Recently, I was discussing with another lawyer the trial operations of a judge in a nearby county. This judge, sitting over felony cases, had apparently chastised my friend for taking a case to trial that involved only a State Jail Felony, the lowest level felony in the State of Texas. State Jail Felonies are punishable by anywhere from 6 months to two years in a state jail facility and a fine of up to $10,000. That is, of course, when probation is not an option and when the prosecution does not suggest a 12.44, which would allow for the felony to be treated as a misdemeanor. This judge does not generally allow for a 12.44, and the case in question was not probation eligible. In other words, the defendant had prior felony convictions which made it impossible under the law for the jury to give him probation.
The judge seemed to be irritated that this State Jail Felony was going to trial at all. In the court's opinion, it seems, the trial of such a low level felony is a waste of the county's time and resources. (Not, it seems, enough of a waste to prompt the judge to attempt to broker a better deal or suggest that he might issue a better sentence). This conversation made me wonder, what is becoming of the right to a trial by jury? More and more it seems that our system is one of plea bargains, which is a wonderful way to save time and money and secure a good outcome for a client with a weak case. But, what about those clients that maintain their innocence, that want a jury trial? Can their trial really be "fair" when the judge is angry that their case is not important enough to be contested in front of a jury of their peers?
This concept is not unique to smaller counties. For example, I have been in courtrooms where the judge is angry that the case is going to be tried at all, most often in misdemeanor courts. All too often judges want to admonish the defendant about going to trial, want to make sure that they understand how easy it will be for the prosecution to prove their case, and want to see if there is a deal the court could make to get rid of the case. Some of these judges go so far as to hold a grudge against the defense attorney for allowing the case to go to trial at all, suggesting that the lawyer, who will have other clients to represent and perhaps a family to support from being in court in the first place, will suffer untold consequences. It has to beg the question, where is the presumption of innocence going? Are judges presuming that every defendant before them is guilty, or are they legitimately trying to save the taxpayers (a/k/a the people that vote for them) money?
I'm a big believer in making sure that defendants know exactly what they are getting themselves into. There is a reason the system involves lawyers educated in law and procedure and a reason indigent defendants are provided with counsel at no cost. The reason, no doubt, is that the system can be tricky, and people can end up with results they never intended. Even with an attorney this is a very real danger. But, there is a difference between Judge X beating the defense attorney about the head and then brow beating the defendant into a plea with "admonishments" and giving the defendant the necessary information for their decision.
I have not had these same experiences myself, but I'm aware that they do exist. In court Friday, I asked a judge to make sure that my client was aware of the dangers in going to trial, but I never asked her, and she did not attempt, to "admonish" my client into a preferred choice. I can, however, see how easily another judge could go in the wrong direction. I cannot honestly say what the solution is, other than electing the right judges, but what does that mean when the cost benefit to the people at large is in direct opposition to the rights and needs of the Accused Citizen?
