County judges in bail system case facing federal scrutiny

Sanctioned magistrates say they were just following orders in denying personal bonds

Lawyers behind the civil rights case that upended the bail system for low-level offenses in Harris County have asked a federal judge to consider sanctioning sitting county judges, citing grave concerns that the county withheld evidence.

The controversy will likely come to head on Tuesday in an unusual federal court hearing in which all the judges in the bail lawsuit have been ordered to attend to sort out the dispute.

The attorneys in a class-action lawsuit brought by indigent defendants wrote the judge Wednesday to highlight “deeply troubling revelations” unearthed after the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued rare sanctions to three county magistrates. On Jan. 10, the state admonished the trio for failing to follow the law and use discretion in granting personal bonds.

The conflict erupted after magistrates Joseph Licata III, Jill Wallace and Eric Hagstette told the commission they were acting under direction of the county judges, following rules that restricted them from granting cash-free bonds. They said they felt pressured to comply with these rules the judges provided.

This testimony appears to contradict what judges said under oath during a March hearing in federal court, according to attorneys for indigent defendants in the landmark bail case letter.

Throughout the injunction hearing, judges repeatedly said they never provided instructions to hearing officers about bail matters and magistrates had full reign to issue personal bonds.

Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal ruled in April that Harris County’s bail system discriminated against poor people. That order is on appeal before the

5th U.S. Circuit Court.

The county’s lawyers and judges deny there is any contradiction in testimony.

The official sanctions by the commission cite testimony by three magistrates who claim that until March 2017, several district court judges “did not permit hearing officers to grant personal bonds,” and, until August 2016, “the County Criminal Court at Law judges historically had similar rules.”

Hagstette told the commission he and his colleagues “didn’t write the policies, but we had to follow them,” adding: “Could I do something? Probably by law, I could have. I don’t know if it would have been good for my career.”

Wallace, another hearing officer sanctioned, testified that the misdemeanor judges had “rules or instructions” guiding their conduct.

“We do serve many masters,” she said.“There are many judges that we serve, and we exercise as much discretion within certain bounds.”

The commission noted it issued lesser punishments as a result of these instructions, saying the judges who had given the directives “played a role in (their) continued employment.”

“We do serve many masters. There are many judges that we serve, and we exercise as much discretion within certain bounds.” Jill Wallace, magistrate

Feeling boxed in

Further evidence of the magistrates feeling boxed in included an email Judge Diane Bull sent 20 years ago, which the judicial commission cited to support their disciplinary action.

“Please instruct the probable cause hearing officers to withhold their rulings on all pretrial release applications for defendants,” Bull wrote.

The lawyers suing the county say Bull’s email indicated additional evidence should have been shared with them — but was withheld.

Wallace, one of three hearing officers sanctioned by the commission, said it was her understanding that Bull “simply preferred to make the personal bond decision herself when she was on the bench.” Wallace was clear that judges didn’t direct magistrates to flat-out deny personal bonds.

But Bull, in a response, denied the claim and said it was “absolutely not my policy. I have been on the bench 23 years, and this alleged email communication is not at all in my recollection.”

The letter from lawyers from the Susman Godfrey law firm and two civil rights groups said the county provided “inadequate and misleading” responses to inquiries in the federal lawsuit and the commission’s findings “raise the question of whether any of the defendants made misrepresentations to the court.”

They now want Rosenthal to mandate complete records and testimony be provided in the federal case.

Several judges and magistrates, as well as attorneys representing the county, said there is no inconsistent testimony and any indication of a conflict in the commission’s findings is based on remarks being quoted out of context. They said all instructions about whether to issue personal bonds came from felony court judges.

However, the judges’ practices were scrutinized during the hearing. Rosenthal questioned Judge Paula Goodhart about an August 2016 letter written during the same month magistrates said rules from judges ceased.

“You have full discretion to perform your duties . ... This includes determining bail amounts and granting personal bonds as you deem appropriate,” the letter stated.

Contradicted testimony

Under questioning from Rosenthal, Goodhart denied the letter implied the judges sought to “instruct or guide” the magistrates about their duties.

The purpose, Goodhart said, was to remind them, “We believed them to be independent of the judiciary and that they had the discretion to carry out their duties as they saw (fit).”

This also contradicted testimony from Judge Darrell Jordan, who said hearing officers told him they weren’t permitted to reduce bonds even if court documents that specified the bond amount contained a typographical error.

“The hearing officers also told me they received instructions from other judges,” said Jordan.

Robert Fickman, a longtime critic of the bail system, said that the commission’s reports confirmed what defense attorneys have already known for years.

“It was common knowledge that the magistrates had directives from the courts that were such that they granted personal bonds at their own risk,” Fickman said. “It was common knowledge that the county judges did not want the magistrates to grant personal bonds. And this was obvious to anyone paying attention given the history of systematic denial of personal bonds.”

Prior to 2016, Harris County traditionally granted personal bonds to less than 10 percent of people charged with misdemeanors.