Breckenridge Texan

A judge takes a solemn oath to faithfully uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas and to diligently interpret and apply their laws. This commitment forms the bedrock of our judiciary and guides every decision made from the bench.

Over the past decade on the bench as a judge, I have witnessed firsthand the complex and often challenging situations involving both alleged victims and those accused of crimes. Each case demands a steady hand and a comprehensive understanding of the law to navigate the delicate balance between safeguarding the community and upholding individual rights. Upholding constitutional rights is a profound responsibility, one that I approach with the utmost care and diligence.

In light of recent discussions and misunderstandings surrounding bail and “no bond” decisions, I believe it is important to clarify how these determinations are made and the constitutional considerations involved.

In Texas, the issue of bail and “no bond” decisions often causes confusion. Setting a “no bond” is strictly regulated by law and thus a rare occurrence. Only a district judge can deny bond under specific circumstances, such as cases involving capital offenses or repeat felony offenses, as outlined in Article I, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution, which governs bail procedures.

The prohibition against excessive bail is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our Founding Fathers included this provision because they had witnessed the abuse of bail practices in England, where excessive bail was used as a tool of oppression against the populace. They understood that without protections, bail could be manipulated to unjustly keep individuals imprisoned before they had been found guilty of any crime.

Today, the issue of excessive bail remains a concern, as it can effectively punish citizens prior to a fair trial. Studies have shown that high bail amounts disproportionately affect those who are poor, often leading to prolonged pretrial detention simply because they lack the financial means to secure their release. This undermines the principle of equal justice under the law and can have devastating impacts on individuals and their families.

When setting bail, the written law instructs judges that they must balance two key considerations:
1. The defendant’s ability to pay – bail is intended to ensure the defendant’s appearance in court, not to punish the accused before trial. Excessive bail violates both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.
2. The safety of the community – judges assess whether the defendant poses a risk to the community if released.

Texas also imposes statutory requirements for certain bond conditions. Individuals charged with specific offenses, such as domestic violence or driving while intoxicated, may be subject to mandatory conditions like no-contact orders, ignition interlock devices, or electronic monitoring. Beyond these requirements, judges have wide discretion to impose additional conditions to ensure compliance and public safety, such as regular check-ins, drug testing, or other forms of pretrial monitoring.

We live in a nation where the presumption of innocence is a foundational principle. Every person retains constitutional rights until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Only in a court can facts be fully explored, the credibility of witnesses assessed, and evidence properly examined.

In our interconnected world, it is understandable that people form opinions based on both accurate information and incorrect assertions shared on social media platforms and in local conversations. However, it is crucial to remember that these sources may not present all the facts or the complete context of a situation. Justice requires a thorough and unbiased examination of evidence, which only our legal system and its trained practitioners are authorized to execute.

By ensuring that every individual receives due process, we uphold the principles that define our nation. Consider how you would feel if your constitutional rights were at stake. Would you not want the full protection of the law, the presumption of innocence, and a fair opportunity to be heard in court?

The Constitution safeguards everyone’s voice; it is our duty to faithfully uphold it. As we reflect on the importance of protecting the rights of all, the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller during World War II serve as a poignant reminder:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The moment we begin selecting who is entitled to constitutional rights, we risk undermining the very foundations of the America we cherish — an America rooted in fairness, justice, and the rule of law.

It is my honor to serve our community and uphold these principles. I am committed to ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially, respecting the rights of all individuals involved.

Respectfully,

Michael C. Roach
Stephens County Judge