Bluebonnet County

About this Data

In 2022 and 2023, researchers at the Deason Center collected data from thousands of misdemeanor cases across four counties in Texas. These data allowed the research team to illustrate changes in the proportion of defendants represented by different types of counsel at different points in misdemeanor cases.

Green areas generally represent the subset of cases where defendants were either represented by counsel or were seeking an appointed lawyer. Red areas represent cases where the defendant was unrepresented. 

Moving from left to right, the diagrams trace the period between magistration and arraignment. The proportion of defendants in red and green areas changes depending on whether they request or apply for counsel, the outcome of any of those requests or applications, and whether they retain counsel privately.

County Findings

Magistration in Bluebonnet County took place at the county jail. Several judges took turns handling the hearings. During magistration proceedings, defendants were provided with paper applications if they stated they wanted to request appointed counsel. Court staff at the magistration were responsible for scanning and emailing copies of applications to the county’s Indigent Defense Coordinator (IDC) daily. The IDC had the authority to appoint counsel to defendants who qualified on the basis of financial need. Where the IDC believed appointment of counsel was necessary for a defendant who did not qualify financially, they would send the case to a County Court judge who had discretion to appoint counsel “in the interests of justice.” Defendants could also apply for counsel at any subsequent time in their case by visiting the IDC’s office.

Data Legend

1: Counsel requested. Cases were coded ‘yes’ if documents indicated the defendant expressed a desire to apply for a lawyer. Cases were coded ‘no’ if documents indicated the defendant did not wish to apply for a lawyer. One case was coded ‘retained’ because documents indicated the defendant already had a privately retained lawyer in another pending case.

2: Application present. Cases were coded ‘yes’ in if researchers found an application in the file, and if the date of the magistration and the date on the application matched. They were coded ‘no’ either if no application was found, or if an application with a later date was found.

3: Application decision. Cases were coded as ‘approved’ if a signed order of appointment appeared in the case file indicating the person was approved for appointed counsel following their application for counsel at magistration. They were coded as ‘denied’ where such an order indicated the defendant’s application at magistration was denied. (Researchers found no cases without signed orders among those shown in the diagram.)

4: Arraignment counsel status. The identity of a defendant’s attorney at arraignment was inferred from documents from that arraignment. Cases were coded as ‘court-appointed’ if the attorney’s name matched that on an approved application for appointed counsel from a date on or before the arraignment. Cases were coded as ‘Retained’ if the attorney’s name matched that on a ‘letter of representation’ dated on or before the date of the arraignment. Some other cases were coded as ‘Retained’ when researchers found other documents (such as a notice of hearing or motion) that incidentally indicated an attorney was retained on the case. Where no indication of an attorney’s presence at arraignment was found in arraignment documents, cases were coded as ‘unrepresented’.

 

Where the data came from

Deason Center researchers collected documents from a total of 938 misdemeanor cases disposed in the period April 1, 2023 to June 20, 2023 in Bluebonnet County. Documents were retrieved from a single case management system in the County Clerk’s office. The system collated records from magistration alongside records of cases from proceedings in County Court. For each case, researchers downloaded and reviewed all available documentation.

464 cases are shown in the diagram, with magistration dates ranging from February, 2020, to June, 2023. Cases were excluded from the diagram as follows:

  • 143 cases were removed because no magistration record was found by researchers in the County Court data system. Notably, researchers found records of arrests in 89 of these cases, suggesting magistration records should have been present in the files reviewed by researchers, yet none was found.
  • 41 cases were removed because either the date of magistration or information on the defendant’s preference whether or not to apply for counsel was not recorded on the magistration paperwork. 
  • 290 cases were removed because they were they were magistrated under a substantially different process for defendant applications than described above.