Murder Suspect Released because Charges not Filed Timely

Interesting story: An accused murderer was released on a reduced bond because his attorney was able to demonstrate that the McLennan County District Attorney did not successfully indict him in a timely fashion.

As a primer, indictment is the formalization of criminal charges against a suspect by a body of citizens referred to as a Grand Jury. It is the responsibility of the District Attorney to present the Grand Jury with enough evidence to convince them that the charge for which the Defendant was accused should be pursued in a court of law. However, it should be noted that the Grand Jury makes its determination on a much lower standard than does a jury in a criminal trial. Thus, because of the dynamics of grand jury presentations, it is typically not very difficult for a District Attorney to succeed in having a case indicted by the Grand Jury. As Tom Wolfe wrote in The Bonfire of the Vanities,"A grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."

All sandwiching aside, under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 17.151, if an indictment is not had by the 90th day that a felony suspect is incarcerated, then that suspect must be released on a personal recognizance (PR) bond. This appears to be what happened in the case of 20 year old murder suspect, Steven Pace.

Even though Pace was recently indicted, this law is designed to protect the constitutional rights of people like Pace who could otherwise be held indefinitely while the District Attorney determined whether or not they would pursue charges against him. Thus, Pace's attorney did exactly what he should have done by securing a PR bond for Pace in light of the delay. Nevertheless, some residents of McLennan County may (understandbly) be upset by the fact that someone who has been charged with an offese as serious as Pace's could be released on such a bond.

Below is the original story from the Waco Tribune Herlad. What are your thoughts? Did the DA's office drop the ball? Is this the type of thing which is to be expected when you have a DA operating in a moderately sized jurisdiction such as McLennan County?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man indicted for murder awarded personal recognizance bond

By Kirsten Crow
Tribune-Herald staff writer

Tuesday December 20, 2011

A 20-year-old man indicted for murder was awarded a personal recognizance bond because of the indictment not falling within 90 days of his arrest.
Steven Jay Peace Jr. was released from McLennan County Jail about 5:30 p.m. Monday. Peace was indicted for the April slaying of Emuel Bowers III and has been jailed since Aug. 25, though aggravated robbery was added to his charges Friday.
According to Peace’s attorney, Alan Bennett, the aggravated robbery charge stemmed from the same incident as the murder indictment and therefore received the same allowance for a personal recognizance bond.
According to a McLennan County Jail spokesman, Peace’s personal recognizance bonds total $100,000.
Bennett said Peace will be confined to his home and monitored electronically.

"How Can you Represent the Guilty?"

Recently, that quesion was posed to me, as it frequently is to all criminal defense attorneys. The question presupposes guilt, an assumption which is worthy of its own dialogue. However, for the purposes of this post, I'd be willing to assume that we're talking about a client for whom guilt is undeniable.

Once a client has made the decision to accept responsibility, there's a lot to be said about what factors into deciding what an appropriate punishment is and what sort of punishment (or plea recommendation) is unreasonable. Is there remorse? Is there repentence? Do they have a prior criminal history? What are the family dynamics? Are there young children in the home? Does the client work? Will a conviction for this offense affect their ability to work? What are the feelings of the complaining witness? Who should we consider to be the victim: the individual who was wronged or society as a whole?

These questions may seem abstract in a vacuum, but they quickly become concrete when the client is someone's 18 year-old  daughter, charged with the felony offense of Burglary of a Habitation (2-20yrs potential imprisonment) for stealing an ipod out of her ex-boyfriend's house. The situation is further compounded when we learn that the young girl has no criminal history, dreams of being a nurse, and that the local District Attorney's office has issued a standard policy that probation will not be offered in burglary cases. http://www.kxxv.com/story/15001314/five-men-indicted-on-capital-murder-charges-for-deadly-shootings Suddenly, the need for an advocate is readily apparent.

Aside from the example of the 18 year-old, would-be-nurse, we have to wrestle with whether any given accused citizen can be rehabilitated and become a valuable member of society again. Is there a balance to be found between punishment for punishment's sake and deterrence? Is the application of mercy not particularly relevant when we consider the grace that God has bestowed on we sinners who are redeemed?

"If we are called to serve the lowly and the outcase, who could need our help more than the accused in a criminal trial?...Lawyers do not so much "represent" the guilty as minister to the guilty. We are not so much advocates as companions. If the three crosses on Calvary mean anything, they mena that no one is so repulsive, or so condemned, that he is not entitled to have a companion in his misery, and that none of us - not even the Son of God - is too good to be chosen as the companion." - Jospeh Allegretti, The Lawyer's Calling

With these considerations in mind, the need for representation is apparent. In fact, Justice (*think truth, righteousness*) demands it - and not just representation by an attorney, but by every facet of society that has the capability of speaking into the life of those in need. After all, it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick (Mark 2:17). And in some way, we are all unhealthy.