The Meaning of America

For years in Harris County, Texas, indigent defendants were systematically denied personal recognizance bonds.

As they were indigent, they could not afford to hire a bondsman. As they were systematically denied PR bonds, they remained in jail.

Ultimately, this led to a vile system that we referred to as the Harris County Plea Mill. Here is how it worked in our county criminal courts:

1. The accused was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, such as shoplifting, trespassing, possession of marijuana, etc.
2. The accused, being indigent, lacked the $100-$150 that the bondsman required to bond someone out of jail on a misdemeanor;
3. The accused were systematically denied personal recognizance bonds. The courts wouldn’t consider them, and yes, the courts had a less than altruistic motive;
4. The county criminal courts received a regular chart that showed how they measured up to each other. It showed which courts had the most pending cases and which courts had the least. There was an unspoken contest among the county criminal court judges, brethren and sistren. The contest focused on the size of the court’s docket. Whoever moved the most cases and had the smallest docket was by their standards, “winning”. On the other hand, whoever moved the least number of cases and had the largest docket was, by their standards, “losing”.
5. The courts utilized the vile “Plea Mill” to move their dockets in the ongoing docket size contest. It was quite simple and effective.
6. The indigent defendants were brought to court on a chain and placed in the court’s holding tank. The court-appointed “lawyers” would visit with the ADA and receive an offer for the indigent in custody. The offer went something like this: You can plead guilty and get out of jail in a day or two, or you can plead NOT GUILTY and stay in jail, and in about three months, you will get a trial. Quite often, the DA would add that the offer was good “ today only.”
7. This is called a “Hobson’s Choice”; no real choice. As was expected, the vast majority of indigent defendants pleaded guilty on their first appearance. They pleaded guilty to get out of jail at the earliest opportunity. They pleaded guilty, without regard to whether they were guilty. They pleaded guilty on that first setting without their so-called lawyer conducting any investigation into the case. Commonly, no defenses were investigated, and no defense witnesses were contacted.
8. For many years, in the Harris County criminal courts, the accused pleaded guilty to obtain their liberty. They accepted the lifelong stain of a criminal conviction, even though many were undoubtedly not guilty of the offense.
9. All of the above changed when a Federal lawsuit was filed before the Honorable Lee Rosenthal. Judge Rosenthal made findings that condemned the Harris County Plea Mill. As a result, the Harris County criminal courts ceased systematically denying PR bonds and began to grant them, and indigent defendants were no longer coerced into pleading guilty.
10. And after that everyone lived happily ever after…. …. Except for one glaring hideous problem.
11. Many Houstonians remain who were unfairly and wrongfully convicted of crimes as a result of the plea mill. They pleaded guilty to obtain their liberty. Any system that requires innocent people to plead guilty to obtain their freedom is unjust.
12. There is only one way to right this wrong truly. All the accused who were factually innocent need a legal mechanism to apply to have their cases reviewed. They need a legal mechanism to remove the wrongful conviction from their records. These convictions hurt their employment opportunities and their families’ chances of escaping the smothering poverty that they endure.
13. There are likely many thousands of Houstonians who live under the yoke of a wrongful conviction. It will take a concerted group effort time and hard work to correct this massive injustice. Who should step forward to help these wrongfully convicted people?

Well, I have a modest proposal.

It’s not so modest. It’s not modest at all. It’s more of a challenge.

I propose that the mostly retired former judges who perpetuated the plea mill take the lead in forming a team of lawyers to help those who were wrongfully convicted. Their objective should be to clear the record of those who were wrongfully convicted.

This proposal serves two purposes:

First, it would allow those with a wrongful conviction an established method to seek to clean their record of the wrongful conviction.

Second, it would allow those mostly retired judges who perpetuated the plea mill a degree of honest and direct redemption. For every wrongful conviction they help undo, they would be closer to righting the wrong they perpetuated.

If the judges are not interested in righting the wrong, the problem will still exist. The rest of us must work together to undo the wrongful convictions that have never been addressed.