Judge Chris Morton and Judge Josh Hill answer questions about suspects' bond in Harris County
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- People in Houston have heard it before -- a suspect accused of a violent crime while out on bond, and then bond is set yet again. It's a continuous cycle, which many are fed up over.
Bearing the brunt of the blame from many local officials, law enforcement, and families who have lost their loved ones to senseless violence, are the judges who set those bonds.
Judges have told ABC13 repeatedly that they can't comment on ongoing cases, so it's rare we get to hear from them on the bond issues facing Harris County.
Judge Chris Morton, in the 230th Criminal District Court of Harris County, and Judge Josh Hill, in the 232nd Criminal District Court of Harris County, sat down with ABC13's Brooke Taylor, who uncovers evidence of a rift between the judges and District Attorney's office that could mean more accused criminals are on the streets.
Both Judge Morton and Judge Hill are aware of the outrage in the community.
"We are well aware of that. In many ways we agree, but we are constrained by the law," Judge Morton said.
"We are well aware that there appears to be a surge of people committing crimes while out on bail for another crime," Judge Hill said.
ABC13 looked into different cases out of both Judge Hill and Judge Morton's courtrooms, where accused murderers were out on multiple felony bonds, set by the judges. While the judges can't comment on pending cases, they both made it clear that the law does not allow them to set bail as a way of keeping someone behind bars.
"We cannot set bail specifically to keep people in custody," Judge Morton said. "The law specifically prohibits that we cannot use bail as a means of punishment because they have been accused of a crime. Bail is to ensure that they show up to court and they comply with bond conditions."
"It's not that people are angry, that people are that we're setting bail too low. They're angry that people are making their bail. They, they are angry that our system is such that we're required to give them bail. And, and if they have money, they get to get out and there is nothing we can do about that. I understand that anger, but I don't get to change the law.
While under the law, everyone is entitled to bond, like capital murder and those charged repeatedly with felonies, the judges and the District Attorney's office can't agree on how that happens.
"I understand the frustration people would have when they're seeing somebody commit crime after crime after crime and they get bail after bail after bail," Judge Hill said.
Both judges say in order for them to deny a repeat offender's bond and keep behind bars until trial, there must be a hearing.
"No matter how absurd it may sound, no matter how many offenses they're alleged to have committed, the only legal way for us or for any judge to hold someone at no bail is after a hearing," Judge Hill said.
We expect our judges and District Attorney's office to know the law and work together, but they work in the same courtrooms, and don't agree on the law when it comes to how someone's bond can be denied.
The judges say only the District Attorney's office can request the hearings to deny bond, while the District Attorney's office disagrees, calling the judges wrong.
"It is a disingenuous misreading of the law for judges to attempt to evade their responsibility to ensure public safety in the setting bonds by erroneously claiming they are powerless to do so, when the law gives them that explicit authority,' Dane Schiller, with the District Attorney's Office said. "It is not true that a judge can't raise or lower bonds or set hearing without a motion from the state. It is wrong for any judge to claim their hands are tied when it comes to setting bond consistent with public safety."
Schiller also points to a recent appeals court decision, claiming judges can revoke and increase bail anytime he or she finds the bail insufficient.
In response, Judge Hill said the case is still pending and claims if the judges requested the hearings to deny bond, they wouldn't be staying neutral.
"You have a judge who serves nothing more than a referee, as a judge we are tasked with the job of listening to the evidence and applying the law as it fits," Judge Hill said.
Their different interpretations of the law, impact cases like Marcus Tucker, who accused of murder in 2019. Judge Hill set Tucker's bond seven times.
He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, twice, murder, aggravated assault of a family member, and robbery. Tucker made bond each time.
Most recently, he was charged with two more felonies, but this time, he has not been able to pay it and remains behind bars.
Not once was there ever a hearing to deny his bond.
The District Attorney's office filed paperwork at least three times to deny his bond, but the dysfunction is so bad that the judges and the District Attorney's Office even clash over how the hearings should be requested.
"Merely filing a piece of paper with the clerk is not the same thing as requesting a hearing, or, requesting someone be held at no bond, that has to be presented to the judge, and requested in each one of our courts," Judge Morton said. "They can present it to the judge and say we want to hear it."
There are disadvantages to the District Attorney's Office requesting the hearings, which is why there are cases where they don't want to move forward or don't request the hearing. Having a hearing to deny bond means presenting evidence, and having witnesses testify which prosecutors say can jeopardize their cases early on, before trial.
Either way anyone looks at it, these two parties, who play a crucial role in our criminal justice system, can't agree on how the hearings should work, only impacting the people all have them been elected to serve.
When asked if the judges take responsibility when someone in their courtroom is charged with murder while out on felony bonds that they set, Judge Chris Morton said, "At the end of the day, it's applying law to the facts. We have to apply the way the law requires us to do it. We can't just look at a piece of the law and forget everything else because it's inconvenient. We have to take all of the law in every decision we make. And yes, every decision we make weighs heavily on us."
Judge Josh Hill responded by saying, "Every decision I make weighs on me and whatever the outcome of my decisions is, I try to stay on top of it. I try to know what my decisions are causing, whether it's a decision to give someone a probation or a second chance, whether it's a decision to sentence somebody heavily, whether it's a decision to give a personal bond or a very high bond. I try to track things and understand if I do this, what happens? And I try to adjust my decisions based on what I see happening. If I make a mistake. If someone got a second chance that maybe shouldn't have gotten that second chance, I look for patterns so that when I make decisions in the future, I can make better informed decisions."
