. Bob Perkins (Ret.) – Former judge, 331st District Court, Travis County
• Professor Robert Schuwerk – Professor, University of Houston Law Center, author of leading treatise on Texas rules of professional conduct
• John Thompson – Founder and Director of Resurrection After Exoneration and Voices of Innocence and plaintiff in Thompson v. Connick, imprisoned in Louisiana for 18 years (14 on death row), freed after revelation of concealed exculpatory evidence
• Emily West – Research Director, The Innocence Project

The event is free and open to the public, but RSVPs are encouraged. Please register by Tuesday, March 27 by emailing info@prosecutorialoversight.org.

Event moderator Jennifer Laurin, I notice, has an academic paper on Connick v. Thompson which must also go on Grits' reading list.

CCA Integrity Unit hosts capitol seminar on mental health

Today and tomorrow the Court of Criminal Appeals' Criminal Justice Integrity Unit is holding a two-day seminar on mental health at the capitol. (See a flyer [pdf] for the event.) If you haven't registered (I understand it's full), you can watch online beginning at 9 a.m. this morning; go to the Texas Senate's video page and scroll down to the "Court of Criminal Appeals Seminar," clicking on the Real Player icon to launch the broadcast once it begins. The first day focuses on substance abuse issues; tomorrow they'll cover competency restoration, involuntary commitment, and representing the mentally ill.

Pedestrian deaths in Austin and the trouble with drawing conclusions from small numbers

One seldom-discussed drawback with data-driven policing - particularly when its used in mid-size and smaller cities - is that small statistical samples often make drawing valid inferences problematic, and here's a good example: Writes reporter Brenda Bell, "auto-pedestrian deaths are up in Austin, even as deaths from other vehicular collisions are falling. Last year marked an 83 percent increase in pedestrian-bicyclist fatalities; there were 22, compared with a dozen in 2010." Bell reported Sunday that "This year, eight people, including one walking his bike, have already died in collisions with motor vehicles. All but one happened after dark or at dusk. One-third were hit-and-runs."

While certainly it's accurate to say there was an 83% one-year increase, when the numbers are so small that means very little as far as identifying a statistical trend of increasing deaths, and the story didn't include prior years' data. On Sunday Bell did report that "Auto-bike fatalities have averaged one per year over the past seven years," but that means the year you have two it's a hundred percent increase. Is that meaningful data, or just random fluctuation? You see the same issues with murder trends and other infrequent events. Media will report a one-year increase with tremendous drama as a possible trend, even during periods like we're in now when long-term murder rates are declining. When numbers are so small, you need multiple years of data to perform a probative trend analysis, which of course doesn't make for the most attention-grabbing news story.

Perhaps the most obvious death-causing trend evidenced in the stories is that a significant proportion of pedestrian deaths in Austin happen along Interstate 35, which for significant stretches (especially north of 51st Street) is difficult to cross legally on foot and is flanked by extremely busy frontage roads. This datapoint reinforces my sense that jaywalking can be better addressed via traffic engineering solutions that make it safer for pedestrians to get where they're going. If you're walking any significant distance along the access road on I-35, it's likely because you have no other choice.

Another notable trend mentioned is bicyclists being hit after dark, which might argue for efforts narrowly aimed at improving safety equipment. (I see cyclists these days with flashing lights on their bikes instead of reflectors that make them MUCH easier to see after dark.) Cyclists' deficient equipment can be addressed with a variety of tactics from public education, warnings or tickets for equipment violations, improved lighting for dangerous intersections and popular bike routes, etc..

For the most part, though, the city should address these mainly as traffic engineering questions as opposed to law-enforcement concerns. For example, would auto-pedestrian/bike accidents downtown be reduced by creating the proposed Nueces Bike Boulevard? (See here [pdf] for more detail.) Quite possibly. A fascinating and telling map of recent auto-pedestrian/bike accidents accompanying the story shows a large number downtown, though some are concentrated on the east and west entry corridors. Those wouldn't be affected by a north-south route on Nueces, which more aims to reduce accidents on, say, Congress and Lamar.

Instead, Austin PD took a one-size-fits-all enforcement approach, employing a hammer in lieu of a scalpel. In a highly unpopular two-week crackdown last October:

Pedestrians got 1,336 citations and warnings, for offenses such as failure to observe traffic signals, panhandling or stepping into roadways midblock. Drivers got 174.

That lopsided scorecard is par for the course. Between 2008 and 2010, Austin police issued nearly 11,000 citations for violations of auto-pedestrian laws; only 7 percent went to drivers.

Ticketing cyclists may prompt them to get better equipment for biking at night - just handing out lights might even be better - but jaywalking will always be a function of convenience and opportunism. Focusing significant resources on ticketing them IMO is just silly. Meanwhile, as for Austin's much-ballyhooed "3 foot rule" that's supposed to protect "vulnerable" road users?

A city ordinance passed in 2009 requires vehicles to keep at least 3 feet away when passing a "vulnerable user" — a bicyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian or runner. On four-lane roads, motorists are supposed to yield the lane entirely.

Austin police have issued just eight citations — four per year — under that law.

So that was a bust. Now they're going to try using police as pedestrian "decoys" to ticket motorists. But with 11,000 citations for auto-pedestiran laws over three years and a supposed increase in the problem just now, it doesn't seem like the enforcement-only approach gets to the heart of the problem. Assessing tickets and fines for petty offenses while telling the public it's for their own protection comes off as self serving as it is patronizing in an era when municipal tickets are viewed as a lucrative revenue source.

To be fair, the city does have $13.5 million in bond money available "for projects to enhance mobility and safety for pedestrians, bikers and disabled people," which should do a lot more to prevent deaths than giving pointless tickets to jaywalkers. Certainly it will do more than APD's various proposals for new city bonds at ten times the cost.

Police Chief Art Acevedo told the paper he thinks this trend - which nobody can really say is a trend yet - results from the declining moral character of the citizenry: "Drivers think (pedestrians) don't have the right to cross the street, and pedestrians think they can jump out at the last second," he said. "It used to be ... that when a pedestrian set foot in an intersection, that people stopped. I think it's a commentary on society that we've lost that respect," adding that we're all a bunch of drunks Austin is "one of the heaviest drinking cities in the country."

For Grits' part, I think it's a commentary on Austin PD that, although the chief and the union complain constantly they don't have enough uniformed officers, when they get them they want them deployed ticketing jaywalkers while the civilian APD crime-scene unit doesn't even investigate a majority of burglaries for lack of manpower. And it's perhaps a commentary on the local media that police pronouncements of an "increased rate of pedestrian fatalities on Austin streets" are accepted as valid based on such a limited dataset. (If earlier years' numbers of pedestrian deaths are higher than 12, it might almost seem like the data was cherrypicked.)

These two stories give us insight into Austin PDs traffic enforcement tactics but in many ways for Grits raise more questions than they answer. Once we've seen the number of pedestrian deaths by year, preferably per capita, over a longer period of time, perhaps it would be safer to draw conclusions about trends.

Beaumont Enterprise argues both sides of recording confidential attorney-client communications in jail

There's an odd editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise about the Galveston County Jail ending its policy of taping inmate-attorney phone conversations. According to the Houston Chronicle, "Defense attorneys say the practice is common statewide." The Enterprise opines against the practice, favoring protection of client confidentiality, etc.. They close by pointing out that "Prosecutors wouldn't want defendants listening to their phone conversations. That right should be shared by both sides."

Then, strangely, in an argument as detailed than their own editorial judgment, they add:

ANOTHER VIEW: Continue for safety

Jail inmates need to remember an important reality: They simply do not have many of the same rights that other people enjoy. Most jails have a blanket policy of tape-recording all telephone conversations for a good reason: safety.

Jails are hard enough to run as it is. They are filled with many inmates who are dangerous or violent. Their interaction with outsiders has to be closely monitored, even with attorneys.

Prosecutors do not eavesdrop on these recorded conversations to learn tidbits they can use in court. The attorney-client conversations are simply included in the overall taping that goes on each day - again, for safety.

If this tradition is changed, what could prevent inmates from arguing that they should be able to talk to family members without being recorded? That could lead to all kinds of problems, such as inmates planning additional crimes.

This practice has not been a problem in our criminal justice system. It doesn't need fixing.

Grits finds this editorial construction fascinating: A publication basically arguing with itself, and giving its unnamed, theoretical opposition the last word. Is this a minority opinion from an editorial board member? Views expressed privately by the DA or law enforcement? Something somebody read on the Interwebs? Who knows? And what an argument, elevating this practice to a "tradition," no less!

I especially love the phony, red-herring question, "what could prevent inmates from arguing that they should be able to talk to family members without being recorded?' Uh ... perhaps the fact that attorneys engage in privileged communications with their clients while they're incarcerated and family members do not?

Grits doesn't doubt that recording attorney-client conversations in jail is common, and I wonder how often prosecutors or police sneak a listen, not for evidence to use in court but for leads, potential corroboration, etc.? Especially in high-profile cases where there's pressure to convict, but even under more workaday circumstances, the temptation to do so could be great without managerial checks, logs, etc. restricting who can access the data for what reason.

Juvie link roundup

Grits would like to pass on a few links related to juvenile justice issues for interested readers, even if I don't have time right now to delve too deeply into them.

• The new website for the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) is now filled out somewhat beyond the "shell" phase of its initial rollout.
• County magazine recently published a feature about the creation of the TJJD from the merger of the Youth Commission and juvenile probation.
• See TJJD's 2011 Annual Review of Treatment Effectiveness (pdf).
• Here's a link to the information packet (large pdf) given to members of TJJD's Board at their February meeting. Their next meeting is April 6 in Fort Worth.

Jail dominates Harris County Sheriff budget whether candidates acknowledge reality or not

Big Jolly has posted a hagiography candidate interview featuring Louis Guthrie, the GOP frontrunner to challenge Adrian Garcia for Harris County Sheriff, who Jolly declares is "a natural born leader," adding that he "couldn’t blame [Guthrie] if he thought I had a man-crush on him."

With Jolly temporarily blinded by his love-goggles, Grits wanted to hone in particularly on the utterly unrealistic discussion of the budget from the challenger. Ironically, his stances mirror positions taken and promises made by Garcia when he first ran for Sheriff, most of which crashed upon the rocky shores of economic reality almost immediately after he took office. Here's the segment (in full) of BJ's post on the budget:

About the budget, I’ve mentioned before (here and here) that most of the primary candidates think that the budget must be increased. Mr. Guthrie was a bit more nuanced in our discussion than he was in the forums – during the forums, he stated that his relationship with Harris County Commissioners Court would result in a larger budget. I asked him point blank if that meant that the Court was playing partisan politics and not giving Sheriff Garcia the resources he needed. His answer was no, that the budget under Garcia had grown and would continue to grow. What he meant was that the Court would see that he was prioritizing the resources better than Garcia and they would be more apt to give him what he asked for versus them seeing that Garcia was building up his command staff and not boots on the ground.

A glaring example of what Sheriff Garcia has done was noted in the Houston Chronicle today in a report by Anita Hassan:

Also, county budget cuts have suspended testing in the auto theft division for now. But overall, testing can help to solve more crimes as well as prevent them, Wilson said.

“If you catch one of those guys (car burglars), you can prevent dozens of them over a period of months,” he said. “They are out there every single day driving those parking lots in every part of this city and county looking for targets. If you get one of them off the streets, there’s no telling how many you may have prevented.”

I asked Mr. Guthrie about this report and he replied:

“Touch DNA is just one of many exciting new techniques now used to help solve crimes that were previously relegated to the “closed with no investigation” file.  While the current Sheriff has created most of his own budgeting problems, cutting funding for programs that help put burglars behind bars is a poor choice for the taxpayers.  Garcia could easily trim fat from his bloated command staff and instead put dollars to work solving crimes and putting more boots on the ground.  That would have a real impact of improving public safety in Harris County.” Louis Guthrie

We talked about the budget for quite some time. I was impressed with his detailed knowledge of how the department works, down to the supplies issued each deputy. I was a bit surprised by this because his highest rank in the department had been Lieutenant and budgeting is typically done by the Captains. He told me that he took it upon himself as a Lt. to break down the numbers passed down by his Captain because he wanted to be certain that taxpayer money was being utilized efficiently.

Two things jump out at Grits here. First is Guthrie's utterly unrealistic portrayal of the budget, pretending that demoting a few senior commanders will allow him to put more "boots on the ground" at a time when the county is paying millions annually in overtime to staff the jail (which is the 800 lbs. gorilla dominating the Sheriff's budget). I replied thusly in the comments:

Hey Big Spender!! So Garcia’s budget is too big, says Guthrie, but he would increase it more? I call BS.

In reality (i.e, outside the campaign trail), the Sheriff’s Office is primarily about running the jail. Garcia cited all the same data and made all the same promises about more patrols when he first ran, then once elected he had to confront reality and had to spend all his budget cushion on overtime for jailers to meet minimum state standards. What “efficiencies” will Guthrie install to change that situation? Nada. Command salaries are a drop in the bucket compared to overtime. If you or anybody believe Guthrie won’t be subject to PRECISELY the same budget dynamic, you’ve got another think coming. Such campaign promises are completely detached from reality.

Voters may not recall, but Sheriff Garcia rode into office four years ago promising to boost patrols in unincorporated parts of the county, then discovered after ascending to the job that his main responsibility is managing the jail and every extra dollar he could lay his hands on had to go to pay jailers' overtime. If Guthrie replaces him, four years from now he'll face a challenger making the same BS criticisms and promises because what he's suggesting is not real and cannot happen given current budget realities. These are not partisan issues, nor even ideological ones. They are difficult, practical economic and management questions on which neither Guthrie nor any other candidate may legitimately claim higher ground. Like Garcia when he made the same promises in 2008, either Guthrie doesn't understand the big picture or he's just blowing smoke up voters' collective ass.

Finally, BJ references an interesting story out of the Houston Chronicle on using "touch DNA" to solve property crimes, criticizing Garcia for not using the technology for car burglaries after the Commissioners Court cut the program's budget. I understand identifying something voters don't like (car burglaries) and blaming one's opponent for it is a typical campaign tactic, but the critique misunderstands who controls the budget strings at the Sheriff's office. The county commissioners court makes that call, not him. Besides, it's difficult to overstate the extent to which using touch DNA in nonviolent offenses would quickly overwhelm crime labs and property rooms. As Grits wrote in January, "The advent of 'touch DNA' and the expansion of DNA evidence to nonviolent offenses like burglary mean the near-term growth potential for DNA examiners may be limited only by how much state and local governments are willing to pay for them." In Harris County, for the foreseeable future, those demands for funds must get in line behind overtime spending for jailers. Changing the party designation of the Sheriff from D to R wouldn't alter that dynamic in the slightest.

RELATED: Here's Charles Kuffner's interview with incumbent Sheriff Adrian Garcia.

Shortcomings at crime lab accrediting body supply role for forensic commission

As Texas' Forensic Science Commission evolves in how it does its work in response to the actual, real-world complaints it receives, it's increasingly clear one of its primary roles will be to plug the gaps created by shortcomings in crime labs' accreditation process. Last week, Grits posted a detailed critique (pdf) of ASCLD/LAB, the crime-lab accrediting agency, submitted last year to the Forensic Science Commission in New York by a prominent attorney who criticized the group for lax oversight. He recommended NY state find a new accrediting body, as the United States Army Criminal Investigation Lab recently did following problems at an accredited lab.

At the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the Willis and Willingham cases involved arson, which is not an ASCLD/LAB accredited discipline. But more recent cases demonstrate why the TX FSC and ASCLD/LAB may end up butting heads in some instances, perhaps sooner than later, over the same issues identified in New York.

The best example may lie in the FSC's investigation of the controlled substances division at the El Paso crime lab. At their January meeting, serious unresolved concerns were raised about the lab and the commission initiated a detailed investigation with the help of the Department of Public Safety. I've uploaded a copy of the letter sent to the EPPD crime lab detailing the extensive checks they demanded be run to ensure the problems had been solved. These included hiring a qualified lab director, retesting all lab work performed since November 2011, and retesting ALL the work ever performed by an analyst found to be incompetent to perform the job, "giving priority to the 60 cases on the DPS list with the greatest possible impact."

The El Paso crime lab was accredited under "legacy" provisions by ASCLD/LAB, meaning they didn't have to meet every last requirement for their initial accreditation. However in April their "legacy" status runs out and the El Paso lab must meet much more rigorous ISO standards or risk losing their accreditation altogether. Ironically, in that light, it came out at the FSC's January meeting that ASCLD/LAB had lifted the probationary status of El Paso's controlled substances division, despite all the looming questions remaining about their competence, lack of leadership, and apparent ill-preparedness to meet the new standards required of them next month. As Grits reported in January:

while most of the media attention has focused on a single lab worker who couldn't pass basic competency tests, Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan, to the nodding affirmation of her peers, strongly urged that that lab worker not be used as a "scapegoat" to avoid bigger changes. When the El Paso lab began its certification process in 2006, the accrediting body found a list of shortcomings they asked them to fix, and which the lab claimed to have resolved. In 2011, though, when the incompetent lab worker came to light, a new assessment identified virtually all the same problems at the lab, still unresolved, that were cited in 2006.

A representative of ASCLD/LAB told the commission that lifting probation didn't mean all the lab's shortcomings have been rectified, which left everyone in the room wondering exactly what it did mean. Looking at the FSC letter detailing the oversight which still hadn't been performed when the lab's probation was lifted, one wonders what regulatory benefit, precisely, that ASCLD/LAB is providing and whether it really has any teeth.

Texas is one of only a few states that requires accreditation of its crime labs, and certainly having some standards to follow is better than flying blind. But standards unenforced are mere suggestions, and it's unclear what besides suggesting the accrediting body does when the labs it regulates don't follow its rules. If the FSC becomes the primary entity regularly performing meaningful crime-lab oversight, it will create a lasting, important role for the commission, particularly over the next decade or so as Texas and the rest of country struggle to correct deficiencies in what has historically passed for forensic science in the courtroom.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission - which at times during the Willlingham/Willis saga seemed to struggle to define its mission - appears to be hitting its stride now that the Culture War circus has left town, they have a chair who actually wants the agency to succeed, and they've found a role to play that the crime labs' accrediting body seems unable or unwilling to embrace.

Secure Communities boosts otherwise declining jail populations

The Austin Statesman's Dave Harmon has one of the better articles I've seen ("Undocumented immigrants in jail: Who gets deported?," March 18) detailing how the federal "Secure Communities" program - which IDs undocumented immigrants in jail for deportation - actually operates on the ground in Travis County. Harmon found that about 10% of Travis County inmates who've received ICE detainers were jailed for Class C misdemeanors, though that practice is receding, and that most of those deported were arrested for misdemeanors. Among the story's highlights:

The newspaper analyzed ICE's data, then obtained three years' worth of records from the jail — totaling more than 250,000 bookings between 2009 and 2011 — and found that:

■ For every undocumented immigrant deported from Travis County after being arrested for a serious felony, two people were deported after being arrested for some type of misdemeanor, from traffic violations to more serious offenses, such as assault or drunk driving.
■ The more than 10,000 people who received ICE detainers — the first step toward possible deportation — over the three-year period included 1,054 people charged only with Class C misdemeanors, which are punishable by fines only.
■ Nearly 90 percent of those Class C charges were for public intoxication and traffic violations. It's not clear how many of those people were ultimately deported.
■ The number of detainers filed on people charged with Class C misdemeanors has been dropping over the past two years, from an average of 46 a month in the first half of 2010 to an average of 23 a month in the last half of 2011. Since ICE Director John Morton's memo last June instructing employees to use greater discretion, ICE agents have filed about 150 detainers on Class C offenders.

There are lots of case studies and other detail from the institutional players in the lengthy story, which will interest anyone interested in the day to day functioning of county jails. This is a great example why immigration enforcement is one of the last remaining hopes of private-prison interests that incarceration rates might continue to increase. Secure Communities is one of the few recent drivers of increased incarceration in an era when Texas county jails have otherwise experienced population declines, just as immigration detainees are the largest growth sector among federal prisoners. Thus, as is so often the case (see: mental health issues for another example), the program amounts to the state using the criminal justice system as a substitute for rationalizing policies overall - in this case, once and for all implementing immigration reform. Who gets a traffic ticket is a stupid way to choose who may get deported. The process should be a bit more thoughtful and less random than that.

Seeking compensation for non-DNA innocence claims

Here's a story about the difficulty in proving "actual innocence" without DNA and one man's quest seeking compensation in a non-DNA Texas innocence case: Billy Frederick Allen, who was falsely imprisoned for 25+ years based on a case of mistaken identity and evidence the defense failed to unearth before trial. Comptroller Susan Combs says Allen's release was based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, not actual innocence, and now the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether Allen may receive compensation like the DNA exonerees in a similar position. The mixup began at the crime scene with the victim's dying words:

The police officer testified that when he asked Sewell who attacked him, he answered, "Billy Allen." But a defense investigator after the trial found two paramedics who heard Sewell saying three names as he was dying, the Court of Criminal Appeals said. One said he heard [victim James] Sewell say "Billy Wayne Allen," the name of another possible suspect. The other paramedic remembered hearing a middle name but couldn't recall it.

That new evidence left the officer's testimony ineffective, and the remaining major piece of evidence -- the palm print on the car -- would not have been enough to convict him, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined. The court overturned Allen's conviction in 2009, and he walked out of prison on bail.

Now, the Texas Supreme Court is considering Allen's compensation claim. Both sides recently argued before the court, with Allen's attorneys saying he had proved himself innocent and was the same as any other ex-inmate who had been released from prison.

"Billy will establish that you don't have to have a DNA exoneration to be compensated," said his attorney, Kris Moore.

Assistant Solicitor General Philip Lionberger, representing the state, said Allen was freed through a claim that raised legitimate questions about his conviction but did not prove he was fully innocent. He said state law only requires payment to former inmates who win their freedom after presenting evidence proving their innocence based on a stricter standard than the one Allen met.

Lionberger said Allen's claim and others like his are "never going to be entitled to compensation."

Allen's case eerily parallels that of James Giles, who was also the victim of a wrong-name mixup that cost him ten years in prison and another 14 as a registered sex offender. The only difference:, DNA evidence existed in Giles' case to prove him innocent, whereas here that absolute standard can't be met.

The Texas Supreme Court has a tough job setting the standard for compensation in non-DNA cases, and if they find the current law is inadequate to compensate Mr. Allen, the Lege should revisit the standard in light of non-DNA exonerations. Where that line gets drawn is a multi-million dollar decision for the state, but we also know DNA exonerations represent just a small fraction of the total number of false convictions. The compensation law should accommodate the types of innocence cases actually out in the world. The Tulia defendants received compensation, after all: DNA has never been a pre-requisite for compensation under Texas' statute and I hope the court doesn't create a precedent now that would make that the case.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/17/3817535/former-inmate-struggles-to-collect.html#storylink=cpy

48 Hours Mystery to feature Anthony Graves' story

Via the Texas Tribune, we learn that CBS News' 48 Hours Mystery will feature a segment on Anthony Graves' false conviction tonight. See the full story.