Texas Commission on Judicial Ethics Seeks Suspension of Harris County Judge Bynum for Bias Against State and Refusal to Follow the Law

 

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has recommended Judge Franklin Bynum be suspended over allegations that consist of him being biased against prosecutors and easy on defendants.

“I can’t remember the last time a judge has been suspended in Harris County based on something less than an allegation of criminal wrongdoing,” said KPRC 2 legal analyst Brian Wice.

Bynum presides over Harris County Criminal Court at Law 8 and has been on the bench since Jan. of 2019.

Ray Hunt, the Executive Director of Houston of the Houston Police Officers Union, told KPRC he filed a complaint against Bynum last year.

“He’s an admitted socialist, he’s anti-police, he’s anti-government, he’s anti-victim and he’s definitely pro-suspect,” Hunt said.

The commission charged Bynum with bias against the state, failure to comply and reasonable doubt regarding judicial impartiality.

“These allegations aren’t criminal,” Wice said. “These allegations are more in line with a civil lawsuit that the commission has filed to remove Judge Bynum from the bench.”

To see more CLICK HERE.

To see action taken by the Texas Commission on Judicial Ethics CLICK HERE.  

The factual allegations in the Notice of Removal Action are as follows:

• On July 2, 2019, in an interview with The Nation magazine, Judge Bynum openly expressed his continuingdesire even after assuming the bench to contribute to the “demolition” of the criminal justice system as it curently exists.
• On July 25, 2019, Judge Bynum engaged in a panel discussion on a local television show sponsored by the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association titled “Reasonable Doubt” during which he disparaged the Texas judiciary as a whole, the Texas Center for the Judiciary and its training program for new judges, and the Honorable Mark Atkinson, director of the Texas Center for the Judiciary, for his contribution to what Judge Bynum described as a failed system.
• In his public statements after assuming the bench, Judge Bynum made clear he would continue his advocacy for criminal justice reform in his role as a judge, only now from “within” the system, and exhibited contempt for the pillars of said system, including the Harris County District Attomey’s Office (“HCDAO").
• Turning to Judge Bynum’s tenure on the bench, on March 20, 2020, Judge Bynum presided over State of Texas v. Christopher Bales (the “Bales Case”) and engaged in a series of bad faith decisions that ultimately led to his recusal. Judge Bynum exhibited an improper and abusive demeanor towards Assistant District Attorney Michael Eber during this case because of the HCDAO's prosecutorial decisions.
• Judge Bynum implemented a series of targeted court policies amounting to “retaliatory conduct” against the HCDAO which included: (1) denying HCDAO staff the opportunity to communicate with the judge or his staff by email, while not prohibiting similar communications between the judge/his staff and defense attomeys; (2) not allowing HCDAO staff to communicate with other court participants during Zoom proceedings; (3) adopting a blanket policy of not accepting agreed pleas from the State; and (4) refusing to allow HCDAO staff to view court proceedings remotely.
• 0n June 1, 2020, Judge Bynum sent an e-mail to prosecutors assigned to his court directing them to appear personally for jail dockets going forward, in violation of orders designed to protect court participants from the COVID-19 pandemic, including: (1) the Texas Supreme Courts 1st, 12th, and 17th Emergency Orders; (2) the 11th Administrative Judicial Region's proposed schedule dated May 29, 2020; and (3) Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo's 4th Amended Stay Home, Work Safe Order.
• Judge Bynum issued improper sua sponte orders of protection directing the Harris County Sheriff's Office not to collect DNA specimens from defendants convicted of certain enumerated misdemeanor offenses, despite the requirements of Tex. Gov't Code Sec. 411.1471(b)(1).
• Judge Bynum made sua sponte findings of “No Probable Cause” in at least four (4) cases without a motion or notice to/partcipation of the State or defendant, in situations where the defendant had been previously magistrate[d] and already appeared in court, and in at least one case, already entered into a plea agreement with the HCDAO.
• Judge Bynum set aside the State's charging document in 20 cases because the complaints did not include a sworn probable cause affidavit on their face, which is not required under the law.
• Judge Bynum’s findings of no probable cause in cases of alleged family violence and the violation of protective orders demonstrated bias or prejudice against victims of domestic assaults.
• While presiding over State of Texas v. Jaime Martinez-Contreras (the “Contreras Case”), in which the defendant was charged with DWI-2nd offender, Judge Bynum accepted a plea agreement that included a statutory 30-day jail sentence, but then improperly awarded the defendant credit for 30 days in jail when he was in custody for, at most, two days.
• While presiding over State of Texas v. Johnny Ernesto Ortiz (the “Ortiz Case”), another DWI- 2nd offender case, Judge Bynum accepted a plea agreement that included a probated one-year jail sentence, but improperly refused to apply the 72-hour mandatory jail sentence mandated in such situations by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 42A.401(a)(1).
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the “emergency powers” conveyed to him by the Texas Supreme Court's Emergency Orders regarding same, Judge Bynum engaged in the practice of setting certain cases for a bench trial despite the State's refusal to consent to a jury waiver. For example, in State of Texas v. Celso Sapon-Rosales (the “Sapon-Rosales Case”), Judge Bynum set the case for a bench trial despite the State's refusal to consent to a jury waiver. “The State requested appellate relief in the Sapon-Rosales Case and obtained a stay of the trial court proceeding,
• Judge Bynum frequently denied requests by the State to provide an existing record or require a court reporter to record the proceedings before him.
• Judge Bynum improperly refused to issue warrants or summonses when necessary, instead requiring the State to do so, in contravention of the requirements of Tex. Code Crim Proc. Arts, 15.03 & 15.09.
• During a Zoom docket for State of Texas v. Mark Burns (the “Burns Case”), Judge Bynum engaged in an initial, off-the-record exchange with Assistant District Attomey Charles Hagerman (“Hagerman”) during which the judge suggested the HCDAO used domestic violence victims as “pawns”. Hagerman later asked Judge Bynum to make a record of their earlier discussion, a request Judge Bynum declined and ultimately resulted in Judge Bynum instructing Hagerman to leave the courtroom.
• After receiving a request from Judge Bynum’s court coordinator via text asking him to return to court, Hagerman rejoined the Zoom proceeding. With a court reporter now on the Zoom call, Judge Bynum called the Bums Case for the stated purpose of giving Hagerman a “formal contempt warning on the record” for his conduct.
• While presiding over State of Texas v. Austin Kane Reyes-Cisneros (the “Reyes-Cisneros Case), Judge Bynum conducted a bench trial over the State's objection to the judge proceeding without the State’s consent to the defendant’ jury waiver. Judge Bynum refused to stay the proceedings pending the State’s petition for writ of mandamus. Judge Bynum acquitted the defendant.
• 0n May 27,2021, the Houston 14th Courtof Appeals conditionally granted the State’s petition for writ of mandamus, ordering Judge Bynum to vacate the judgment of acquittal in the Reyes- Cisneros Case. Despite the Court of Appeals’ ruling and the State’s notice to the court of same, Judge Bynum did not act to vacate the judgment until the Court of Appeals issued the writ and he was personally served with a copy of same.
• Judge Bynum improperly used the threat of contempt against Assistant District Attomey Sean Powers (“Powers”) with respect to State of Texas v. Gregory Massenburg. Judge Bynum issued a Show Cause Order against Powers, requiring him to appear on July 16, 2021, at 11:00 am, but when Powers and other ADAs appeared as ordered, Judge Bynum kept them waiting for approximately 45 minutes. When he finally took the bench, Judge Bynum announced the hearing would be reset for September2, 2021.
• While presiding over State of Texas v. Bradley Rose (the “Rose Case”), following a series of failures to appear by Defendant Bradley Rose, Judge Bynum failed to forfeit the defendant's bond on the State’s motion despite the requirements of Tex. Code. Crim Proc. Arts. 22.01 & 202.
• Judge Bynum took a selfie while wearing a“Defund Police” t-shirt given to him by the Chicago Public Defenders Office, which was posted on his Twitter feed and reposted on the Houston Police Officers Union's Facebook page.

To see the Notice of Formal Proceedings Filed by the Texas Commission on Judicial Ethics CLICK HERE.

Commentary-

Judge Bynum was defeated in the Democrat Primary and his terms ends December 31st.  Judge Bynums response at the hearing, through his attorney, was that he would be allowed to complete his term.  CLICK HERE.

The complaints filed by the district attorneys' office are of note because the Harris County D.A. is a Democrat.  

One can conclude that Judge Bynum thought he was above the law and set about to do as much damage to the criminal justice system as he could while in office.

Of special note is that Judge Bynum was the subject matter of multiple mandamus proceedings (which he lost) and in one proceeding he refused to follow the directions of the court of appeals until he was served with the writ from the court of appeals.  This is almost never done because the trial court normally voluntarily follows the court of appeals written opinion and does not make the court of appeals issue a the actual writ.  Also, a disagreement over the law does not get you in trouble with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.  However, a review of the various mandamus proceedings filed demonstrates that they were all on essentially the same issue and Judge Bynum repeatedly refused to follow the rulings of the court of appeals in subsequent cases which meant a new mandamus had to be filed again.  

Quote-  "Bynum denied that any of his actions were outside the bounds of the law."  CLICK HERE.

The hearing before the judicial commission is usually private, but Judge Bynum opted to make the recording of the hearing public.   CLICK HERE.

Other comment-  It is claimed that Judge Bynam was the principal author of Local Rule 9 which has been criticized as causing crime to increase and tying the hands of judges preventing them from addressing career criminals, gang members or members of organized crime.

Judge Bynum says he will not voluntarily resign.  CLICK HERE.