Waxahachie Daily Light-Legal Battle

News
Legal battle goes on
By JONATHAN BLUNDELL Daily Light staff writer
Posted: Friday, February 23, 2007 11:23 AM CST

The legal battle over a June 24, 2005, accident on Interstate 35 continued Thursday in Waxahachie.Senior Judge Bill Coker, of the 191st District Court in Dallas, preceded over a hearing Thursday to determine the outcome of a motion filed to have 40th District Court Judge Gene Knize removed from cause No. 30,467-CR, the State of Texas vs. James Leon Williams.The motion was filed by Williams’ defense attorneys, Mark Griffith and David Finn, after Knize dismissed a second jury that had been chosen to hear the case in mid-January.
'
Finn said he felt the jury was the perfect jury to hear the trial and no reasoning was given by Knize as to why the jury was dismissed.Williams is being charged with two counts of criminally negligent homicide, for the deaths of James Nation, 24, of Waxahachie and Debra Carder, 45, of Midlothian, in the June 24, 2005, accident.According to police reports, Williams was the driver of a 2000 Volvo truck-tractor semi-trailer that rear-ended Nation’s 1996 Pontiac, pushing it into Carder’s 1996 Taurus, while traveling northbound on Interstate 35.

The reports stated that the truck-tractor then drove on top of the Pontiac before colliding with the Taurus, sending it into a spin before the truck-tractor rear-ended a bread van that also collided with the Taurus.The Pontiac separated from the truck-tractor and came to rest in the outside median where it burst into flames, according to the reports, which add that the bread van subsequently rolled onto its right side onto a 2001 Toyota, which was then struck on its right side by the truck-tractor, which also struck a 2000 Dodge Neon on its right side before coming to a stop.According to a report from the Texas Department of Public Safety, dated Sept. 23, 2005, a blood test of Williams after the accident detected no signs of amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine and its metabolites, and opiates.The victim’s families filed a civil lawsuit in July 2005, and a $1.5 million insurance settlement was awarded in the case.

The criminal charges were brought forth eight months after the accident, in March 2006.Williams is currently released on bond and living in the San Antonio area.“Most of my statement today is within my request for recuse,” Griffith said in opening statements. “You will hear from witnesses that the defense was treated differently and you’ll hear from Mr. Finn who will reveal he received a direct threat by Judge Knize.”

Griffith said that Williams no longer feels like he can get a fair trial with Knize preceding over the case.“We asked that the jury not be discharged,” Griffith said. “And after you hear all the evidence, you will hear that Judge Knize discharged a jury that was perfect and Judge Knize cannot be fair and impartial on this case.”

Chief felony prosecutor Don Maxfield told Coker that the threat Griffith and Finn allege Knize made was not so significant that the case could not move forward and that the motion itself fails as a matter of law. “An unsworn jury was discharged on Jan. 11,” Maxfield said. “Counsel then filed a request for a hearing after the discharge had occurred.”

The defense presented six witnesses, including four members of the jury pool from Jan. 9. Shannon Kyle Smith, who was a member of the jury pool but not selected to serve on the jury, said he felt there was a difference between the treatment of the defense and the state during the jury selection process.

“There was an obvious personality conflict right off the bat,” Smith said in his testimony. During cross-examination, Smith said he didn’t think Finn had “a personal intent to aggravate the judge.”

Juror Jeff Spence said that after being chosen to serve on the jury, he was informed by letter that he longer needed to serve.“The letter said juror discharged,” Spence said in his testimony. “As of to this day I don’t know why.”

Spence said that while sitting on the second row of the juror pool that day he was able to hear some of the exchanges between Knize and Finn.“It was like the neighbor’s dog in the yard,” Spence said. “Knize was responding to Mr. Finn as the new kid on the block. I really don’t think he could be impartial.” When questioned by the prosecution, Spence said he had not been in Knize’s courtroom before the day in question and did not see Knize do anything to the defendant or threaten him. Spence also said there was some contention from a disagreement over the law.“Judge Knize got really ticked and I did not think that was very professional,” Spence said.

Deborah Kuykendall, another individual chosen for the jury said she noticed disparity between Griffith and Knize from the beginning.“He didn’t seem to interrupt the prosecution,” Kuykendall said. “When Mr. Finn presented his side he was interrupted and the judge tried to re-explain it. There was tension.”Kuykendall said she did not feel like Williams would receive a fair trial under Knize.“I think the problem was between Mr. Finn and the judge,” Kuykendall said. “There was no tension from Mr. Finn at first. It seemed like the judge was establishing his dominance and Mr. Finn was trying to break the ice and reestablish a rapport.”

Later, during cross-examination, Kuykendall said she would expect the judge to correct an attorney’s definition of the law if it was incorrect.“It appeared to me that (Finn) was not far enough into his explanation to be interrupted,” Kuykendall said.She also mentioned that she had thought there might have been an issue with Finn because he was from Dallas and he was the only attorney who seemed to have any conflict during the day of jury selection.

Maxfield asked if Kuykendall felt the attorney from the previous jury selection that took place before the Williams case was treated fairly and she responded that he was.Maxfield then pointed out that the attorney in that case was from Dallas as well.

After the members of the jury pool were questioned, Finn took the stand himself.“I don’t think he can be fair in this case,” Finn said. Finn then recalled a point near the end of the jury selection when Knize stood, clapped and asked Finn if he was “supposed to bow and genuflect now?”“He was trying to bully me and I stood up to him,” Finn said. “And that’s what made him upset.”

During questioning by Griffith, Finn said the judge threatened him before the jury selection was announced by saying, “I suggest you better make darn sure you’re never one minute late for my court - ever - if you know what’s good for you.”“He was furious,” Finn said. “He was shaking and I felt like he was going to punch me.”

Later during cross-examination Maxfield questioned Finn about the threat, saying that the motion filed by Finn and Griffith said, “something along the lines of …” before the quoted threat.“Was that a direct quote?” Maxfield asked after Finn had phrased the threat differently during questioning. “Isn’t it true you don’t know what the exact quote was.”“I know what the judge said,” Finn said. “And he threatened me.”

Maxfield then questioned Finn about the timing of his request for Knize’s recusal.“The threat occurred immediately after I sat down,” Finn said.“You didn’t object to the threat?” Maxfield asked. Finn responded with a no.“We selected our jury and the jury was seated in the jury box,” Finn said.“At that time did you object to the judge’s threat?” Finn responded no.

Finn said that he was first informed that the jury had been dismissed when he received a letter in the mail, on Friday, Jan. 12.“At the time the judge discharged the jury you had not filed a recusal against the judge,” Maxfield said. “Prior to receiving the letter you had no intention to file a recuse. Your client wanted to go to trial on Jan. 11 with that jury. Prior to Jan. 11, 2007, Judge Knize had not done anything to you and you were ready to go to trial.”Maxfield pointed out that in an affidavit by Williams on Jan. 11, the threat was not mentioned.“The threat was not in the affidavit by your client,” Maxfield said. “So this threat was not an issue on Jan. 11.”“The threat was always an issue,” Finn replied. “But the quality of the jury overrode that.”

Maxfield then turned the focus of his questioning towards the first jury selection for the trial in November 2006.“A prior jury was picked,” Maxfield said. “And that jury was scheduled to go to trial and at that time both sides appeared to be ready to go to trial. You had not filed a motion to recuse and there was no impartiality or unfairness that you were concerned about?”Finn agreed with Maxfield.“And then when it was time for the case, two jurors were ill,” Maxfield said. “And the judge made arrangements to take those two jurors off the case.”“Judge Knize wanted to put two people on the jury that we had not questioned,” Finn said. “He became quite upset when we questioned it.”“Mr Finn, you objected to the judge’s procedure and the judge sustained it,” Maxfield said. “Although Judge Knize was prepared to go forward he sustained your objection. This impartial, biased judge who could have gone forward with the trial, sustained your objection.”

Finn responded that legally Knize could not move forward. Maxfield then questioned Finn twice if he had any evidence that Knize discharged the jury based on personal bias against Finn or Williams. Both times Finn said he did not know why Knize dismissed the jury. After being questioned the third time, Finn said, “There is no evidence at all.”

Maxfield then asked if Finn had any other evidence that the judge has bias in the case besides the threat or the discharge of the jury.“Do you have any evidence of ill-will by the judge?” Maxfield asked. Finn responded no.

During further questioning by Griffith, Finn said he felt it would be impossible to get a fair trial under Knize. Finally the defense called Williams to the stand. Finn asked Williams about the alleged threat.“(Knize) came over to the table before we made our strikes (for the jury) and I heard him say, ‘You better not be late in my courtroom.’ His voice sounded agitated.”

Williams said he wanted the case to be tried by the jury picked on Jan. 9.“Do you think there’s any way Judge Knize can give you a fair trail?” Finn asked. Williams responded, “Not with you as my lawyer.” Finn then asked if Williams wanted him to remain as his lawyer and Williams responded with a yes.

In cross-examination Maxfield asked Williams if Knize had ever said anything to him that was unwarranted or offensive. Williams said, “No.”“Has he indicated to you in any way that you have ever committed a crime?” Maxfield asked. “Has he indicated to you that he has any personal animosity to you?”Williams responded, “No,” to both questions.“So you’re concerned about his relationship with Mr. Finn?” Maxfield asked.“Yes,” Williams responded.

Both the defense and state then closed their case and waived their rights to closing statements.After both sides rested, Coker said he was still trying to sort through the evidence and was not sure what his decision would be.

“I have a firm conviction that when a person files a motion they’re serious,” Coker said. “I also have a firm conviction that not every motion is worthy of being sustained. I’m going to give it consideration and I will give you an answer before I leave Waxahachie tomorrow. I still don’t have my mind made up and I will take notice of the transcript.

The attorneys will not likely find out my decision until at least tomorrow. How they choose to share that decision is up to them.”

After the hearing Finn said the defense was guardedly optimistic.“When four jurors get up there and say you’re not going to get a fair trial - something’s not right,” Finn said. “But we were pleased to see the judge was very attentive, patient and explained his protocol.

Can you imagine the state’s response if they thought they had a great jury and the judge pulled the rug out from under them?”Finn said he expected a decision by 5 p.m. today.E-mail Jonathan at j.blundell@thedailylight.com
Email this story
Print this story

Settlement: The Dallas Morning News

Kudos to Kevin Krause and The Dallas Morning News for their continuing coverage of the situation in the Dallas County Jail-

David Finn





•Jail care lawsuit to be settled
County OKs $950,000 payout to families of 3 mentally ill ex-inmates
12:01 AM CST on Wednesday, February 21, 2007
By KEVIN KRAUSE / The Dallas Morning Newskkrause@dallasnews.com
In what one attorney called a landmark case, Dallas County commissioners agreed Tuesday to pay $950,000 to the families of three mentally ill former inmates, one of whom died, to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit over medical care at the jail.

James Monroe Mims was sent to the jail from a state hospital in 2004 for a court hearing, but he didn't receive his medication for two months. He nearly died after water to his cell was shut off for two weeks.

Clarence Lee Grant Jr., who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had been found incompetent to stand trial, died in his jail cell in 2003 after he did not receive any medicine for five days.

Kennedy Nickerson, who also suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was released from the jail in 2003 without medication or notice to his family.
Four days later, he was found lying on the street with a fever, dehydration and "having seizures," according to the lawsuit.

"It was the right thing to do," said commissioner John Wiley Price, who attended a mediation session last month and was instrumental in bringing the case to a settlement.

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield said the former inmates were clearly harmed.
"This is a particularly egregious one," he said after the meeting.

Mr. Mims' attorneys were the first to allege that deadly conditions existed in the jail, which is now under a directive from the U.S. Department of Justice to improve conditions.

James Monroe Mims is shown in May 2004 at Parkland Memorial Hospital after being transferred. He came to the county jail from a state hospital for a court hearing and nearly died after water was shut off to his cell for two weeks.

"This will get people's attention," said David Finn, an attorney for Mr. Mims' family. "I think they [commissioners] were wise to cut their losses."

Mr. Finn said the county saved a potential judgment of $2 million to $3 million by agreeing to settle the case. He said the county also could have saved more than $1 million in legal fees it paid to an outside firm, Figari & Davenport, by settling the case sooner.

Relatives' reaction
Relatives of two of the former inmates watched the unanimous vote with their attorneys on Tuesday and expressed relief afterward.
"I believe victory has been won," said Lucille Ralston, Mr. Grant's sister.
She said that when her brother died, "it tore my family up," but that her brother's death was not in vain. "Others will not have to endure the pain our family went through," Ms. Ralston said.
Bernice Washington, Mr. Nickerson's mother, said she's still angry about what happened to her son. "They just sent him out on the streets," she said. "I feel good that it's over with, and I feel that justice has been served."

County officials say they are 70 percent done with jail improvements. This month, they undertook emergency measures to reduce the jail's crowded population while 200 new jail guard positions are being filled.

Mr. Finn said improvements have been made but problems still exist. He said he still receives numerous phone calls and letters from inmates complaining about not receiving their medications and poor medical treatment.

The jail hasn't passed a state jail inspection in the past three years and must meet Justice Department requirements.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in 2004, argued that what happened to the three former inmates was part of a long-standing pattern of abuse and neglect at the jail.
All three cases in the lawsuit occurred after the county contracted with the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston to improve jail conditions.

The lawsuit alleged that the county, the Sheriff's Department and the county hospital district, which hired UTMB, showed "deliberate, callous and conscious indifference" to the inmates' civil rights by denying them proper medical treatment.

UTMB was replaced as the jail's medical provider last year by Parkland Memorial Hospital.
Dallas County suffered a couple of legal setbacks in the months and weeks leading up to Tuesday's settlement.

First, the county lost its fight to keep UTMB as a defendant in the lawsuit, leaving the county to bear the brunt of any potential liability. County officials have long maintained that UTMB is to blame for poor medical care at the jail.

And last month, a federal magistrate judge decided to allow the case to go to trial as scheduled this summer. In a preliminary ruling, U.S. Magistrate Jeff Kaplan said he intended to recommend that Dallas County's motion to throw out the case "be granted in part and denied in part."

That meant a federal jury would have been able to hear the bulk of evidence in the case, Mr. Finn said.

Striking a deal

Last month, all parties in the case met for mediation and hashed out an agreement. Mr. Finn said Mr. Price made it clear during mediation that the county would not agree to a sum over $1 million. He said Mr. Price spoke with the family members, was personally involved in negotiations and helped "bridge the gap."

The settlement amount approved on Tuesday is the largest sum of money the county has ever paid out in a lawsuit related to jail medical care, officials say.

Mr. Finn said that he wanted to take the case to trial but that he honored the wishes of his clients to settle. He said evidence in the case was strong.

It included a statement that former Sheriff Jim Bowles attributed to former Commissioner Jim Jackson, now a state representative.

Mr. Bowles testified that Mr. Jackson "considered his requests to remedy staffing problems an extravagance," court documents show. He said Mr. Jackson told him he would rather pay to defend a lawsuit than spend any more money on the jail.

Mr. Jackson said Tuesday that Mr. Bowles has no credibility and that he didn't recall having said anything "close to that."

Attorneys for the families had also asked the federal court to intervene with an injunction forcing the county to improve jail health care. They say that option remains if the county doesn't make good on its promise to improve jail conditions.

"This should send a loud and clear message that negligence and mismanagement will not be tolerated and they will pay a steep price if they don't fix what clearly has been broken for years," Mr. Finn said. "It's tragic that it took this concerted effort to bring about change."

Phones in Dallas Jail

This Dallas Blog is worth a look if you've never used it.
Craig has written some nice articles lately.


COMMISSIONERS ADDRESS JAIL PHONE PROBLEM By Craig Claybrook
When inmates place phone calls from the Dallas County Jail, some very unpleasant charges show up on the recipient’s bill. The current rate is $4.10 per minute. At their February 20th meeting, commissioners took another step in addressing this problem.
AT&T has provided this service for a number of years but is moving out of the phone business for jails. As a result, AT&T has entered into a contract with Global Tel*Link (GTL) to provide jail phone service in the future. GTL has proposed that the price be lowered to $2.00 per minute locally and $2.30 for long distance. However, this would be a serious cut in income for the county.
Commissioners decided to forego three other options and to put out a “Request for Proposals.” Other companies will be requested to submit bids on providing phone service for the jail. Commissioners hope to bring the cost down, while at the same time maintaining an income stream for the county.
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 09:12AM by Special to DallasBlog.com 1 Comment

Settlement- Associated Press

Inmates' Families, Jail Reach Deal Over Mistreatment
POSTED: 2:21 pm CST February 20, 2007
UPDATED: 2:54 pm CST February 20, 2007


DALLAS -- County officials approved a nearly $1 million settlement Tuesday with the families of three mentally ill inmates who were denied medication while in the seventh-largest detention complex in the country.
Just over half of the award went to James Mims, a Dallas County Jail inmate whose psychiatric medications were withheld for two months in 2004, his attorney David Finn said. Mims also nearly died when water was shut off in his cell for two weeks.
"They could just not afford to have this case go before a jury," Finn said.

Commissioners approved the $950,000 agreement without discussion.

The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in December 2004 on behalf of inmates Mims, Kennedy Nickerson and Clarence Lee Grant Jr., who died in custody.

Grant, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was found dead in his cell after not receiving medicine for five days in 2003, according to court records.

Nickerson, who also has paranoid schizophrenia, was released from jail in 2003 without medication. A few days later he was found on the street dehydrated, suffering from fever and seizures, court records show.

The agreement is only one step in addressing the mounting problems faced by the county in its oversight of the troubled detention complex.

A federal report issued in December determined that the jail violates the constitutional rights of inmates by failing to provide adequate medical and mental health care. The violations are detailed in a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, which also found that inmates are not kept in safe or sanitary conditions.

Federal authorities have directed county officials to fix the problems, warning that a lawsuit could be filed. The matter is still pending.

In 2005, a separate report found that lapses in medical care in the jail system resulted in undetected illnesses, excess costs and risks to the public. That report was produced partly as a response to the near-death of Mims.

Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price was instrumental in the case being settled, Finn said

Dallas Jail-Dallas Business Journal

Dallas County commissioners settle jail lawsuit
Dallas Business Journal - 3:00 PM CST Tuesday, February 20, 2007
by Glenda Vosburgh
Assistant Managing Editor

The families of three mentally ill former Dallas County Jail inmates won a $950,000 settlement in a federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday.
Dallas County commissioners agreed to pay the families who had sued alleging inadequate medical care at the jail. One of the inmates died in his jail cell.

Clarence Lee Grant Jr., who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, died in his jail cell in 2003 after he did not receive medicine for more than four days, according to the lawsuit.
James Monroe Mims was sent to the jail from a state hospital in 2004 for a mental competency hearing. According to the lawsuit, medications that Mims required were also sent to the jail, but he wasn't given his medication for two months. In addition, water to his cell was shut off for two weeks, and he ultimately was transferred to Parkland Hospital where he was diagnosed with dehydration, renal failure and several other acute medical conditions.
Kennedy Nickerson, who also suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was released from the jail in 2003 without medication or notice to his family. Four days later, he was found lying on a street, "near death and unresponsive," the lawsuit stated.

"While we have settled the monetary portion of the case, we have reserved the right to intervene and seek injunctive relief from Judge Barbara Lynn if they don't improve the situation in the jail," said David Finn, legal counsel for James Mims.

Fort Worth attorneys Jeff Kobs and Mark Haney assisted with Mim's case and, along with Advocacy Inc., represented Grant and Nickerson.
The Dallas County Jail is under mandate by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards to make improvements or be closed. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice is pushing for improvements and could sue in federal court.

"The clients are satisfied with the result," Finn said, "and they are hopeful that no other families ever have to go through what they have had to endure.
"I did not want to settle. I wanted to get the Mims evidence in front of a jury."

gvosburgh@bizjournals.com 214-706-7111

Dallas Jail-Dallas Business Journal

Dallas County commissioners settle jail lawsuit
Dallas Business Journal - 3:00 PM CST Tuesday, February 20, 2007
by Glenda Vosburgh
Assistant Managing Editor

The families of three mentally ill former Dallas County Jail inmates won a $950,000 settlement in a federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday.
Dallas County commissioners agreed to pay the families who had sued alleging inadequate medical care at the jail. One of the inmates died in his jail cell.

Clarence Lee Grant Jr., who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, died in his jail cell in 2003 after he did not receive medicine for more than four days, according to the lawsuit.
James Monroe Mims was sent to the jail from a state hospital in 2004 for a mental competency hearing. According to the lawsuit, medications that Mims required were also sent to the jail, but he wasn't given his medication for two months. In addition, water to his cell was shut off for two weeks, and he ultimately was transferred to Parkland Hospital where he was diagnosed with dehydration, renal failure and several other acute medical conditions.
Kennedy Nickerson, who also suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was released from the jail in 2003 without medication or notice to his family. Four days later, he was found lying on a street, "near death and unresponsive," the lawsuit stated.

"While we have settled the monetary portion of the case, we have reserved the right to intervene and seek injunctive relief from Judge Barbara Lynn if they don't improve the situation in the jail," said David Finn, legal counsel for James Mims.

Fort Worth attorneys Jeff Kobs and Mark Haney assisted with Mim's case and, along with Advocacy Inc., represented Grant and Nickerson.
The Dallas County Jail is under mandate by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards to make improvements or be closed. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice is pushing for improvements and could sue in federal court.

"The clients are satisfied with the result," Finn said, "and they are hopeful that no other families ever have to go through what they have had to endure.
"I did not want to settle. I wanted to get the Mims evidence in front of a jury."

gvosburgh@bizjournals.com 214-706-7111

Dallas County Settles Federal Jail Case

February 20, 2007
County Settles Suit With Inmate — For Close to a Million Bucks
Filed under: Crime and Punishment
The Dallas County Commissioners Court has just agreed to settle the the James Mims lawsuit that sparked a series of investigations into the troubled Dallas County Jail. Voting unanimously, the commissioners agreed to pay the families of three county inmates $950,000, an extraordinary sum for this type of litigation. Typically, convicted criminals don’t make the most sympathetic victims.
But this case was the exception.
In 2004, Mims suffered severe renal failure nearly two weeks after jailors left Mims without water for more than 10 days, as punishment for flooding his cell. A subsequent internal affairs investigation concluded that Mims had slipped “through the cracks.” The jail’s medical provider at the time, the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston (UTMB), was also to blame.
Although Mims had been found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial over a period of 25 years, having been transferred between Terrell State Hospital and the county jail during that time, UTMB’s psychiatric staff failed to follow through on three separate referrals from medical personnel to evaluate him. They also failed to provide his prescribed medication. But because of a loophole in its contract with the county, UTMB was not liable for fatal errors.
Because his case was the most egregious, Mims received the bulk of the settlement, although families for two other inmates who languished at the Dallas County Jail — including Clarence Lee Grant, who died at the facility — also received a hefty pay-out. The county paid an outside law firm, Figari & Davenport, at least $1 million to defend the case, but the white-shoe law firm’s strategy of trying to stall and delay by filing a series of motions trying to supress evidence only wound up wasting taxpayer money. It’s not clear what exactly the county got out them.
Meanwhile, the Mims settlement is just another reminder of the house of horrors that is the Dallas County Jail. Although Sheriff Jim Bowles ran the jail when Mims and the other inmates were incarcerated, there’s little evidence that things have improved under his replacement Lupe Valdez. A recent U.S. Department of Justice report excoriated both the medical care and the management of the jail, while the Texas Commission of Jail Standards has flunked the facility ever year Valdez has been in office.
“Things have improved, but it’s marginal — they still have a long way to go,” says attorney David Finn, who, along with Fort Worth lawyers Mark Haney and Jeff Kobs, represented Mims. “If they don’t clean up their act quickly, there is a very good chance the DOJ will sue Dallas County and place that jail under federal oversight for five to 10 years.”
Which would come about five to 10 years too late. –Matt Pulle

Dallas County Settles Federal Jail Case

February 20, 2007
County Settles Suit With Inmate — For Close to a Million Bucks
Filed under: Crime and Punishment
The Dallas County Commissioners Court has just agreed to settle the the James Mims lawsuit that sparked a series of investigations into the troubled Dallas County Jail. Voting unanimously, the commissioners agreed to pay the families of three county inmates $950,000, an extraordinary sum for this type of litigation. Typically, convicted criminals don’t make the most sympathetic victims.
But this case was the exception.
In 2004, Mims suffered severe renal failure nearly two weeks after jailors left Mims without water for more than 10 days, as punishment for flooding his cell. A subsequent internal affairs investigation concluded that Mims had slipped “through the cracks.” The jail’s medical provider at the time, the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston (UTMB), was also to blame.
Although Mims had been found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial over a period of 25 years, having been transferred between Terrell State Hospital and the county jail during that time, UTMB’s psychiatric staff failed to follow through on three separate referrals from medical personnel to evaluate him. They also failed to provide his prescribed medication. But because of a loophole in its contract with the county, UTMB was not liable for fatal errors.
Because his case was the most egregious, Mims received the bulk of the settlement, although families for two other inmates who languished at the Dallas County Jail — including Clarence Lee Grant, who died at the facility — also received a hefty pay-out. The county paid an outside law firm, Figari & Davenport, at least $1 million to defend the case, but the white-shoe law firm’s strategy of trying to stall and delay by filing a series of motions trying to supress evidence only wound up wasting taxpayer money. It’s not clear what exactly the county got out them.
Meanwhile, the Mims settlement is just another reminder of the house of horrors that is the Dallas County Jail. Although Sheriff Jim Bowles ran the jail when Mims and the other inmates were incarcerated, there’s little evidence that things have improved under his replacement Lupe Valdez. A recent U.S. Department of Justice report excoriated both the medical care and the management of the jail, while the Texas Commission of Jail Standards has flunked the facility ever year Valdez has been in office.
“Things have improved, but it’s marginal — they still have a long way to go,” says attorney David Finn, who, along with Fort Worth lawyers Mark Haney and Jeff Kobs, represented Mims. “If they don’t clean up their act quickly, there is a very good chance the DOJ will sue Dallas County and place that jail under federal oversight for five to 10 years.”
Which would come about five to 10 years too late. –Matt Pulle

The Case Changed Everything-James Mims

Look for an important announcement tomorrow regarding settlement negotiations in connection with the federal civil rights case involving James Mims.