News-Record.com

To: Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Catherine Eagles
Chief District Court Judge Joseph Turner

From: District Court Judge Susan Bray

Re: Bonds, Bond Guidelines

Date: April 22, 2008 (this is date I started this memo, I’m finishing it April 25, same day of news article and editorial about domestic violence bond in the News & Record)

Yesterday, April 21, 2008, Defendant Phillip Jeremy Holland (08CR 85948) had a first appearance in front of me in High Point for felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury (class F). He was charged April 18, 2008 and placed under a domestic hold by the magistrate. He was accused of assaulting Holi (pronounced Holly, I believe) Grant by stomping and kicking her in the head repeatedly. She was in the hospital with a fractured skull and bleeding on her brain. When Defendant Holland was brought back in front of the magistrate after 48 hours for a bond to be set, he told the magistrate she could “suck his dick” or something to that effect. The magistrate found him in criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days. She also set his bond at $500,000 secured.

Let me add that the felony assault occurred at a battered women’s shelter. I found this out after court. Assistant DA Walt Jones indicated the felony charge will likely be upgraded to attempted murder.

PreTrial Services informed me at Defendant Holland’s first appearance that he was out on a written promise to appear for an assault by strangulation against the same victim (Holi/Holly Grant) at the time of the felony assault. I asked if PreTrial Services had interviewed him on that charge and who set the bond. PreTrial informed me that the Defendant was served on April 15, 2008 for assault by strangulation (warrant issued by HPPD officer O’Toole) and released the same day by the magistrate.

Three days later, Defendant Phillip Holland assaulted the same victim (fracturing her skull) at the women’s shelter.

I went to the clerk’s office to review the assault by strangulation paperwork. Defendant Phillip Jerome Holland was charged in 08CR 84013 with assault by strangulation. He was served April 15 and Magistrate Neill Jennings gave him a written promise to appear on the same day. As I was looking at the file, Mr. Jennings happened to come in the clerk’s office, so I asked him to review the paperwork and see if he remembered it. He looked at it, said he didn’t really remember it. I asked him why he would give someone a written promise to appear on an assault by strangulation. He said he must not have noticed it was a domestic case. It seems to me, domestic or not, a written promise to appear is completely inappropriate for (felonious) assault by strangulation. I told him that the defendant had assaulted the same person Friday and that she had a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain. He commented that he was glad she was alive.

We cannot afford these mistakes or ignorance or indifference (whichever it is). A cursory look (which the magistrate could have done through the state network or the public DOC website) at this defendant’s record would have shown that he was just released in the fall after a 5 month and a 75 sentence for assault on female, assault with deadly weapon, that he had 3-4 convictions for violating a protective order, that he had served time before for criminal contempt and that he had had other charges for kidnapping, robbery, assault, communicating threats against other women during the past several years.

This is, very unfortunately, another example of what has happened and what is likely to recur if we don’t take steps to address bonds, bond guidelines and compliance with those by magistrates and judges.

I am asking that you revisit/revamp our District 18 Bond Guidelines. They are outmoded, in my opinion, and lacking in guidance for certain categories of crimes (trafficking offenses, class A1 offenses, driving while impaired offenses, habitual offenses, offenses that occur on school property) and also lacking in guidance for the status of certain defendants (16 and 17 year olds, for example, particularly those in DSS custody; repeat offenders; domestic violence offenders; persons already out on pretrial release who get charged with another crime).

I propose the following:

1. We (judges and magistrates) should fill out and sign a written determination of bond in every case. We need to revise the form that we presently have. In comparing our form to the statute (15A-534(c)), we presently do not include these factors to be considered: weight of evidence against the defendant and any other evidence relevant to the issue of pretrial release. I would suggest we flesh out the latter factor and specifically cover factors such as: was defendant out on pretrial release for any other charge at time of current offense, relationship of defendant to alleged victim (is defendant in position where he/she can coerce/threaten the alleged victim), the nature of any prior convictions or charges (are they against same alleged victim or victim of similar status such as girlfriend/boyfriend, landlord, employee, school official), was defendant on adult or juvenile probation or protective supervision at time of this offense, etc.
2. That no 16 or 17 year old defendant be released without his custodian being part of the picture. In other words, if the bond is secured or unsecured or a written promise, it should also have a custody to parent/guardian component as well. We don’t want a 16 or 17 year old’s thug/drug friends and acquaintances posting his bond without the defendant’s guardian/parent being involved. We also need to make inquiries about defendants who are 16 or 17 to ascertain and verify who their custodians are, document their school attendance, performance.
3. That custody release is not appropriate for certain offenses (armed robbery, burglary, sex offenses, drug sales/deliveries) If the defendant were being adequately supervised in the first place by his/her custodian, we probably wouldn’t be seeing him in court.
4. That mere eligibility (having a phone and an address) for PreTrial Services monitoring does not equate to entitlement to a custody release to PreTrial Services. For example, a 17 year old defendant charged with armed robbery may have a home and a phone and a lack of criminal record (adult or otherwise), but it seems to me that it would be an EXTREME exception to place that defendant on a custody release to PTS. PreTrial workers are wonderful, but they are not intensive probation officers. (Consider our local defendants Malik Curry and Brandon Bass—they were out again and again on pre-trial release while they racked up felony charges, finally getting charges for murder (Curry) and armed robbery and kidnapping (Bass)—our own Laurence Lovette/Eve Carson type situations)
5. We need to set specific requirement for PTS monitoring for young defendants. If we include a condition of school/employment, for example, I suggest we have the defendant submit weekly written documentation to PTS of attendance, grades, pay records, suspensions, assignments. If the defendant misses one day of school, he should be brought back to court for non-compliance and bond revocation.
6. Bonds should be very high for persons who get charged with any new offense while they are out on pretrial release for an earlier offense. And I mean VERY HIGH. If the defendant out for PWISD or B/E or burglary or assault picks up new charges, I say jack up the bond and let him/her stay in jail until trial. We do have an obligation to put the safety of our community first. I believe our district attorney could schedule another session of superior court each week in Greensboro and that we, as a court system, can handle that. Forty-eight extra weeks of court each year should be more than enough to move the jail cases and the probation violations in superior court.
7. Bonds should not be guided so much by the class of offense as by the nature of the offense. For example, a class H can be false pretense, possession on controlled substance, possession of stolen vehicle, breaking and entering or assault by strangulation. It seems to me that there’s a big difference between putting your hands around someone’s neck and squeezing and pawning something that isn’t yours or taking your girlfriend’s car without permission.
8. Verified gang involvement should trigger a high bond, in my opinion. If we as a community are going to do anything substantial about the devastation that gangs are causing, we have to take a tough stand. We can’t make it easy for gang members to get right back out of jail and terrorize the community.
9. That, while we are all created equal, the status of the “victim” in certain offenses does make a difference. Offenses committed against law enforcement officers, school officials and other persons of authority (parents/custodians) should be looked at very seriously. So should offenses against children, the elderly and women (by men). The statistics are clear. Domestic violence includes the children of the women who are assaulted. In 2003, approximately 20 % of child abuse homicides in North Carolina had a history of domestic violence. Witnessing domestic violence is the number one indicator for juvenile delinquency (Family Violence League). Juveniles who witness DV are 7 times more likely to commit suicide, have a higher risk of abusing drugs, alcohol, joining gangs, are more likely to commit assault. Witnessing domestic violence is the number 1 cause of runaways. And 63% of juveniles in jail for murder killed their mother’s abuser (NCADV). In Mecklenburg County, 90 % of juvenile offenders (ages 6-15) were exposed to domestic violence. (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department). And in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, 9.9% of students were hit, slapped or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend in the past 12 months. (CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey). This is why, when we hear “the prosecuting witness says she wants him released” or “she’s not afraid of him” or something like that, we should not let that sentiment carry the day. Domestic violence affects more than the one person who is listed as the witness.
10. Magistrates need to automatically include a no contact with victim provision in the domestic hold. Defendants in jail under the 48 hour hold are calling the victim, either directly from the jail or having a relative contact her or doing a three-way call and coercing her to come to court and ask to drop the charges or have him released.
11. I hope we all recognize that it is a crime and just wrong for any man to hit, push, assault any woman. But it’s a whole ‘nother level past pushing, shoving to put your hands around someone’s neck and squeeze it. Assault by strangulation, in my opinion, whether a “domestic” case or not, is just not “written promise to appear” material.
12. We need particular guidelines to address drug trafficking offenses. They are not included in our present version.

This is all I can think of, or really stomach, at this time. I’m going to go ahead and email this to you and also to the other judges. I hope it will spur some thought, discussion. I appreciate that we all have our own reasoning and can pretty much do what we want to in any case, but I hope we can also debate this and come up with guidelines that are more responsive to protection of the community.

And, of course, it’s another memo for another day, but we really need a domestic violence court and community-wide response to domestic violence (law enforcement,
district attorney, probation, victim services, social services).

We had another defendant in High Point this week, last name Setzer. He was out on a $5000 secured and no contact bond from April 07 for assault by strangulation . After that release, he was charged with assaulting same person in June and November. He was released on $5000 and $500 secured bonds in those cases, again with no contact orders. I saw him this week, now charged with assaulting same person by striking her and pouring hot coffee on her. The DA asked for $100,000 secured. I set it at $50,000 secured, again with no contact order. This is another example of why we need a domestic violence court, why we need to get these cases tried before a year goes by, and why we need to have VERY HIGH bonds for repeat charges when you are out on pretrial release for the first offense against same person.

I also think we need to start notifying the Department of Social Services about every domestic violence charge so it can investigate. Children deserve our protection.

Cc: district court judges