Travis County Commissioners Court
December 21, 2004
Item 38
Number 38 is next. Consider and take appropriate action to authorize creation.
County court at law number 8. In this item is a question. Where will this
court sit? And if you have not been reading my e-mails, whether we have in
the new legislation that this court will sit in Travis County which is designed
to enable us to continue piloting programs at del valle and I guess if we
sign one that we think works implemented permanently and whether it sits in
the city of Austin and since the del valle jail is outside of the city of
Austin, that creates legal issues for us, so I did not know this was an issue
until I sent I thought was an innocent e-mail that said, let's have the city
of Travis County rather than autopsy, but there is concern about that language,
we did have judges that come to chat with us today as well as members of the
defense bar. As part of the background, for the last two or three years we've
been looking at video conferences, other things that we might do in del valle
with an eye toward reducing transportation cost for inmates and in rare view,
the way you make it work, one is that judges go out there go voluntarily and
two, as far as I know, 99% of the defends are the defends for whom we appointed.
Court appointed lawyers, anyway. The other thing is that my thinking was that
if you do a rue type criminal matters, let's say you take pleas one day and
you had fifteen, then rather than have fifteen court appointed lawyers, we
would have three or four, each of whom would have a share of those four or
five cases, and that would make it financially worthwhile for a lawyer to
welcome the opportunity to go to del valle, but it may not be that simple
in real life. Those were my thoughts.
>> well, there's a lot of things in that vein to talk about,
logistics, whether or not it's economically sound and all of those things,
but just to back up a little bit, I think where I grew up in Texas, you always
have the courthouse and the county seat which is Austin and Travis County,
Texas, and that is probably the reason why that language is in there. But
in terms to focus on what I think should be -- I mean we can talk about the
merits and demerits of going out there for a long time, but a couple of weeks
ago the judges met and made an agreement about the language of the statute
creating the new court and we excluded that language because we feared it
would be controversial. There's two things going on there, one would be we're
asking for provision of resources to the criminal justice system to -- that
goes to the heart of safety and justice and orderliness in the community and
I think we have a joint belief that we need more resources there, some differences
about how much. But that we need that and then comes the other issue of the
manner of holding court and where we hold court, and how that appears to other
members of the community. If we're going to go to the legislature for one
or both, and we have agreement about the need for resources, we wondered why
we would tie a controversial issue to it and maybe kill the idea that we all
agree on where you could separate it out and have a separate debate about
the propriety or impropriety of going out to the whole jail court basically
injury if you say we couldn't go because it's controversial, that is too general.
Why is it controversial.
>> jump on this train here, but he was proposing I think
that we discussed is having two separate bills. If you want the bill that
creates a new court will be one bill t other bill would be a court -- would
be where would that be held or not that, but say jurisdiction of holding jail
call. That way we can have a discussion, as you've come to find out, there
is significant controversy about whether we should have it out there. There's
benefits and there's not benefits. The money saved I would like to look and
see where the money cost can be saved by holding jail call out there. The
times we have had held jail call out there, the number of cases disposed of
were minuscule compared to how many cases we dispose of here at Travis County.
If we don't have a case file out there, you cannot just go get it like you
can when it's held her at Travis County, at the courthouse. It's not feasible
to do so. There's a lot of things that we need to discuss, the merits of holding
jail call out there, and I think that is something that we should discuss
and I think is it a possibility or not a possiblings we should discuss it,
but I believe lips historic preservation.
>> the latest station would lock in a site. Why would we
give ourselves the flexibility at the time that the court is created, do you
see what I知 saying? It may be that from a -- an analysis assessment perspective,
we never conclude to move anything out there permanently, but if you cannot
pilot different things or test different things because this court has a court
in Austin, you never know because you deny yourself the flexibility. I知 looking
at at least this court having the flexibility to let us pilot different stuff.
So far I would think that video conferencing has turned out to be a lot more
problematic than you will think up front and it came to us as an idea that
was doable because we heard that other jurisdiction were doing it with great
success. There may be a whole lot of reasons why that never pans out in Travis
County, and I can live with that, so I guess I知 not assuming that we would
want a court out there permanently. I知 just assuming that we would want to
take a good look at it and have the flexibility to do so, and the other thing
is it is difficult to get two bills through than one and it's a little difficult
than later going back over and change from the court that sits in Travis County
to the one that sits in Austin and the other thing is that it's a local issue.
My guess is that if there's controversy, there's controversy wholly. If I知
the judge and the Commissioner's court said we won't force you to do out there,
but if judge's want to volunteer to do it, let's let them do it, defense lawyers,
i've got my law practice and I知 close to do you want, ethink it's a waste
of time and financially not bfl for me to go to del valle, I would try to
do things that would allow me not to, but if I知 taking court appointments
from the court and the court swings it for me for me to go to del valle, then
I think I would understand and at least be willing to try that. I guess from
a Commissioner's court perspective, I知 looking for flexibility for the people
and when we create this court it comes at great cost. The transportation costs
we've been dealing with the last three or four years trying to do what is
necessary to reduce it. It has not been easy. But it may be that, you know,
it's not so easy to put the proceedings -- criminal proceedings out at del
valle either and I can live with that, however it checks out. I guess I知
having a hard time living with just cutting off that possibility up front.
It would seem to me that good government says give yourself the flexibility.
>> well, everybody has their opinion. My opinion is that
we go ask for a new court to put that on there, we're not going to get the
new court. That's what I feel like.
>> are you saying controversy is not coming from judges but
coming from others.
>> right.
>> and the other would be sources...
>> that would be another discussion on it.
>> let's have it right now.
>> I知 betty blackwell, I知 on the board of the Austin criminal
defense lawyers association. We're adamantly opposed to holding court in a
jail facility, particularly del valle. We give these people the minimum of
justice. We are incars rating people not being convicting. They are presumed
innocent. They are put in jail clothes, they are provided court appointed
attorneys and now on top of every other indignity, we're not going to bring
them to court, we're going to have their court at a jail in del valle. We
are opposed to that, we think that does not provide justice to the citizens
of Travis County. Those least among us who do not have the finances to get
out of jail, to get access to good attorneys, good bondsmen that will get
them out and get them to court in their own clothes, it's just another part
of the how fast can we speed up the justice system. And we don't think that
is justice for these people.
>> if I go this to expedite your release, say video conferencing,
so rather than scathing you for a bus trip downtown, our goal is to get you
out as soon as possible and we can do it video conferencing, why wouldn't
justice be serve add whole lot better.
>> I thought we were talking about the jail at del valle.
I知 sorry, judge. I thought video conferencing...
>> the lawyer and the defendant would be at del valle, right?
>> and the judge -- the judge would be sit down at the cjc,
and basically, but the goal would be to get john doe defendant out of soon
as possible. If we have to schedule a trip downtown, I知 thinking that would
not only take a lot more time but it would cost a lot more money. I don't
know if this is the kind of thing that you would have a serious criminal proceeding
as part of. Routine criminal matters. That now you are bringing, you know,
defendants do you want by big numbers, but we would have some of these proceedings
out there. Now, so I guess I never --
>> we also -- we also were opposed to video cop friending
if that is going to dispose of the case. That is something that we talked
about, that the judges need to see at that person in front of them. The judge
supposed to determine is this person even competent to employer a plea. Are
they voluntarily entering this plea, that needs to be done in a courtroom
in front of a judge with the expertise to make these determinations. These
people's families need to have access to the courtrooms even though a vast
majority of this is done routine regular proceeding, those families need to
have a right to see that. This person needs to be provided some essence that
this is a serious system. We want to give you the respect that you deserve.
You deserve to appear in front of a courtroom where your family can come and
see, where you can see what kind of respect that people have for the criminal
justice system. I does not give the criminal justice system respect to do
it in a jail. It does not give that person the feeling of respect, oh, there's
cases taken seriously to do it in a jail, and we oppose that sort of proceeding.
>> help me out here. We do have -- and have traditionally
had -- informally and now more formally, we have do have a courtroom within
our jail and I haven't heard anything from the bar saying we refuse to participate
in that facility where we've had a visiting judge come in and before we've
had, you know, magistration calls there, whatever, help me walk through why
that temporary courtroom we have in the jail over there is okay, but one at
a different facility would not be okay.
>> let me make sure I understand which one you're reffing
to. The one in the downtown jail that is used for magistration? My understanding...
>> judge coronado is up on the top dealing with magistration
and the true cjc courts building but the auditor helped us build a separate
little courtroom that is located within, I call it more the bowels of the
jail as opposed to somebody saying, well, that is in the courts.
>> jury trials.
>> well, I知 not aware that they have had jury trials down
there. I cannot each imagine how you would possibly go about getting the witnesses
to that sort of setting and have a jury trial. I complained bitterly when
they tried to send me to ut because I had 20 witnesses I could not tell how
to get to the university of Texas courtroom. That is a point of open courtrooms,
so your witnesses, your victim's families, your clients families can be in
the courtroom and see justice happen. I am not away and I have not seen a
jury trial in the auxiliary courtroom. I have seen magistrates where there
are no attorneys involved at all in the courthouse, court jail facilities
where people are magistrates, bonds set, their rights read to them, told what
the charges are.
>> I think there's confusion about which facility you're
talking about. The down stair magistration facility what you're talking about.
>> on the ground level there's a courtroom that was built
over there, the auxiliary courtroom, it's right there in the justice complex.
It's right there outside the sign that says judge blackwell and judge thurmond,
ice part of the justice complex an every county in the state of Texas, the
courthouse and the justice complex are right there in the same block. Right
together.
>> [multiple voices]
>> different than going 12 miles away.
>> the criminal courtrooms and the jail right there in the
same building.
>> yes. Yes. Yes.
>> there are counties where the courtrooms are in the same
building as the jail to promote efficiency.
>> yes, sir.
>> and -- and what I had in mind really was not being in
a cell, but being in a room compare to believe a courtroom. What I had in
mind too was a kind of proceeding where there was nothing contested, you know,
no written, but mere I had an opportunity just to expedite position. It came
up in the context of the jail task force, what can you do to expedite your
lease of defendants that ought not be in our custody. In the context of, you
know, how do we enhance justice, at the same time not understand that it would
dilute justice in any way. Yes, sir, that is part of the plea, is to voluntarily
know that the plea is being entered, that the person hasn't been coerced or
given false information, and I know that every single one of these jumps -
judges has seen a plea in front of them they know is not voluntary, they've
stopped the proceedings and been able to do something about it. I do not see
how that can possibly occur over video conferencing.
>> it waters down and diminishes the justice process in my
opinion. If you've got somebody standing before you, there's all sorts of
clues that you can gain about their behavior and their communicative skills
that get watered down a little bit if you have to look on the screen up there.
That is human nature. That is a whole different debate I didn't think we were
talking about today. Part about having jail court, I think you should be aware
in the counties around the state, say in dewitt county, if there's a bill
they think is going to affect their p ability to have their jail cases brought
over to the courthouse in cuero, Texas, and they think -- the lawyers there
are going to have to go to georgetown and yoakum, I guess what I知 trying
to say is this bill can be potentially impact statewide of courthouses being
in the county seat that people haven't really thought automatic. The other
part that is important to me is the appearance. None of these lawyers here
think I知 easy on the people who get processed through the system? Is that
correct?
>> that's correct.
>> the appearance of being tough and getting people to be
responsibility is something we all take seriously. And it also has to do with
the appearance. And we're sending a signal to the community that we're so
-- that the justice function, the judges are so allied with the sheriff's
department that we go 12 miles away from the courthouse to conduct a justice
proceeding out in the jail where they -- it's just putting the gavel and the
badge in my opinion a little too close together and it has a poor appearance
in the community and if the people who go through the system don't have respect
that that judge is truly independent, and of the prosecutors and the defense
lawyers, then they have less respect for the judge and we don't do as good
of a job.
>> let me run through one more scenario, because right now
we've got the blue warrant folk who sit in our jails, what is it, a couple
hundred -- depends on how many but we have quite a few blue warrant folks,
one of the things that we have to provide for the state of Texas when they
finally get around to dealing with these folks is a courtroom which is in
a jail and I have to presume that these folks are represented by council so
why is it okay to have a courtroom on behalf of the state of Texas dealing
with the chunk of our folk sitting out at del valle right now who are blue
warrant folks, but it's not okay for folks who are not blue.
>> I understand...
>> blue warrants are convicted fell long. They've been convicted.
They've been to prison, they have been released from prison, are on parole,
violated parole, they have very little rights. Their due process is much much
lower than someone who is first arrested, has not been convicted, is presumed
innocent and has a right to an attorney and a fair trial and a fair trial
and a fair proceeding. It's a totally different sir.
>> that is truly a administrative determination rather than
a judicial determination at that point.
>> variation...
>> administration component of the department probe.
>> my second question, because, talk about the estates openly
and honestly. At this moment in time, del valle is not in the city of Austin,
but if anybody looks at the map, it is simply a matter of time because the
city of Austin has an nexted a good chunk of del valle, it's just a matter
of time before this property is likely to be taken in, so it's just one of
those things that we talked about now, hi, it may not be in Austin now, but
at some point in the future it could be and i've just been alerted that we
need to talk about, so what would happen then if indeed it is the city of
Austin and we would have more flexibility in the future how folks are going
to feel about that.
>> my only point on that is that it is a subdivision that
probably the city of Austin does not want within its city limits.
>> they don't collect any taxes. They don't have to do anything.
>> right.
>> it's just for being contiguous with other kinds of...
>> I totally suspect they could leave it out.
>> they could. They might not. I mean it would look rather
unusual.
>> video conferencing, but what is the objection to a judge
going out there just to stay take, let's say, criminal pleas.
>> it's still a jail facility. It's still in a jail in a
secured jail environment where the public doesn't have access, where the family
doesn't have access, where the victim doesn't have easy access to this courtroom
and it's what judge kraemer is talking about.
>> do you have all of those people taking advantage of the
opportunities to have pleas done.
>> yes. Yes. In a courtroom, yes, sir, anybody can go for
the courtroom.
>> let me introduce myself. I知 david shepherd, I知 defense
attorney here. One of the issues that is being touched on here that is pretty
fundamental is our constitutional provision of open courts, in the united
states constitution and it's in the Texas constitution, and it's a real fundamental
basis of 0 our system of justice and that is the courts have to be open to
the general public so they can walk in off the street, whether they have a
personal interest or not, and observe what is going on in our courtrooms.
It's a way of making sure that the public knows what is going on and can monitor
what is going on. Traditionally we've held court in the courthouse or the
courthouse complex here in the city. The city of Austin, the courtroom out
to del valle, tremendous amount of confusion, and even if it's technically
open in the sense that doors are open where people can walk in or out, as
a practical matter it really isn't going to be the same, people aren't going
to know, they're not sophisticated about these things, a lot of the people
who's family members who are victims are not sophisticated or knowledgeable
about how the justice system works, they go to courthouse to want to participate
as either a witness or because they have a family member involved in the proceeding
because they're a victim or family member of victim, they show up to the courthouse
out here, you say well, you have to go out here, that particular hearing is
held in del valle. They may not know where del valle is. They say well, no,
that case has been reset and it's going to be heard downtown. In addition
to all of the administrative problems that the judges can tell you about,
and those are significant, once you start splitting up courts where some courts
are held over here on some days, 20 miles awayings 12 miles away, other courts
held down here on different times, you're going to present a tremendous problem
in the sense are they really available for people to go down and find out
if their husband or wife or children or neighbor's hearing is being held and
they want to participate in its because a lot of these people don't have the
resources to allow them to drive around and find out where they are and get
there. They are not sophisticated enough. They may not have the transport
tailgate to get out to del valle. They can get on a bus and get downtown,
or get a ride downtown, they may not have anyway of getting to del valle and
back if their family member or their case is being held out there. That is
a serious issue with the defense bar. It's a serious issue with the judges.
Our concern is -- if the Commissioners think another court is needed, that
is a separate issue from the issue we're talking about. And if you join these
two issues together, what you're doing is you may be jeopardizing the -- the
passage of the bill that will get another court created and it's really mixing
two arguments up into one bill and causing problems on discussing these things
that really don't need to be mixed together. It makes sense to us to have
two pills, one bill for the court to either be created or not created and
the other on this more difficult question of whether we should ever hold courts,
real court, out there at del valle.
>> [inaudible]
>> I知 sorry.?
>> I guess I知 confused in the sense somebody may have to
help me a little bit. [inaudible] that concept and that idea first came up,
it was because of the fact that we looked at the transportation cost of the
sheriff's department have to transport inmates down here. Talk about costs
according to sources then rite around a million dollars a year to transport,
and not only that, you're talking about staff, and you're also talking about
safety having to transport inmates back and forth like that, and that was
one of the reasons for looking at video conferencing, magistration, whatever
you want to call it, and at that time there were a few models that were set
up, some of the judges looked at, we liked it, I guess some opposed it, and
of course part of the concept was for attorneys of course to be there with
their clients and of course the judge [inaudible] , I guess I知 kind of hearing
mixed things here because I know that there are some judges that say they
like the system, defense bar, and I guess when you have both particular settings
where we're looking at -- looking at providing the necessary equipment to
set up the video conferencing, I did not hear anything from the defense bar
at that time, and of course now hearing things that I haven't heard before
and it's kind of -- kind of throwing me off because of the fact that you have
some proof of looking at the concept of video magistration, video conferencing,
and then some that think it's a great idea, so I知 kind of torn between what's
really going on here. And I知 just not subtle to the point -- settled to the
point where looking at saving the taxpayers money, and that is what we are
also looking at, but also providing justice. We're looking at how we can decrease
that transportation cost and also provide safety to not having inmates having
to be transported. I know there are cases that probably need to be transported
but again, there may be some that may not need to be transported so the defense
bar I think need to take care of that, and of course those judges that look
at video conferencing and agree with it don't seem to mind, so I really don't
understand what is going on.
>> I think what you're saying is rite on point, Commissioner
Davis. The topics we're talking about which are video conferencing, video
magistrating, holding court down at the actual court down at the jail complex
are all complicated issues that are kind of intertwined together, there's
legal issues and philosophical issues and mechanical issues as to whether
those work. Those I think need to be to be addressed because there is some
confusion and I think there's a difference of opinion among some of the judges.
That's why I would suggest it makes sense to separate these two bills so we
don't confuse that set of problems with the idea of whether or not we want
to create a new court.
>> [inaudible] create a new court that [inaudible] Travis
County and work through these issue, the point we reach is we shouldn't do
this. My guess is that if we -- if we rely on getting it done through two
bills, we really forfeit the outside Travis County -- the outside city of
Austin option. And if we do that, no problem. So I知 not thinking that if
the court sits in Travis County that means that soon there after it's a done
deal that we have a whole lot of nawd nod in del valle. It may well be we
never have any out there. My thinking is that at some point we would address
the issue whether there are criminal proceedings that may appropriately be
conducted in del valle. And if we go through that process, discuss it, et
cetera, conclude that the answer is no, I knew that. I知 just having a hard
time living with not even looking at it and this thing about the legislation
that authorizes to look at it, doesn't make any sense. Now, I guess the question
really is if we take -- file this position at del valle off the table, then
the question becomes are there predisposition p proceedings that may appropriately
be held at del valle? Do you see what I知 saying? If we think that the value
of standing before a judge at cjc is such that we ought to guaranty that,
then the question is are there proceedings that lead up to that final disposition
that might appropriately be held elsewhere, ie del valle? And is the answer
to that one no also?
>> I don't think on misdemeanor cases which is what we're
talking about that there would be any sort of pre-trial decisions that need
a judge. There are pre-trial things that the attorneys need to go to del valle
and attorneys routinely travel out there to visit with their client, to find
out if there are witnesses, but I don't see it needing a judge.
>> the only other pre-trial thing happens in a misdemeanor
case in Travis County is an evidentiary pre-trial hearing where witnesses
testify. Those are in many of the misdemeanor cases equivalent to the trial
of the case and I think those absolutely need to be at the cjc and not out
at del valle because they require witnesses and those really should be down
here.
>> yeah, I don't know that anybody requires witnesses to
be out there, to be I guess contested.
>> any other legal proceeding or step in the process on a
misdemeanor case other than a pre-trial, which involves witnesses, a trial
with witnesses or the plea in front of the judge which again for the reasons
we talked about requires that it be done at cjc.
>> let me ask the question. If I were a state legislator,
I wouldn't touch having two what seem to be contradictory bills on the same
subject matter. It's like I would think if I were them I would say, figure
out what you want, let us know what it is, and get back to us. The idea that
there would be two competing bills that would seem there's controversy. They
don't want controversy in a lobe call bill. They want unity.
>> permissive, not mandatory, is this a deal killer?
>> for us, yes.
>> so it is more important -- more important --
>> betty, I知 trying to ask questions so we have it all out
here. You would rather have no courtroom than for there to be permissive language
that would allow only as everybody came to the conclusions that was the appropriate
thing to do to have court out there.
>> yes, ma'am, and the reason for that is that the pressure
on this court is the money and we understand that. There's huge pressure for
taxes keep going up and that that would be the focus of the court would be
on how much cheaper it would be, and we think we lose that argument, and that
is why we're here telling you that there's a flip side to that which is the
open public access to courtrooms, to the appearance of justice, and providing
these people who have the least some appearance of justice and respectability
in their case. And that is why we're asking you not to open that up into the
question of this courtroom because the pressure when that happens, that you
provided a new court that can meet outside of the city of Austin is going
to be tremendous to move it to del valle, and we think that is the reason
we would adamantly oppose this.
>> one fair quick follow-up, let me understand here, because
I知 hearing some things by Commissioner Davis that I haven't heard before.
If on occasion they have to move a case over to the just of Texas, that is
an issue, if there are cases that have to go down to gardener bets, that is
an issue? I知 hearing things here that unless it's in the complex, we have
issues, and, you know, we've had discussions about whether there is a secondary,
i'll call it a fourth complex, related to juvenile.
>> right.
>> I知 just trying to surface a little bit more discussion
here because some things that have been brought up that I haven't heard before.
>> juvenile court is already at gardener bets.
>> right.
>> the courtroom and the jail facility are all right there
together, and as far as the university of Texas, that has almost always been
on all of the agreements of all of the parties to use that courtroom and thats
has worked in certain cases. In other cases it doesn't work. But as far as
a routine criminal case or the very, very poorest of poor charged with a misdemeanor
case who can't get out of jail, the idea that they would be provided that
debt of justice -- that bit of justice is that it would be in an open public
courtroom.
>> Commissioner, can I add one more thing, we talked about
when we did jail call out there at the facilities, I think it was in October
of last year that we had done the jail call out there, and typical jail call
day, we can see 60, 70 inmates here in Travis County. On that day the jail
call was held out there, only 16 cases were resolved. So the benefit of paying
for everybody to go out there, the confident benefit of transporting the prosecutor,
the court staff, the judges, the files, all those things that incorporate
basically moving the courthouse out there with all of the information, and
the cases that were actually disposed of, it was nothing. It was not what
we do on a typical jail call day every day here. So the discussion about the
cost benefit of what -- what is going to save the taxpayers money, I think
that we should discuss that because I don't know where the -- it would be
nice to see where that benefit is coming from.
>> I知 not -- I知 not assuming that the cost benefit is in
doing it out there. I知 just assuming that this government says you need to
take a look at it. Do you see what I知 saying? And if we take a good look
at it and conclude we ought not do it, I知 happy. The question about a few
other counties that were doing these creative things. I mean these have not
been issues this or they just overlooked them or -- I mean do we know the
answer to that?
>> one place...
>> i've heard -- I mean I didn't investigate it because I知
not -- waco, Texas, is being put forth as a model for how we ought to operate
our criminal justice system. It doesn't add weight to the argument. But i've
heard, you know, hearsay that they really don't do that over there. In any
event in most counties the jail is right next to the courthouse which means
it's all basically in one justice complex which is quite a bit different from
del valle which is 12 or 15 miles away, so that would be the difference. I
don't know.
>> but if this court says ultimately we defer to the judges
and defense bar about criminal proceedings after a fair and objective assessment,
anything wrong with that? That's where I am. I mean I知 just thinking, though,
that you close the door toa third amendment if the legislation says this court
sits in Austin, and to be honest before this came up, I always thought it
was in Travis County anyway. I had never looked at that and then thought about
it a whole lot, when we did exile stuff, I assumed it may work out and it
may not but it looked like we were looking under every stone and some of them
we looked under, saw what was there and put the stone back, and others move
the stone and put a new in place, so in a way I think I知 sitting there thinking
the taxpayers and defendants and maybe regular citizens who have family members
caught up in the justice system to take a look at it because there may be
something better although different. If we don't look at it, we never know
that, so when I say under justice, clearly we don't want to dilute that, but
I don't know that we make the call without looking at it and I do know that
the jail overcrowding task force has looked at a whole lot of possibilities
and probably rejected more than we have adopted, you know, in the little success
that we've had, you know, little substantial, actually, as a result because
we've been willing to try new and different stuff but at the same time we
have the right parties at the table and where there were consequences not
readily observable or understood by people like me who don't really deal in
the system every day, then we have deferred to them, it's kind of like how
we handle the city of Austin of tax fees over here, I don't know that Travis
County thinks we do that the best way. But city of Austin is convinced how
we do it is the best way to do I we kind of have deferred to them on that.
And even that imagine administration of, you know, how we do magistration
with their magistrates, I mean, we can do it better and --
>> I understand your concerns on that, judge Biscoe, but
here is my point: if this experiment is working and give you the power to
make these experiments and try them out, if there's enough merit to that then
that bill ought to be able to stand on its own and not tie it to another bill
that really is unrelated in a fundamental sense and that is whether or not
another court should be created for Travis County. If the only way you think
you can pass that bill to allow these cases to be heard at the del valle is
attach it to the court's bill. It's really just a back doorway of getting
an dead on arrival bill through the legislature.
>> the legislation has to have the court sitting somewhere
apparently. Otherwise we could just -- let's just delete the sit language
and have the court created for -- created and funded by the Travis County
elected officials. At some point there you've got to invest the question,
okay, where is this court really sitting and where are the criminal proceedings
conducted? And I知 suggesting in the end that call will be made by our judges
hopefully in collaboration with the defense bar and taxpayers and with the
recommendation to the Commissioner's court which we probably would just routinely
stamp. I知 told the legislature has the court sitting somewhere. I always
thought the court sit in Travis County because they're Travis County county
funded and for the benefit of Travis County residents. It never occurred to
me that the court may sit in Austin and I assume when they went over to create
the first one that is where the court was and that is what [inaudible] so
it was there after [inaudible]
>> I guess theoretically we could have courts in every little
suburb of Travis County.
>> i...
>> I think we see why that would not make sense. That would
be a bad idea.
>> if you had all of the courts sitting in Travis County
that would make sense. The jp courts have conducted hearings in true juancy
matters forever. We created a true juancy court that sits at a high school
or middle school or some school because we thought that was convenient for
the residents plus we put it in mace on a pilot basis, thinking if it doesn't
make sense to do this, we can always go back to the other way. We were told
shortly there after, it makes all the seps in the world, convenient for the
parent, the students, the magistrate is going all right there. Let's keep
doing this thing.
>> if you attach this provision which is a change historically
from anything we've ever done in Travis County with, what do we have, 25,
30 courts now, if you change this one, that is a fundamental change in everything
we've got on this system of justice, criminal justice in this county and that
is going to draw some serious opposition as you heard here from both. I think
everybody is agreed that we do need a new court and if the court wants to
put together a task force of judges, jailers and defense attorneys to work
on these other exrik dated concepts because there are a number of them intertwined
here, we're willing to participate in that. We don't like the idea of tying
this together because otherwise we may not get this new court and we do need
that.
>> I know in terms of the endorsement of the new criminal
district court, where do we stash them? And we do have a full fledged court,
judge coronado is using right now right now do some swap outs this, one becomes
one, and the auxiliary p becomes the magistration area, where are we supposed
to put another county court at law school.
>> I thought we discussed that and the judge was nice enough
to move down -- I thought we discussed moving the third floor and the da's
office would move down and the third floor of the criminal justice system
would house judge denton's court and his current courtroom would be the new
district court.
>> so that was...
>> displaced, where are they going?
>> the district attorney's office.
>> and where are they going?
>> del valle. [laughter].
>> [inaudible]
>> i'll be happy to relay that message.
>> I知 serious here, all of a sudden we start talking about
these things, there are no plans, where is the district attorney supposed
to go?
>> I don't know.
>> that is a big deal. When we were here, judge flowers was
here, everybody was here a month or two ago, I know y'all know when we built
that tower, the plans for expansion was to go down the tower, whoever was
there happens to be the district attorney right now to somewhere else, I assume
when you were talking about creation of new courts that there was an understanding
on the part of the Commissioner's court that there would be -- there would
have to be movement because for transportation and safety issues you have
to do it there in that tower where the elevators are.
>> the new creation of the new district court that y'all
have talked about before, that will have to be housed somewhere as well, there
will have to be some build out on the third floor it sounds like.
>> no, we still have the courtroom that is being used for
magistration, judge coronado is in right now. That is one that can be turned
into a criminal district courtroom tomorrow. And that gets moved to the auxiliary
courtroom or some other swing space. I mean it just can. And I知 almost wondering
if we just need to step back and say, you know, think about this some more
and when folks are ready to land some place we bring this back up.
>> [inaudible] I will need at least another week on this
item. Let's say that we go over with a bill that has the new court sitting
in Austin, and let's say we commit to study the two years until the legislature
comes back to town, the feasibility of criminal proceedings at del valle or
any other place outside the cjc. And how would we let the determination without
the ability to [inaudible] something. Do you see where I知 stuck? So if we
said, okay, let's take two years, get all of the affected parties at the table
and make the call, and by the way, Commissioner's court is simply sitting
at the next table observing and when y'all want coffee, bring that over, check
them out in that way. See what I知 saying? We're saying, okay, judges, defense
lawyer, interested citizens, help us make the call on whether or not in fact
ought to be proceedings at places other than the cjc. How would you make that
without the flexibility to test them. Am I making sense?
>> well, I don't know that you want to go into an actual
test program on the ground without doing what you suggested. I think it makes
perfect sense to do what you're suggesting, judge, and that is have a task
force get together and work these details out because it's not just holding
court out there, it's also holding these video conferencing magistrations
and other things that are components of that, as Commissioner Davis was pointing
out, there's some complicated issues there. I think it makes perfect sense
to have a study commission get together and report back to the Commissioner's
court and then if the commission says, no, it doesn't make any sense from
standpoint to do that, nobody is in favor of it, don't have to worry about
it, if they say, yeah, we do the think it's worth doing a pilot program on
certain issues, you take that to the legislation and get the legislation you
need start a pilot program. You don't want to start a pilot program with all
the difficulty and the expense of that until that thinking process has gone
through very carefully, I think.
>> if it turns out it's not a pilot, it's later determined
they're not done within the parameters of what they're supposed to be done,
those can't be used for enhancement cases for family violence cases or felony
d.w.i. Cases or a variety of other cases like that, you don't want to go willie
nilly out there and start doing something without thinking of all of the policy
aspects and once again to me, to enact the law is to create public policy,
and I think if you go there without understanding whether you're doing something
that is good policy and all the ramifications of changing the law that is
kind of getting ahead of yourself, but what you're suggesting about, you know,
I think if you had a group of all affected parties who were having the discussion
as we are right now, which we have not had before now, by the way, then those
things would get ironed out rather than just unilaterally somebody deciding
to go to the legislature and change law and change policy that affects all
of u. It affects the whole community.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> how long did the task -- mentioned task force, the mentioned
group, get together with us, judges and also the public, how long is that
process -- how long would it be in place to still give it the legitimacy of
the impact of this legislature that is coming up now looking at what we're
talking about, how long would they have to come back with [inaudible] to move
forward with what you're suggesting?
>> well, my understanding it would be very, very difficult
to make that determination [inaudible]
>> yeah.
>> but my position also is that if you go over and have the
court sitting in Austin is [inaudible] the opportunity to go back over there
and get it done, just it would be easier to kill legislation to change what
the court said rather than to go over there and ask for different legislation.
My guess is other legislators from other area, if you say the court sits in
Travis County, make an issue of it, that will [inaudible] so fast it will
make your head spin. But if it goes up and raises quality of justice issues,
then it may well be doomed. Now, the reason -- I think that we have to decide
how important is it to taxpayers, it will cost anywhere from half a million
to a million and a half dollars depending on what you plug into it. If you
plug in all the areas affected to space, the probation and the county clerk's
people and the rest of them, I mean it gets to be a pretty big figure. Basically.
I don't know, I mean I guess it bothers me to [inaudible] it doesn't bother
me to close the door after I think people who ought to say whether they ought
to be closed or not have fairly looked at the circumstances and come to court
and said we looked at it and it makes no sense in the world.
>> okay.
>> and there are several ways to do that. So, I mean I knew...
>> well, yeah, I think that...
>> [multiple voices]
>> is a good one. I think we can proceed because there is
a need for another court and then I think we can go the task force route and
-- and iron out all of the questions that have been raised and I think they
have been very good questions. I too want to save money, but since we are
the entity that is responsible for criminal justice, I think that that is
our primary concern and how well it is done, not only in terms of -- I think
we save money for taxpayers by implementing justice. I really do. And so I
think we can -- that sounds like the most important step that we can take,
judge, given all of the questions, but I don't think we ought to stop the
process because there is a need for another court and so I would be -- I知
-- i'll wait until next week, but I would be in favor of your last proposal.
>> [inaudible]
>> well, it sounded like one.
>> it was a hypothetical intended to express my cons sternation
and my view once the court is created is create it.
>> uh-huh.
>> and in my view the enthusiasm to study open court outside
cjc certainly wanes. And it's making no sense to me to hold off [inaudible]
until the study has been done. That is not a emaccommodation but certainly
my thought right now. That's why I need a chance to muddle over it.
>> right.
>> the issue, you know, might be more important than I give
it credit for, and, you know, maybe the proceedings that I have in mind were
a lot more significant than I知 thinking. I am relying on experience from
20 years ago, and like Commissioner Daugherty, my recollection is not quite
as keen now as it was 20 years ago so might be missing something.
>> you know, when judge hermman needed some relief, we didn't
go out and create another probate court, we got extra assistance with an associate
judge, and I知 not sure -- I can talk to judge whizzer -- [inaudible] staying
in that same room, the same building, not having to build two courtroom, but
to call them double up, kind of like morning session, afternoon session, and
I知 not sure that has opinion fully explored because the most expensive part
of all of this is building space. While we say, oh, the da has to move, to
where? That has not been moved into this equation, we have to be prepared
and we know that from the new civil district courtroom.
>> [inaudible]
>> yeah, I think that. [multiple voices]
>> there are other people who do this as well.
>> but I mean we have to plan two years ahead of time to
be able to carve out space, we're doing a million dollars of renovations on
the second, third, fourth and fifth floor on the historic courtroom to try
and carve out one more little piece of space for whomever governor rick perry
sends us this next time around. These are not small decisions to be made here.
>> no, they're not.
>> I知 not sure we've fully explored all of our possibilities
here related to the county courts at law.
>> I think a good question has been raised and that is the
first time that anyone comes into contact with the criminal justice system,
and how they go away with a prospection of whether we care about their life
or not. I think I知 for saving money every which way and making the changes,
modernizing county government, but I think what cannot stand modernizing is
the human contact in this particular case, the judge and the -- and the accused.
And just parents and children, and, you know, those primary relationships
are just extremely important and you can tell a lot about a person being face-to-face
with that person, and so while I really want to modernize, I don't want to
do it at the expense of having a good reading of the person at rights so...
>> [inaudible]
>> that's what I need. Anybody else on this item? Have we
not given enough [inaudible] to give comments. Yes, sir?
>> let me ask, is the defense bar telling us that you all
will fight the legislation if we go over and try to put county in it? We need
to know that?
>> yes.
>> okay, then we do have opposition?
>> yes. Yes.
>> you know, I mean I知 not happy with that, but I mean,
you know, there are several things I don't-- I知 not always happy about, I
mean I do have a fiduciary responsibility to try to run county government
as cost effectively as I can. I am not for not recognizing the dignity of
a person, especially if we don't know that they're guilty or innocent. I mean,
you know, I understand all of those things. It is odd to me that what we really
are asking is the flexibility and I guess if somebody tells me, you know what,
if you try to put Travis County in there versus Austin, it's going to be dead
on arrival, then that may -- changing my opinion, and I think we've got lobbyists
to talk to and other folks here in town that we can talk to that would certainly
give us an indication of that. It always is interesting to me because a few
weeks ago elizabeth, debra and barbara miles and I was terribly cop vinceed
after that lunch that you're really not going to save that much and I really
would like to see the numbers. Get something given to us in the last couple
of days that shows that there is two million dollars, $2,200,000 in what it
costs us to move -- I mean those are serious dollars for me, I may come back
whenever I see the other sheet that comes from the courts, Gerald, compared
to this sheet here, I知 willing to do that, because there's a number somewhere
where I go that is sort of ig significant, I mean we're not getting what we
thought we were going to get. So I知 really torn between do I just bow my
neck and go I知 going to look at the facts and have debra or the judges say,
okay, here is what the real cost is, if we want to go out there, and I知 not
even saying we would go out there. We may not. I can remember when I first
came on the court, this was a lot of emphasis about getting me over there
and showing me all the high tech equipment and everybody was so jazzed about
all of this video cop friending, I mean we're out of lear, this is -- after
all it's 2002, we can do things like this. All of a sudden it seems like we
fight technology and that is amazing to me. I realize if you're out there,
you can't get access to the files and this and that. At some point in time
I will think we will have a comprehensive ips system so that somebody actually
thinks, you know, I can gather that information and I don't have to have the
room next to me so that somebody can walk over and find a box with material
in it. I think that we will eventually get there in Austin, Texas, in Travis
County. So I think if we had the ability to do that, not say that we will,
because I very easily could be convinced that once I get this page that I
go, yeah, really is, the $2,200,000 versus -- I mean the $2,100,000 that it
costs to actually have it, then I知 like, okay, I知 talking about pennies,
so but it does really affect me with regards to somebody wanting to fight
over, you know what, because maybe if we could get this bill -- and david,
if you were convinced that the word "travis" in it was not going to kill the
opportunity to pass this bill, would that make any difference to you? Because
it sounds to me like what you're really fighting for is that if you put that
in there, I think it's going to be hard to pass it. The defense bar is going,
you know, we've got other reasons why we don't want it in there. I知 not trying
to drag y'all out to a spot where you don't want to be or where justice is
not being performed, but I sure would like to have the ability if we get to
a spot where there are some people out there that really can, you know, take
on video conferencing and -- and disposing of some of those things, but if
we don't have this in there, that is kind of a bother some -- or that is the
thing that would cause me to go, well, maybe we shouldn't do that. I think
there are three or four people that we might be able to talk to that we probably
all know who I知 talking about, say what do you think if we try to get this
thing passed this way. They say, hey,, you're swimming upstream, then that
will move me to come down differently on this, hey, I think it's great to
have a couple of weeks because we're obviously going to talk to some folks,
and judge sinton, I guess you're the only guy that hasn't said anything.
>> well, I would all those in favor say "aye." Is specifically
in the last minute discussion, I think this new court that we have discussed
already at the county level is critical for all of the reasons that we have
all given and in all honesty I would hate to see that jeopardized, I知 certainly
willing to go any place at any time. I think that is number one of our list.
I think it has to be because of some of the critical needs that our defendants
face, we need to be able to address those cases in a more expeditious way
than what we have currently available to us.
>> I think we're all in agreement that we would hate to see
that court not created because there's an added piece of language in there
and clearly there's been some opposition to that language and I think we're
all in agreement at the table that we need this court and that is why we presented
that information to you earlier and gave you the stats for that and y'all
made y'all's vote at that time and we're concerned that this -- the language
that is prepared as of now with that language Travis County in there would
be in jeopardy.
>> let me ask this. [inaudible] the judges and the defense
bar look at possible ways to have our cake and eat it too. If our goal is
to create -- well, seek authority to create county court at law number 8,
how do we do that and at the same time allow enough flexibility to take advantage
of video cop friending in the appropriate circumstances, et cetera? If you
have language for us to consider, if you get to us before January 4th or on
that day, it would help. Now, last night I thought it was a dream, it may
have been a nightmare, but I visualized a courthouse that has the jail right
in it and where the sheriff simply had to go to a part of that building, get
those defendants and bring them over to another part for the criminal proceedings.
>> that's how we used to do it, judge.
>> yes, that is exactly how.
>> when I first started practicing, I was the assistant da,
all the prisoners were on top of the old courthouse, every single one of them.
>> they weren't addressed for court when they came in. They
were wearing the ugly uniforms. Each in the courthouse they were not ...
>> ... Public kopt verse and some of us remember that, whether
or not we were going to build a new jail downtown or move it out to del valle
and part of the decision making process is land is so cheap out there we don't
care what the transportation cost is.
>> my understanding is that was built into the philosophy
to build at del valle was the knowledge that the transportation cost would
be saved by the cheap building at del valle. I was born and raised here.
>> nuclear power will be too cheap to meter.
>> uh-huh.
>> those were the days.
>> [inaudible]
>> thank you very much.
>> we appreciate it.
>> thank you.
>> happy holidays, judge.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:32 PM