Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge questions probation for Anthony Blackburn after warning shot and tracking-device disclosure
Summary
At a hearing in the 187th District Court, Judge Stephanie Boyd questioned whether probation was appropriate for Anthony Blackburn after he admitted firing a warning shot and later placing a tracking device on his estranged wife’s car; witnesses described his remorse and counseling efforts.
Judge Stephanie Boyd presided over testimony in State v. Anthony Blackburn on a charge tied to a warning shot fired during a family confrontation and subsequent conduct to contact his estranged wife.
The defendant, Anthony Blackburn, told the court he retrieved a firearm and fired what he described as a warning shot after a heated phone exchange with his son. "I regret that so much," Blackburn told the court, and said he has since attended weekly therapy and completed an anger-management course.
Defense witnesses called to speak to Blackburn's character described long-standing family ties and steady employment. Sarah (the defendant's aunt) testified that Blackburn coached his sons and had shown remorse, urging the judge to consider probation and continued therapy. Joseph Ai, another family witness, testified that the defendant had worked for many years and appeared repentant since the incident.
But the prosecutor and the court raised new concerns after Blackburn acknowledged placing a tracking device on his estranged wife's car following the incident. The prosecutor summarized the stipulations and noted that the tracking device was added despite the defendant's participation in therapy. Judge Boyd said the sequence—therapy followed by the tracking-device placement—“was a horrible lack of judgment” and indicated she was inclined to deny probation unless the defendant's son chose to speak to the court about what happened.
The judge extensively reviewed the facts on the record, including the defendant's account that the shot was intended as a warning and that the projectile struck a vehicle near the son but not the son himself. Prosecutors and defense counsel both explored the emotional and factual circumstances; the court repeatedly emphasized the need for evidence of rehabilitation beyond counseling attendance when a defendant has taken steps that arguably escalate intrusion on another person's privacy.
No final sentence was announced during the hearing. Judge Boyd invited the parties to confer about whether the son would provide testimony in person or by Zoom and said she would make the ultimate decision after hearing from relevant family members.
The court recessed for lunch with the matter pending the judge's decision on probation and any additional victim participation.
