Judge's practices postpone justice

A local judge’s effort to remain above reproach and safe from challenges to all of his, and his employees’, tasks at the Jefferson County Court at Law No. 2 has “gummed up” the cogs of justice, according to former courthouse staff. In the same time, Judge Terrence Holmes has more than doubled the caseload inherited from his predecessor and left a wake of early retirements and resignations.

Explaining the situation to The Examiner, former Jefferson County prosecutor and defense attorney Charles McIntosh said, “None of it’s with ill will, I don’t think any of it is ignorance or stupidity – it is just an overwhelming drive to do everything exactly right that leads to problems.”

“I’ve practiced in Amarillo, and I’ve practiced in Waco. What I told visiting attorneys who come (to Holmes’ court) from out of town when I was a prosecutor (was), ‘Forget everything you know, and throw out the book of what’s normal. You’re in this court now. Trust me, this is how it’s going to go.’”

Central to the current delays occurring in Holmes’ court are a lack of a court reporter and an inability to attain one. Without one, Holmes can’t hold any “adversarial” hearings or proceedings, according to Kevin Laine, a Beaumont-based defense attorney.

“You can’t have a jury trial, or a bench trial, or really even an adversarial proceeding, whether that’s a motion to revoke probation or something else,” Laine said. “That ought to be all on the record because that’s appealable.”

As he did with several cases in late June, Holmes reset one of Laine’s trials for September – despite the fact that the defense was ready to proceed with a trial. Laine suggested setting a date for his client’s case as soon as Holmes secures a court reporter – so the judge placed the case on the docket two months from now.

“I’ve got a two-year-old case that was set for trial, then it was reset from this month to September,” Laine said. “I was just upset because I don’t think a court reporter’s absence should shut down the entire court and everybody who’s in it.”

Although the position offers approximately $86,000 a year, along with full benefits from the county, the position has been open since May 6. Attorneys tell The Examiner that may be because Holmes demands perfection.

“Everything has to be perfect, so (his employees) have to be perfect,” McIntosh said. “Not to say that you should excuse mistakes, but I’m not even talking about mistakes – I’m talking about them having to go above and beyond what a normal county court in Texas does.

“I bet they work more hours in that courtroom than any other county court in the state because he is going to have them doing more stuff than normal. They’re great to deal with because they know everything that’s going on, but that’s also why they’re retiring early – because he’s driving them up the wall.”

Since Holmes took office, at least two court reporters, two court coordinators and a bailiff have all left his employ. The court case count has gone the other direction. When Holmes took over the reins of County Court at Law No. 2 in 2016 from former Judge Cory Crenshaw, the docket backlog in the court had been culled to 594 active cases. According to data from the Texas Office of Court Administration, that number rose to 939 during Holmes’ tenure. Among the active case backlog for County Court at Law No. 2, there are 193 DWI charges, just over 200 theft allegations and 99 assaults.

Good intentions, bad results

Every attorney The Examiner spoke to about Judge Holmes described him as a “good guy” and generally praised his attitude outside of judicial proceedings, but were critical of his cautious approach to the law – something they say has led to the backlog of cases.

McIntosh explained a scenario that played out in Judge Holmes’ court where the “pursuit of perfection” led a defendant having to serve jail time the then-defense attorney considered unnecessary. The state offered McIntosh’s client “time served” for his trespassing charge, to which the defendant was ready to plea.

“During early COVID, (Judge Holmes) had been told that you need to have YouTube working for any jail pleas,” McIntosh said. “Otherwise, it would violate the open courts doctrine because you’re holding court, and nobody can watch what’s going on.”

His client should have been released that day, McIntosh said, adding, “But judge couldn’t get YouTube to work, or YouTube was down. He asked other judges in the courthouse what they thought he should do. They thought he should take the plea. But, because he knew that he would be violating the open courts doctrine if he did, he refused to take the plea and reset the case for a week. And the guy had to sit another week in jail – when he wouldn’t have otherwise – strictly because (the judge) couldn’t get YouTube to work.”

“He is China’s COVID policy right now, if you will,” McIntosh said, referring to the country’s policy of restricting entire cities of residents to their homes upon the confirmation of a single case. “China has a policy with COVID that there is not going to be one case of COVID. Well, that’s great. We all agree that we don’t want COVID; we all agree that we don’t want mistakes in court. But, when you try to make there never be a mistake, you lead to shutting down entire communities. That’s his thought of ‘I cannot make a mistake.’”

However, McIntosh revealed that Holmes has actually violated the open courts provision before the COVID pandemic. The open courts provision of the Texas Constitution provides that “all courts remain open,” but, according to McIntosh, Holmes has violated that rule “hundreds of times.”

“Before COVID, Judge Holmes had his courtroom locked everyday during the jail run because he didn’t want people coming in and out while the inmates were in the courtroom,” he said. “Well, that’s all fine. But every single day from the day he took the bench to the first day of COVID he violated the open courts policy. He did it because that’s the way it was done before, so he thought it was OK, but he violated it everyday. I personally pled hundreds of people with him violating the open courts policy.”

“He means no harm, he means no ill will and tries to do the right thing at the expense of sanity,” McIntosh said. “It’s all with the best of intentions – it’s just not practical.”

Upon Holmes delaying several cases to September due to the lack of a court reporter June 22, multiple attorneys questioned why there wasn’t one in the courtroom, to which Holmes responded, “We don’t have a court reporter.”

Further questions resulted in the same answer, and multiple calls from The Examiner to Judge Holmes’ court yielded no response as of press time.