in the united states court of appeals ... - texas bail...

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

) MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al. )

) Plaintiffs–Appellees, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 17-20333 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al. ) )

Defendants–Appellants. ) ) ____________________________________)

DECLARATION OF ED WELLS

I, Ed Wells, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:

1. My name is Ed Wells. I am over eighteen years of age, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and am competent to make this declaration.

2. I am the Court Manager for the Harris County Criminal Courts at Law. I oversee the Office of Court Management. My office and I have access to the Justice Information Management System (JIMS), which receives information from various agencies in Harris County each day. The data on JIMS is entered at or near the time of the events being recorded, by a person with knowledge, or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, of the events recorded. This data is recorded and kept in the ordinary course of operation for the Harris County justice system.

3. The data collected and stored in JIMS includes information on each arrestee, including the type of bond on which the arrestee was released and whether the bond was forfeited or revoked. These four bond types are:

i) secured bonds (where a bail bondsman posts the bond on the arrestee’s behalf);

ii) unsecured Sheriff’s Bonds (where the Sheriff releases an arrestee

Case: 17-20333 Document: 00514481422 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/21/2018

2

pursuant to the District Court’s April 28, 2017 Preliminary Injunction);

iii) cash bonds (where an arrestee or family member posts the full bond amount); and

iv) personal bonds (where a Hearing Officer or County Criminal Court at Law Judge releases the arrestee on an unsecured bond with or without other non-financial conditions).

4. A bond will be forfeited only if a judge determines that the arrestee has failed to appear in court when required and the judge does not find grounds to excuse the failure to appear. Bond forfeiture rates are a reliable proxy for failure-to-appear rates. A bond is not forfeited unless an arrestee fails to appear in court on one or more scheduled court appearances. This was true both before and after the imposition of the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction. Harris County does not record a more reliable metric for “failure to appear.” I am not aware of the basis for the claim by the Plaintiffs, Judge Jordan, and Judge Fields that Harris County has in its possession more reliable failure-to-appear data.

5. While the district clerks in some courts have a practice of recording which arrestees respond to their name at docket call, this data is not captured on a consistent basis; the data is not updated if the arrestee arrives at the hearing later; and during my previous reviews of these failure-to-appear data, the data has not proved to be accurate. Dr. Demuth does not identify the data source for much of his statistical analysis, particularly with regard to his analysis in paragraphs 8 and 17, but to the extent his analysis relies on this data collected from the district clerks, that data is not reliable.

6. In my May 3, 2018, Declaration, I provided data on the number of bond forfeitures and revocations for each bond type during the period between June 6, 2017, the date of the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction, and April 30, 2018. My office has also compiled the number of people who forfeited any particular type of bond between June 6, 2017 and April 30, 2018. My office has also compiled this information for the dates between January 1, 2018, and April 30, 2018, and it has compiled this information for each of the 16 Courts.

7. Attached to my declaration are true and correct copies of 34 tables containing the data from JIMS.

a. Table 1 shows the number of arrestees granted each type of bond between June 6, 2017 and April 30, 2018, the number of arrestees who


3

had a failure event, and the type of failure event (for example, whether it was a bond forfeiture, which can occur when a defendant fails to appear, or a bond revocation, which can occur when a defendant violates a bond condition).

b. Table 2 shows this same data for the time period from January 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018.

c. Tables 3 to 18 identify, for each of the 16 Courts, the bond forfeiture statistics for cases pending in their Courts from June 6, 2017 to April 30, 2018, calculated according to the number of persons who were given or forfeited a particular bond in a case pending before the specified Court.

d. Tables 19 to 34 identify this same data for each of the 16 Judges, from January 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018.

8. The data attached to this Declaration, along with the data “by bond” that I submitted in my May 3, 2018 Declaration, demonstrate that the same extreme disparity between failure to appear rates for arrestees released pursuant to the District Court’s preliminary injunction and those released on a secured bond exists regardless of whether the comparison is done for failure rates “by person” or “by bond.”

9. The data attached to this Declaration demonstrates that the forfeiture rates for secured bonds and unsecured Sheriff’s Bonds are substantially similar across all 16 Courts. I am not aware of the basis for Dr. Demuth’s suggestion that “[b]ond forfeiture rates vary dramatically among the various judges.” Demuth Decl. ¶ 17.

10. The bond forfeiture numbers discussed below, which present forfeitures “by person” rather than “by bond,” identify the total number of arrestees in Harris County who forfeited at least one of a particular type of bond. Thus, purely by way of example, if 1,000 arrestees were released on at least one unsecured Sheriff’s Bond, and 450 of those arrestees forfeited at least one unsecured Sheriff’s Bond, the failure rate would be reported as only 45%, even if those 450 arrestees forfeited two, three, or more Sheriff’s Bonds.

11. Between June 6, 2017 and April 30, 2018, there were 15,399 arrestees who provided at least one secured bond. During this period, 1,517 of those arrestees forfeited at least one secured bond for failure to appear at a court hearing. This represents a failure-to-appear rate of 9.85%. See Table 1.


4

12. Between June 6, 2017 and April 30, 2018, 8,643 arrestees received at least one unsecured Sheriff’s Bond issued pursuant to the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction. During this period, 3,859 of those arrestees forfeited at least one Sheriff’s Bond for failure to appear at a court hearing. This represents a failure-to-appear rate of 44.65%. See Table 1.

13. Between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2018, there were 6,415 arrestees who provided at least one secured bond. During this period, 430 of those arrestees forfeited at least one secured bond for failure to appear at a court hearing. This represents a failure-to-appear rate of 6.70%. See Table 2.

14. Between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2018, 2,847 arrestees received at least one unsecured Sheriff’s Bond issued pursuant to the District Court’s Preliminary Injunction. During this period, 1,148 of those arrestees forfeited at least one Sheriff’s Bond for failure to appear at a court hearing. This represents a failure-to-appear rate of 40.32%. See Table 2.

15. Finally, I note that if you add the total number of arrestees who were given or forfeited a particular bond type across the 16 Courts (e.g., if you sum the numbers across Tables 3 to 18, or Tables 19 to 34), some of those totals overstate by a handful the total number of arrestees reflected in Table 1 or Table 2, which show the statistics for all 16 Courts. For example, Table 2 states that 2,847 arrestees were given at least one unsecured Sheriff’s Bond pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction, while if you sum the total number of arrestees who received an unsecured Sheriff’s Bond according to Tables 19 to 34, the total is 2,874 arrestees who were given at least one Sheriff’s Bond. These very minor discrepancies do not affect the forfeiture rates. These differences are principally attributable to the fact that when an individual is arrested and already has another case currently outstanding, the District Clerk makes every effort, as required by Local Rule 2.2.5, to assign the arrestee to the Court where the arrestee already has the pre-existing case. In a few instances, however, the existence of a pre-existing case might not be discovered until after the arrestee has already been assigned to another Court. When the new case is then transferred to the Court where the pre-existing case is located, the database may reflect that the arrestee was given a bond in both Courts.


16. The following table identifies the name of each Judge and their corresponding Court:

Court Judge

1 Paula Goodhart

2 Bill Harmon

3 Natalie C. Fleming

4 John Clinton

5 Margaret Harris

6 Larry Standley

7 Pam Derbyshire

8 Jay Karahan

9 Analia Wilkerson

10 Dan Spjut

1 1 Diane Bull

12 Robin Brown

13 Don Smyth

14 Mike Fields

15 Jean Spradling

16 Darrell Jordan

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on May 21, 2018.

Ed Wells

5


BondType Warrant Activity Defendants on Bond

Defendants with Bond Failure

Failure Rate

Cash Bond Forfeiture 2334 362 15.51%Cash Order of the Court 2334 2 0.09%Cash Bond Revocation 2334 43 1.84%

407 17.44%

Personal Bond Forfeiture 13543 3597 26.56%Personal Order of the Court 13543 3 0.02%Personal Bond Revocation 13543 913 6.74%

4513 33.32%

Surety Bond Forfeiture 15399 1517 9.85%Surety Bond Surrender 15399 172 1.12%Surety Order of the Court 15399 3 0.02%Surety Bond Revocation 15399 415 2.69%

2107 13.68%

Unsecured Bond Forfeiture 8643 3859 44.65%Unsecured Order of the Court 8643 11 0.13%Unsecured Bond Revocation 8643 275 3.18%

4145 47.96%

BondType Defendants on Bond


Failure Rate

Cash 2334 407 17.44%Personal 13543 4513 33.32%Surety 15399 2107 13.68%Unsecured 8643 4145 47.96%

Bond Approval and Failure Defendant Count by Typefrom June 6, 2017 to April 30, 2018

Table 1




Failure Rate


136 13.21%


1840 27.93%


557 8.68%


1189 41.76%



Failure Rate


Bond Approval and Failure Defendant Count by Typefrom January 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018

Table 2




Failure Rate


17 13.38%


246 34.40%


106 13.19%


242 46.27%



Failure Rate


Court 1 Bond Approval and Failure Defendant Countfrom June 6, 2017 to April 30, 2018

Table 3




Failure Rate


12 7.55%


218 27.22%


120 10.75%


215 36.82%



Failure Rate



Table 4




Failure Rate


34 23.61%


304 35.27%


125 13.98%


288 50.09%



Failure Rate



Table 5




Failure Rate


30 18.52%


264 32.43%


107 10.95%


250 45.87%



Failure Rate



Table 6




Failure Rate


23 15.86%


322 36.38%


156 15.98%


275 50.83%



Failure Rate



Table 7




Failure Rate


15 11.91%


285 33.37%


127 12.74%


271 48.92%



Failure Rate



Table 8




Failure Rate


21 17.21%


300 34.09%


181 17.59%


304 51.36%



Failure Rate



Table 9




Failure Rate


20 16.39%


277 32.55%


205 19.75%


329 53.50%



Failure Rate



Table 10




Failure Rate


31 20.95%


332 38.21%


141 14.63%


311 49.29%



Failure Rate



Table 11




Failure Rate


34 23.45%


265 28.93%


116 11.80%


255 48.11%



Failure Rate



Table 12




Failure Rate


27 20.46%


316 36.16%


152 15.54%


266 50.19%



Failure Rate



Table 13




Failure Rate


27 19.71%


311 35.95%


154 15.43%


257 45.32%



Failure Rate



Table 14




Failure Rate


25 18.94%


277 33.25%


132 13.35%


282 49.04%



Failure Rate



Table 15




Failure Rate


43 17.34%


279 30.93%


99 10.89%


258 50.00%



Failure Rate



Table 16




Failure Rate


24 17.39%


276 31.72%


107 11.12%


259 47.88%



Failure Rate



Table 17




Failure Rate


24 15.89%


272 28.34%


79 8.90%


205 39.65%



Failure Rate



Table 18




Failure Rate


6 11.32%


113 33.23%


23 6.38%


77 39.08%



Failure Rate


Court 1 Bond Approval and Failure Defendant Countfrom January 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018

Table 19




Failure Rate


3 4.23%


77 20.75%


31 6.81%


65 33.50%



Failure Rate



Table 20




Failure Rate


11 17.19%


107 26.95%


33 8.96%


73 42.20%



Failure Rate



Table 21




Failure Rate


5 7.25%


87 21.64%


22 5.74%


61 40.13%



Failure Rate



Table 22




Failure Rate


9 12.50%


132 31.21%


62 15.46%


93 49.73%



Failure Rate



Table 23




Failure Rate


2 3.38%


101 25.18%


37 9.13%


74 39.78%



Failure Rate



Table 24




Failure Rate


10 15.88%


136 32.54%


40 8.93%


67 38.29%



Failure Rate



Table 25




Failure Rate


4 7.27%


109 27.81%


58 12.75%


99 51.83%



Failure Rate



Table 26




Failure Rate


10 16.13%


143 32.13%


35 8.75%


98 42.42%



Failure Rate



Table 27




Failure Rate


14 25.93%


101 22.96%


22 5.62%


69 39.89%



Failure Rate



Table 28




Failure Rate


9 16.08%


136 32.00%


32 7.89%


79 48.47%



Failure Rate



Table 29




Failure Rate


11 18.96%


139 32.18%


40 9.83%


65 35.13%



Failure Rate



Table 30




Failure Rate


7 13.73%


110 26.63%


34 8.52%


80 44.44%



Failure Rate



Table 31




Failure Rate


18 15.25%


119 26.62%


22 5.65%


75 50.34%



Failure Rate



Table 32




Failure Rate


10 15.87%


131 30.12%


44 10.86%


70 40.46%



Failure Rate



Table 33




Failure Rate


7 11.29%


106 23.50%


22 6.24%


58 35.15%



Failure Rate



Table 34


in the united states court of appeals ... - texas bail...

Documents