Short Take: The $4 Billion Dollar Message

Justice of the Peace Caudia Brown had a message to send. At least she says so.

Now it may be that Willis, charged with murder, wasn’t going to get affordable bail no matter what, but he doesn’t seem to be the right defendant to pick to make much of a point about there being “many sitting in jail and they can’t afford to get out.” Murder is still a pretty serious crime, even in Texas.

It may be that Brown has strong feelings, very strong feelings, about the impropriety of setting needless bail and wanted to let her feelings be know. So write an op-ed. Refuse to impose needless bail on those for whom needless bail is otherwise set. Make your point by example.

But no. Claudia Brown decided to use her authority as a justice of the peace to set bail at $4,000,000,000.00.

Some will see this as a glorious display of activism on the part of a judge, using her limited authority to speak truth to power. It’s not. It’s an abuse of authority. It’s bizarrely improper. You don’t get to use your robe, and the power that comes with it, to promote your personal cause. Even if you like her rationalization, consider the flip side, the judge who abuses her authority because she believes the opposite, that everyone belongs in jail. If one works for you, then the other does as well.

But Brown’s good fight seems a bit disingenuous in light of her other ethical lapse.

Not only was she so deeply concerned for excessive bail that she imposed $4 billion, but she didn’t want to bother another judge to deal with her son. Is she the kindest judge ever or what?

Not to worry, though, about her abuse of authority and charitable concern for another judge when her son was busted for drunk driving. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has dealt with the problem.

After all, it’s not as if Justice of the Peace Claudia Brown did anything that can’t be fixed with a smack of the hand and a reminder not to abuse her authority or fix her kid’s case. Surely she’ll be a fine judge now and not completely and bizarrely abuse her power for the sake of furthering her cause.

H/T Keith Lee

18 thoughts on “Short Take: The $4 Billion Dollar Message

  1. wilbur

    I’ve never heard “magistrate” used as a verb.

    The things one learns reading this blog. Including that a Texas judge somehow saw no conflict in presiding … excuse me, magistrating over her own son’s case. WTF.

    1. the other rob

      Remember, we elect our JPs round here. They run on platforms like “I’ve always been interested in criminal justice.”

        1. Charles

          IIRC “familiarity with the law” is the requirement. So while a degree from Yale is not necessary, it would be sufficient.

        2. Greg Prickett

          Justices of the Peace in Texas do not have to be lawyers, but they are also not courts of record, and if you don’t like their decision, you can appeal it to the County Court for a trial de novo.

    2. Patrick Maupin

      I’ve never heard “magistrate” used as a verb, either, and I live in Texas.

      As a JP, Brown can’t sentence anybody to jail — her only outlet for her carceral kicks is whatever she can muster through the bail process. Why do you want to deny her these small pleasures?

  2. B. McLeod

    Thankfully, she doesn’t have the authority to impose death sentences just to show how Texas over-executes.

    Shaking my head.

  3. M. Kase

    Killeen (K-town 254 represent) is the part of Texas that every other town in the state can look down at.

  4. Ken Mackenzie

    This is 17th century criminal conduct by the Justice (there’s been a bit of that this week). Has Texas regressed so far?

    “The law is clear, and is as old as the Statute of Westminster the First, 3 Ed. 1, c. 15. Lord Coke, in his commentary upon that statute (3 Inst. 191), says that to deny a man plevin that is plevisable, and thereby to detain him in prison, is a great offence, and grievously to be punished.” And Lord Hale adopts the same remark : and Hawkins (part 3, c. 15, S. 13 (b)) speaks of refusals of bail as an indictable offence. Blackstone, referring (4 Com. c. 22, p. 297), to the ancient statute, the habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, calls it an offence against the liberty of the subject.” If then, such refusal took place from improper motives, it might be treated as a criminal offence and made subject to an indictment information.”

    R v Badger & Cartwright (1843) 4 QB 468 at 472: ER 975 at 977

Comments are closed.