A superior court judge will decide whether or not elected officials in Bulloch County should be compelled to carry out their duty to consider bonds for individuals accused of crimes.
Arguments were heard in Superior Court Wednesday before Judge Ronald Thompson in a mandamus action filed against Chief Magistrate Judge Karen Riggs Jones, Deputy Magistrate Judge Lynn Sapp, and Sheriff Noel Brown by attorney Marc Hunter and his client, Zaria Lanier. Read about the filing here. At the center of the arguments is the conduct of First Appearance hearings for criminal offenses and whether or not magistrate judges are following the Uniform Rules of Magistrate Courts of Georgia, state law, and the constitution.
Background
First Appearance hearings are for formal announcement of charges against an accused person and to preliminarily consider the issue of bond. The hearings are governed by Uniform Rules of Magistrate Court, specifically Rule 25.1 and 25.2. Specifically, the magistrate judges are supposed to inform the accused of the charges, advise of the right to the presence/advice of an attorney, determine if an appointed attorney is necessary, inform the accused of the right to a pre-indictment hearing, schedule a commitment hearing (if authorized), inform the accused of the right to a grand jury indictment, and consider and announce a bail decision (if the charge is one which can be set by a magistrate judge).
Rule 25.2 outlines what must be done during a commitment (bond) hearing.
Magistrate judges aren’t required to set a bond, but they are required to consider the issue of bond. In Bulloch County, they do not consider bond and instead bind the case over to superior court without considering probable cause or conducting a bond hearing. This has bottlenecked the judicial process by allowing accused individuals to languish in jail without due process and placing the burden of handling bond in every felony case on the district attorney’s office and the superior court judges.
It was stated in court Wednesday that the blanket denial of bond for felony cases has been the standing practice in magistrate court for nearly 40 years.
Motion to Dismiss Filed by Attorney for Judges, Sheriff
Attorney Charlie Aaron, who is representing the county elected officials in the case, told Judge Thompson that he filed a Motion to Dismiss late in the afternoon the previous day.
Judge Thompson asked Aaron if he had filed an Entry of Appearance for the case and when he was retained to represent the parties. Aaron replied that he did not file the document and that he had been retained ‘a couple weeks ago,’ but did not learn of Wednesday’s hearing until earlier in the week.
Thompson said his line of questioning was due to his need to prepare for the hearing. “This is a very serious matter and I want to do both sides justice, but it’s sort of hard not to know what you’re going to walk into and you’ve been hired for two weeks, even if you just filed one page to let me know what the issues were, it would have been appreciated.” He asked Aaron to outline his Motion since he had not yet had a chance to read it.
Aaron said the Motion to Dismiss was rooted in the fact that the filing sought relief for Lanier and not for systemic problems generally. Writs of Mandamus are reserved for efforts of last resort, but Aaron said Lanier has the opportunity to ask a Superior Court Judge to set a bond.
Judge Thompson said that while he agreed with the basis of Aaron’s argument, there was a portion of Hunter’s filing that asked the court to address an ongoing issue. He said the court has a duty to inquire, even if the pleadings aren’t perfect. “This is an important thing. We’re talking about constitutional rights,” Thompson said.
Aaron’s clients were not present for the hearing.
Up for Consideration During Wednesday’s Hearing
Hunter reiterated what he wrote in his filing in late September, asking the Superior Court Judge to compel the chief magistrate judge, deputy magistrate judge, and sheriff to hold adequate commitment hearings for individuals accused of a crime. Specifically, he asked the court to compel the magistrate judges to determine whether or not probable cause exists before binding a case over to Superior Court.
Hunter outlined that in Lanier’s case, though the judge was required to determine whether or not probable cause existed in her case, the judge did not do so before binding the case over to superior court. The case is now ‘pending’ in superior court, but steps in the process have been skipped entirely.
Lanier Takes the Stand About Magistrate Court Process
Hunter called Lanier, who has been in custody since her arrest in August, to the stand to testify.
Lanier testified that she was called by an officer with the Statesboro Police Department, was arrested and transported to the jail around 5:00 p.m. on a Wednesday and had her first appearance before a judge on Friday.
Lanier then testified that she was taken to the courtroom attached to the Bulloch County Jail, along with several other inmates, to have a zoom call with the judge for her First Appearance. “We were told by one of the officers before the hearing started ‘Don’t ask the judge about bond. If you don’t have a bond already, you won’t have a bond.’” Hunter asked Lanier which judge presided over the hearing. Lanier was unsure, but identified the judge as an African American woman, presumably Chief Magistrate Karen Riggs Jones.
Lanier said the judge read the charges for each person but no other discussion was had. “I asked her, ‘Would I get a bond?’ and she said “Don’t ask about bond because I don’t handle bond.” Lanier said she then asked “Where’s my lawyer?” and the judge replied, “Do you see a lawyer here? He’s not here.” Lanier testified that the Zoom call ended after that.
Hunter asked if she remembered hearing anything about a probable cause hearing or if anyone told her about her rights. Lanier stated she did not. Hunter asked ‘Are you sure?’ and Lanier replied, ‘Yes.’ Hunter asked his client if the magistrate judge explained why bond was denied. Throughout her testimony, Lanier repeated that she was told not to ask about bond because bond would not be handled.
Judge Thompson then asked Lanier the following questions:
Did she tell you what you were charged with? “Yes.”
Did she tell you anything else about your rights? “No.”
Did she say anything about grand jury? “No.”
Did she say anything about your right to an attorney? “No.”
Did she ask if you had an attorney? “No.”
Did she say anything about probable cause? “No.”
Did she tell you you had the right to remain silent? “No.”
Hunter added that he had been retained by Lanier’s family after her arrest but before her First Appearance hearing and was told by Magistrate Court that he could attend the hearing by Zoom. Hunter told the court that when it was time to join, he was told by the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office that he could not attend and that he was supposed to make the request to join the Zoom call 24-hours in advance.
Aaron did not have any questions for cross examination.
District Attorney Weighs In
Ogeechee Circuit District Attorney Robert Busbee was asked by Judge Thompson if he had anything to add, specifically with regard to whether or not this was ‘the last resort’ or if the issue was moot.
Busbee explained that prior to the filing of the Mandamus Action, he was aware that three of the four counties in the Ogeechee Circuit were considering bond in magistrate court, but Bulloch was not. He said he reached out to the magistrate judges, they recognized that there was an issue, and wanted to fix it.
“How did it come to your attention?”
Busbee shared that he was aware of it when he was in private practice before getting elected, but more recently, there was a high publicity case in Jenkins County where an accused got bond in magistrate court. “It occurred to me that if this had happened in Bulloch County, he would not have gotten the same due process that he got in Jenkins.”
“Did it affect your work in Bulloch County as District Attorney?”
Busbee said his office was impacted by the fact that bonds in every felony case had to be addressed by his office.
Judge Thompson said that from the court’s perspective, he noticed that some people were sitting in jail for a long time. “Some never even had a bond hearing, appeared sometimes months later after their arrest to enter a guilty plea and never even had a bond hearing.” He then returned to asking questions of Busbee.
Thompson: “So you’re saying that this is the only county in the circuit that this happened in?”
Busbee: “Correct.”
Thompson: “And I believe two of the magistrates – the magistrate in Effingham County and in Screven County are former law enforcement officers and they follow the Uniform Rules of Magistrate Court.”
Busbee: “That’s my understanding.”
Thompson: “So tell me about what you did before you became aware of Ms. Lanier’s filings. You said you had some meetings?”
Busbee: “Correct. I met with the chief magistrate and associate magistrate. They were immediately on board. They said ‘We want to fix this.’
Thompson: “How did they become aware of this problem? Didn’t she go to training when she became a magistrate judge?”
Busbee: “That’s beyond what I know. I am aware that they started looking into the issue before Chief Magistrate Jones came into office. She came in when I did, so January.”
Thompson: “Maybe she learned something at training that…she did work for the magistrate court before? She was an associate judge under Judge Braswell, wasn’t she?”
Busbee: “I think she has since 1987.”
Busbee said he and Jones began working with the Sheriff’s Office, other attorneys, and judges to get the process running correct. He noted that Effingham’s Chief Magistrate, Scott Lewis, was particularly helpful.
“He’s helped guide them in creating this, putting this back in place from scratch, basically,” Busbee said. “He’s been indispensable in this process. And it’s my understanding that as of last week, the Magistrate Court of Bulloch County has successfully reinstituted bond consideration after, however long it’s been – 40 years.”
Other individuals who participated in Zoom calls with the magistrate judges in an effort to correct the process, Busbee said: his Chief ADA Jillian Gibson, Public Defender Que Campbell, defense attorney Joey Cowart, defense attorney Francys Johnson, Captain Kenny Thompson from the Bulloch County Jail, and Judge Ronald Thompson.
Thompson asked how Busbee knew that magistrate court was now following the rules and law now, to which Busbee said he was relying on what the magistrate judge reported to him.
Judge Thompson said his concern was that the evidence suggests the law wasn’t being followed for Lanier and he has no way of knowing if it’s being followed to the letter for everyone else. He suggested he would need to sit in First Appearance hearings, but that may not be appropriate.
He suggested that DA Busbee, attorney Aaron, and attorney Hunter sit in on magistrate court to determine whether or not the process is working as it should. “Mr. Aaron, maybe you could sit in on one of these hearings and help your client out,” Thompson said.
In closing arguments, Aaron said the Mandamus was not appropriate because it was not the proper remedy and was too specific to Lanier. “Like everyone else, I’m happy to know the system is apparently changing and this may have been part of the impetus for this, but for Mandamus does not provide relief.”
Judge Will Defer on Decision
Judge Thompson asked for counsel to submit a proposed order with the findings of fact within one week. Thompson outlined that he had a number of things to consider over the next week or two, including:
- If the service of the filing on Jones, Sapp, and Brown was proper.
- Judge Thompson said the service was done by a third party, which was supposed to be approved by the court if it was not done by a certified process server or the Sheriff’s Office. Hunter said that the defendants waived that argument when they responded to the filing and that the Sheriff’s Office was a party to the filing. Thompson said he understood, but needed to examine the case law and implications further.
- If the court has jurisdiction.
- Judge Thompson said the court does have subject matter jurisdiction, but whether personal jurisdiction exists based on the problem with the service.
- Whether or not the other remedies had been exhausted.
- If the evidence itself is sufficient.
- Thompson said the Rule 25 is mandatory as it pertains to the steps. While the decision to set a particular bond amount is discretionary, it is mandatory that it be considered.
- He acknowledged that Lanier’s rights may have already been violated.
After the hearing, Hunter spoke to TheGeorgiaVirtue and said simply: “The bottom line is that this Mandamus Action isn’t simply about Ms. Lanier; it’s about those who came before and come after Ms. Lanier, all of whom deserve procedural due process.”
