Why high bail amounts cost taxpayers money

The Temple Daily Telegram ran a story today about the artificially high bail amounts in Bell County. The story (“Jail statistics show bail range, averages”, by Paul A. Romer, Sunday, September 28, 2008) quotes me as saying, “By setting high bond amounts, they are keeping bond companies fully employed but are making people need court-appointed attorneys because they can’t afford to hire an attorney after paying their bond… Then the taxpayers get to pay for it.”

That is absolute, 100%, correct.  However, the very next paragraph goes on to say “Attorney John Galligan said it is common for bail hearings to reduce bail amounts by 80 to 90 percent.”  That I don’t know about.

Sure, the typical felony defendant’s bail gets reduced from an ungodly number down to $1,000 once they plead guilty.  But, that’s usually the only way to get such a huge reduction.  Otherwise, the judges usually reduce the bail from an ungodly amount down to just an unholy amount.  What good does that do?

Here’s the problem, though: a good number of defendants post bond before they get a bail reduction.  Then, they are paying their bond companies huge sums of money to get out of jail.  That typically means that there is no money left to hire a criminal defense attorney.  So, since they are charged with felonies, what happens?  They get a court-appointed lawyer.  Who pays for that?  We, the taxpayers. 

So, by setting initial bail amounts so high, a defendant has to pay what little money they have saved up over time, or what little money their families can scrape together, to get that person out of the jail.

The situation is better if the defendant hires a criminal defense lawyer first, because then the lawyer can go to the judge assigned to the case and get the bail lowered to a more reasonable amount.  That only happens, though, when the defendant hires the lawyer first.  Meanwhile, though, that person sits in jail and waits until the defense attorney can go to a judge and get a lowered bail amount (unless they have so much money that they can afford to hire a lawyer and hire a bondsman — and not very many people do).

So, why are we forcing people to stay in jail longer than necessary with these artificially high bail bonds?  Why not just set a reasonable bail amount to begin with and save everyone (including the taxpayers) a lot of money?  Well, according to the article, Judge Ted Duffield was at a conference and unavailable for comment.  Where was “Million Dollar” Judge Ivey for comment?

Another look at who is in the Bell County Jail

I thought I’d take a look at the BCJ population data from the middle of the week, since I looked at it last on Sunday.  The numbers are just about the same all across the board.  Have a look:

Just who is in the Bell County Jail, anyway?

The article in yesterday’s Temple Daily Telegram made me stop and wonder just who, exactly, is in the Bell County Jail at any given time. The article was ostensibly about bail amounts in criminal cases, and how they are set. The interesting thing, though, was the idea that a bail amount in a Bell County criminal case could be set in any amount without any apparent logic or legal authority for doing so.

Well, a little investigation revealed some interesting information. Here is a breakdown of just who is in the BCJ right now:

Keep in mind that the BCJ only has 708 beds. I guess 70 inmates are sharing beds? However it works out over there, it seems like there are still an awful large number of people in the BCJ with excessive bail amounts. I don’t know, because each case is unique and I have not studied each and every case (obviously). I do wonder, though, if anyone else has.

For example, looking at State Jail felony offense possession under a gram cases, there are 35 inmates in the BCJ right now with that offense being the most serious thing they are charged with. I don’t know what percentage of those have no prior felony convictions, but I imagine a good number of them are first timers. And, of course, those with no prior felonies are automatically entitled to probation on their first State Jail felony possession case. Automatic probation. And yet, a good number of inmates are sitting in jail, an average of 77 days so far, most with bail amounts of $25,000! $25,000 and they are guaranteed probation if it’s a first felony offense? What is the rationale behind this?

By the way, for all of you good criminal defense lawyers out there, notice the median bond amounts. Now when someone asks you what their bond is likely to be set at, you can say with some confidence that the normal Bell County bail for a:

1st Degree Felony = $150,000
2nd Degree Felony = $75,000
3rd Degree Felony = $75,000
State Jail Felony = $25,000
Felony probation revocation = $50,000
Class A Misdemeanor = $5,000
Class B Misdemeanor = $2,500
Misdemeanor probation revocation = $5,000

Of course, looking at these numbers, something appears quite curious. Notice the neat stacking of numbers. What a coincidence that a median Class A bail amount just happens to be twice that of a median Class B bail amount. There appears to be a slight problem with the pattern though. Because a State Jail Felony is $25,000. Doubling that should make a Third Degree Felony $50,000 (but the median jumps up to $75,000). The Second Degree Felony is at $75,000, which oddly enough is half of a First Degree Felony, at $150,000.

Does this neat pattern indicate that Bell County bail amounts are being set according to some predetermined value ladder? Surely the local magistrates are obeying their sworn duties to apply and uphold the law and are individually setting each of these amounts, right? Well, see this post if there is any doubt

[The data used in this analysis is available on my website as an Excel file, by clicking here. Keep in mind, though, that this spreadsheet only shows one offense for each inmate, the offense with the highest bond amount. The most current list is available on the Sheriff’s website: Bell County Active Inmate List.]

Setting bail: Why do the amounts vary so much?

The article which appeared in the Temple paper yesterday regarding 17-year-old John Orland Thompson, Jr., (“Setting bail: Why amounts vary so much” by Paul A. Romer, September 20, 2008) illustrates that there are fundamental problems in Bell County concerning the setting of bail in criminal cases. Is it any wonder that the Bell County Jail is overcrowded when the local officials handling the setting of bail amounts fail to follow the law?

Thompson’s bail was set at one million dollars due to “peripheral issues,” according to the article. Judge G. W. Ivey apparently recommended a million dollar bail at the request of a detective with the Belton Police Department “who believed Thompson was not cooperating with the investigation.”

Judge Ted Duffield, who officially set the bail, said that he thought that the amount “seemed high for a criminal mischief charge” and briefly considered reducing the million dollar bail when Thompson appeared before him. Duffield did not reduce the bail, though, but instead deferred to the bail amount recommended by Judge Ivey.

Further, the article reported, the Belton Police Department consulted with the Bell County District Attorney’s office, who agreed with a “high bail amount” so as to “send a clear message to the young people involved with the case that it was a serious felony.”

Thus, it appears that Bell County officials involved believed that Thompson should be held in the overcrowded Bell County Jail because he refused to cooperate with the police and because the prosecutors wanted to send a clear message to other young people about the seriousness of the alleged offense. These factors must be based upon “Bell County law,” though.

The problem with Bell County law is that it conflicts squarely with Texas and federal laws. Texas law sets out the rules to follow when a court official sets the amount of bail in a criminal case. The law states that: 1) the bail should be high enough to reasonably assure that the person will show up for court, 2) the bail should not be oppressively high, 3) the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered, 4) the ability of the accused to make bail must be considered, and 5) the future safety of a victim of the offense and the community must be considered, as well. This law is found in Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

What is missing from the five factors? Certainly cooperating with the police isn’t there. Since when have we as a society ever required anyone arrested with a crime to cooperate with government agents, anyway? Has the Belton Police Department ever heard of the United States and Texas Constitutions? Perhaps the right to remain silent doesn’t apply in Bell County. What about sending clear messages to young people? That’s not one of the five factors, either.

Looking at what the law does allow, though, we can see what a poor job our elected local officials did in following Texas law: First, a million dollar bail would almost certainly guarantee any 17-year-old kid would show up for court. However, wouldn’t a $20,000 bail do the same thing? Apparently the 426th District Court thought so, at least according to the article, because that was the amount of bail once Thompson had the benefit of a criminal defense attorney to assert his rights. Secondly, does anyone think that a million dollar bail would not almost always be oppressive to a 17-year-old, or just about anyone else for that matter? Thirdly, the nature of the offense is that a seven-year-old vehicle was apparently stolen and driven into a lake after an unsupervised teen party. While the owner of the vehicle did not deserve to have his car stolen, should he really be surprised something bad happened after leaving his teenager home alone over the weekend? Fourthly, I wonder what inquiry Judges Ivey and Duffield made into Thompson’s ability to come up with a million dollars? Maybe Thompson had saved up a million dollars working a part-time fast-food job when not attending high school. Who knows? Finally, the future safety of a victim of the offense and the community. Can anyone explain how the safety of the community or the safety of the M.I.A. father would be at risk if Thompson had been released under a reasonable bail?

Perhaps Thompson is not alone, though. Perhaps Bell County is overrun with crime and criminals and we are all at danger except for the heroic efforts of a few unappreciated and little understood court officials. Looking at the Bell County Jail population on Sunday, September 21, 2008, one could see that there were nine inmates with million dollar or higher bails set. Of course, all but two of those were in jail at the time for murder. With one of the remaining two charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the other one charged with having escaped from a jail previously. Naturally, one can see how a 17-year-old alleged car thief deserves the same bail as a bunch of murderers. Although, not every alleged murderer has a million dollar bail. In fact, on Sunday, a couple of alleged murderers had bail amounts set at just $100,000.

Perhaps, then, it is the nature of Thompson’s alleged crime that makes it especially heinous. Maybe driving a 2001 Chevy Camaro Z-28 into a lake just can not be tolerated in Bell County. That is why the four individuals sitting in the Bell County jail on Sunday morning who were charged in other incidents of felony criminal mischief should be thankful that their bail amounts were set at $10,000; $15,000;$20,000 and $50,000 each. One can only assume that those four individuals, however, must be cooperating fully with the police, and the young people of Bell County must have already received clear messages concerning those cases.

For comparison purposes, though, there were eight persons in the Bell County Jail on this past Sunday who were each charged with aggravated sexual assault on children. Surely that is also a serious crime where the prosecutors would want to send clear messages by requesting high bail amounts, right? And certainly in that type of case we would want a high bail set unless those accused of having engaged in sexual contact with children came forward and were totally cooperative with the compassionate and understanding police forces of our county, right? Well, apparently not, because only one of the eight even has a half a million dollar bail, and the rest have an average bail of around $200,000 (with one set at only $75,000).

Do not mistake the point I am trying to make, though. I am not making a blanket statement that Bell County bail amounts are not high enough in sexual assault cases, or murder cases, or any particular case. Maybe bail amounts are too high or too low, and maybe they aren’t. I don’t know. It is certainly possible that the magistrates in other cases followed Texas law, and that court officials determined that $75,000 was enough money to ensure that that the particular alleged child molester in that case would show up for court and not endanger anyone’s safety when released. The point I am trying to make, though, is that it is a shame that John Thompson didn’t receive the same consideration in the setting of his bail amount as others apparently have.

Both The United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution provide every citizen with the right to a reasonable bail. Both Constitutions also guarantee all citizens the right to equal protection of the law. FBI Director Robert Mueller has said that “When just one of us loses just one of our rights, then the freedoms of all of us are diminished.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the lead agency for investigating violations of federal civil rights laws. The Texas Rangers investigate violations of Texas law when local officials are unwilling or unable to do so. Maybe it’s time for one of those agencies to start asking Bell County officials, “Setting bail: Why do the amounts vary so much”?