Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Access To Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
252nd District Court repeatedly orders defendants to consult at least three attorneys or face bond increases
Summary
At multiple initial appearances the presiding judge reset cases roughly 30 days and ordered defendants who had not hired counsel to consult with at least three lawyers, bring back the names of attorneys consulted, and warned that failure to comply could result in a raised bond and remand to custody.
The presiding judge in the 252nd District Court told multiple defendants during initial-appearance dockets that if they could not hire private counsel they must consult with at least three lawyers before the next court date and return with the names of those attorneys.
The order — given in numerous individual docket calls — reset most cases about 30 days to give defendants time to hire counsel. “If you’re unable to hire someone before the next court date, then I’m ordering you to visit with at least 3 lawyers,” the judge told Simon Gobert and repeated almost verbatim to several other defendants. The judge added: “They all charge different amounts. They have different payment plans. Bring me back the names of the lawyers you talked to, and then we’ll discuss your options.”
Why it matters: the court’s repeated instruction affected dozens of defendants on the morning docket and functions as a judicially ordered step intended to ensure defendants who have posted bond make a documented effort to secure counsel. The judge warned that not complying could prompt a bond increase and return to custody.
What happened: defendants including Simon Gobert, Ronnie Oliphant, Lisa Pratt, Donnell Coleman, Precious Eaglin and Kevin Diaz were each given a roughly 30‑day reset and the same directive to consult at least three attorneys. The court routinely told defendants to bring the reset notice they received to any lawyer they hire so the attorney can advise them what to do next.
Court direction versus formal action: the judge’s instruction was entered on the record as a court order attached to each defendant’s reset; in many instances the judge also warned the consequence for noncompliance — raising bond and remanding the defendant to jail — but did not immediately raise bonds on the record in those individual matters.
Background and limits: the court repeatedly framed the requirement as discretionary court supervision to confirm defendants are making a reasonable effort to obtain counsel after posting bond. The judge described the practical purpose — verifying attempts to hire representation and identifying payment‑plan options — rather than prescribing a specific lawyer or fee arrangement.
Next steps: defendants were directed to step in front of the clerk to obtain reset notices and to return to court on the new date with either a hired attorney or the names of the lawyers they consulted so the judge can determine next steps.
