Trevor McEuen’s failure to appear at his murder trial has raised a number of questions about the laws regarding bail in Texas. The Texas Constitution (Section 11) requires judges be set bail for all defendants with few exceptions.
The Sheriff's Office is not involved in the decision to set bail, or the amount of bail that is set. The District Attorney can argue for a higher bail amount, but ultimately the Constitution limits allowing a judge to set what is referred to as a “no bond” in most cases. Two bills now pending, Senate Joint Resolution 5 (SJR 5) and Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)—would give judges greater authority to deny bail for individuals accused of violent or serious crimes.Â
With public safety concerns front and center, Kaufman County District Attorney Erleigh Wiley has voiced her support for the measures. InForney sat down with Kaufman County District Attorney Erleigh Wiley to ask how the proposed legislation could affect cases in Kaufman County, and why she believes these reforms are necessary
There is a lot of discussion about bail being granted on murder charges in Kaufman County. What would like the public to know about the current bail system in Texas?
Every suspect charged with a crime in the state of Texas is eligible for a bond, unless he is charged with a capital crime that is punishable by death. That excludes many 1st degree violent offenders. Because of that constitutional provision that strongly supports bond, if you are a wealthy person accused of a violent crime with a high bail you can post a bond and be released. This creates a danger to the community and doesn’t protect crime victims. Law enforcement faces the challenge of having violent offenders on the streets in Texas, as well as making sure they appear in court, which frankly is an impossible task. Â
SJR 5 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing judges to deny bail to individuals accused of specific violent or sexual offenses, including murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault, if clear and convincing evidence indicates they pose a flight risk or danger to the community?
In my previous career as a judge, there were cases I was not comfortable setting a bond, but the law required me to do so. I needed the ability to set a “no bond”, but the law would not allow it. Thank God, nothing happened in those cases and the defendants appeared in court even though many were facing serious charges with the potential for a lengthy prison term.
What protections are in place if someone is denied bail? If defendants are presumed innocent does denying bail weaken that presumption?
If defendants are denied bail, I can understand the arguments 1- all defendants are presumed innocent, which we commonly refer to as the presumption of innocence and 2- that it affects the poorer defendants more. Â
To answer those questions, constitutionally, the presumption of innocence is powerful and one of the cornerstones of criminal jurisprudence. As an attorney, I respect the constitutional rights of the defendant, but you have to balance that right against protecting the public, the nature of the crime, the possibility of flight, and other factors. The state or the prosecutor would have the burden to show that to the court. In the instance of the state proving their burden, we would hope the judge would find the case appropriate for “no bond.” Additionally, I believe that the prosecutors should without delay be ready to go to trial to protect the defendant from being held for a lengthy time if he was not guilty. Â
Expanded Restrictions on Personal Bonds- SB 9 seeks to prohibit personal recognizance bonds for defendants charged with offenses such as unlawful possession of a firearm, violation of a family violence protective order, terroristic threat, or murder resulting from fentanyl distribution.
In Kaufman County, I believe that our magistrates do not give many, if any PR bonds on cases that are within the new restrictions that are subject to SB9, which limits PR bonds for defendants charged with offenses such as unlawful possession of a firearm, violating family violence protective order, terroristic threat or murder resulting from fentanyl. For your readers, PR bonds mean personal recognizance which is effectively being released without paying any bond. Our magistrates are already in compliance with not issuing PR bonds on these cases.Â
Consideration of Public Safety Reports- SB 9 mandates that magistrates consider comprehensive public safety reports, including a defendant’s criminal history and risk assessments, before setting bail.can be released or have drug issues, that should be released for treatment or services. How would the integration of these reports influence bail determinations in Kaufman County, and do you foresee any challenges in their implementation?
I believe that the additional information would assist a magistrate in determining the best bond for a defendant. Who and how the risk assessment is done would be a cost to the county. Someone, probably in pre trial services or probation would have to prepare the assessments and provide the information to the judge or magistrate. I believe the cost is worth it because the judge would have more information. Remember, that we are thinking in terms of bonds being increased, but a risk assessment would also benefit low risk offenders, who should be released. Most people that are arrested are non-violent offenders. They commit misdemeanor crimes and can be released or have drug issues, that should be released for treatment or services.Â
Enhanced Victim Notification Requirements- The proposed legislation includes provisions to improve victim notifications regarding bail decisions and defendant releases.
In Kaufman County we have a Pretrial Services Office that assists in monitoring the defendant if released and assists in notifying victims. Once the case is filed, the DA’s office is in contact with the victim. With the bail reforms, it would be mandatory and our county would comply. Â
How would these reforms affect suspects who lack the resources to make bail if bond amounts are raised for certain offenses?
No one should be held in jail on simply because they lack financial resources, especially if they are non-violent and do not pose a threat to the community. Meanwhile, individuals charged with violent offenses can sometimes secure release solely because they have the means to pay bond. This highlights a clear disparity in the justice system. Non-violent offenders should continue to receive fair and reasonable bond options. The purpose of the proposed bail reform is to address issues involving violent offenders and to give district judges the authority to review and adjust bonds set by magistrates when they are not aligned with the severity of the offense.