FREE BRENT BENEFIELD

No response from Sarah Price.

No response from the judge on Brent's bond.

Below you will see an opinion published by an appellate judge that reviewed Brent's request for discretionary review.  There are a couple of highlights I want to point out though.  She says that this case:

"raises several legitimate constitutional concerns about judicial review of the pretrial-
bond and pretrial-release processes, I write briefly to discuss whether and why the pretrial-
bail process has perhaps gone astray of its original statutory purpose. "

She goes on to discuss the history pretrial bail:

"the citizen who has been accused, but not convicted, has a “strong interest in liberty.” Bail may not be used as “an instrument of oppression” to keep an accused “off the streets” or to coerce a plea. The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he time spent in jail awaiting trial has a detrimental impact on the individual. It often means loss of a job; it disrupts family life; and it enforces idleness;”


and


"In addition, a pretrial detainee is “hindered in his ability to gather evidence, contact witnesses, or otherwise prepare his defense.” In balancing the accused’s due-process interests and the community’s safety interests, the Texas Legislature has statutorily ensured that a trial judge will, in the vast majority of cases, release a defendant pre-trial"


Brent's charges have been lowered.  His bond should be lowered.  Plain and simple.
He is not a flight risk.  He has no prior criminal history.  Plain and simple.


We want him released.  There will be a representative protesting his wrongful imprisonment tomorrow in front of the Wichita County Courthouse.  The police have been notified that this is a peaceful protest, and that it will be recorded on video.  I cannot let my brother be labeled a baby killer.  He has now been incarcerated, in solitary confinement, for 568 days now without being convicted of anything.  Please help us bring him home.  We are hoping that this protest will help us find a pro bono attorney to take on Brent's case.


#FreeBrentBenefield
#JusticeforLucas
www.facebook.com/justiceforlucas


It is a lot of reading, but the following is a complete transcript of the document.  I couldn't figure out how to add PDF's to this blog.  






IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0147-13

EX PARTE BRENT BENEFIELD, Appellant

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

WICHITA COUNTY

COCHRAN, J., filed a statement concurring in the refusal of the petition for

discretionary review.

I agree with the Court’s decision to refuse Mr. Benefield’s petition for discretionary

review because his grounds for review, as written, do not merit relief. However, because this

case raises several legitimate constitutional concerns about judicial review of the pretrial-
bond and pretrial-release processes, I write briefly to discuss whether and why the pretrial-
bail process has perhaps gone astray of its original statutory purpose.

I.

After his wife left for work on February 8, 2012, Brent Benefield—the primary day-
time caretaker of the couple’s infant son—noticed that his son was not breathing and was

coughing up blood. He called 911. The four-month-old baby was admitted to the hospital

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 2

with “numerous injuries to his body including a brain injury that resulted in a subdural

hematoma inside his skull as a result of blunt force trauma.” He also had “retinal

hemorrhages in both eyes, along with swelling in the brain.” The baby died four days later.

The autopsy report listed the cause of death as “closed head injury due to the blunt force

trauma to the head and brain.” The medical examiner concluded that the manner of death

was homicide.

Two months later, Mr. Benefield was arrested and charged with injury to a child by

causing seriously bodily injury or death. Initially, the bail was set at one million dollars. Mr.

Benefield filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the amount of bail

was excessive. He offered evidence from three witnesses to support his argument that he

should be released on his own recognizance. After the hearing, the trial judge lowered the

bail to $200,000. Not satisfied with that result, Mr. Benefield appealed to the court of

appeals, which affirmed the trial judge’s bail. Mr. Benefield then filed a petition for

discretionary review in this Court.

1

2

 Ex parte Benefield, No. 02-12-00242-CR, 2013 WL 173792 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth Jan. 1

17, 2013) (not designated for publication).

 Mr. Benefield raised the following issues in his petition for discretionary review: 2

1. The court should consider the weakness of the State’s case as a part of the

“nature and circumstances” of the offense when it sets bail, and

2. The Court of Appeals created a new and impossible standard of proof by

demanding that Benefield prove by direct evidence that the trial court intended to

keep him incarcerated.

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 3

II.

The early common-law history of the right to pretrial bail showed “a profound regard

for a man’s personal freedom.” In England, a defendant who qualified for bail was “almost

invariably” released by the sheriff, both for the sake of the accused, but also to avoid the

“costly and troublesome” nature of imprisoning the accused. Because English sheriffs

sometimes abused their power to grant bail, the 1275 Statute of Westminster authorized a

general right to bail for all offenses “for which one ought not to lose life nor member” or

when the accusation was based on “light suspicion.” During the early American era, state

bail systems were used solely “to ensure the appearance of the accused at trial.”

Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, Congress and the states began to authorize

pretrial detention for certain particularly heinous crimes and particularly dangerous

defendants, in part because some judges had intentionally set bail so high that a prisoner

3

4

5

6

 William F. Duker, The Right to Bail: A Historical Inquiry, 42 ALB. L. REV. 33, 33 3

(1977).

 Id. at 41-42. 4

 See Heath Coffman, Note and Comment: A Look at the New Texas Constitution Article 5

I, Section 11B, 59 BAYLOR L. REV. 241, 245 (2007).

 Id. See, e.g., Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951) (the purpose of bail is the “assurance 6

of the presence of an accused” at trial); Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277, 285 (1895) (“a person

accused of crime shall not, until he has been finally adjudged guilty in the court of last resort, be

absolutely compelled to undergo imprisonment or punishment”); United States v. Barber, 140

U.S. 164, 167 (1891) (“in criminal cases it is for the interest of the public as well as the accused

that the latter should not be detained in custody prior to his trial, if the government can be

assured of his presence at that time”); Ex parte Milburn, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 704, 710 (1835) (“[a]

recognizance of bail, in a criminal case is taken to secure the due attendance of the party

accused”).

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 4

could not realistically pay it and thus courts were employing their own, unconstitutional form

of pretrial detention. Not only did that ploy violate the Excessive Bail Clause of the federal

constitution, it also “cast[] doubt on the honesty of the American criminal justice system and

prevent[ed] the development of objective standards of dangerousness.”

Texas, like Congress, enacted constitutional provisions that allow pretrial detention

without bail for some selected crimes and defendants and ensure that all other defendants

may be released before trial under a personal recognizance bond or appropriate bail. Article

17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the proper criteria for determining

10 11

bail. The “primary purpose” of bail is to ensure a defendant’s presence at trial. And, as

7

8

9

 See Steven R. Schlesinger, Bail Reform: Protecting the Community and the Accused, 9 7

HARV. J .L. & PUB. POL’Y 173, 188 (1986).

 Id. 8

 See TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 11a (stating that, if certain procedures are followed, bail may 9

be denied to “[a]ny person (1) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, who has been

theretofore twice convicted of a felony, the second conviction being subsequent to the first, both

in point of time of commission of the offense and conviction therefor, (2) accused of a felony

less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been

indicted, (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State involving the use of a deadly

weapon after being convicted of a prior felony, or (4) accused of a violent or sexual offense

committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political

subdivision of the State for a prior felony[.]”).

 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 17.15. The statute provides: 10

1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the

undertaking will be complied with.

2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of

oppression.

3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed

are to be considered.

4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 5

part of “the nature of the offense,” the length of the potential sentence is one factor to

consider in the bail-setting decision. Other “pertinent factors” include a defendant’s family

and community ties in the area, work record, length of residency, prior criminal record, and

ability to make the bond. On appeal or in a habeas proceeding, the defendant has the burden

to prove that bail is excessive.

However, the citizen who has been accused, but not convicted, has a “strong interest

in liberty.” Bail may not be used as “an instrument of oppression” to keep an accused

“off the streets” or to coerce a plea. The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he time spent

in jail awaiting trial has a detrimental impact on the individual. It often means loss of a job;

it disrupts family life; and it enforces idleness;” all the while he is “living under a cloud of

12

13

14

15 16

point.

5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be

considered.

 Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). 11

12

 Id.

 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 17.15; Ex parte Davis, 147 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. 13

App.—Waco 2004, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1981)).

 Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849. 14

 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750 (1987). 15

 Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (finding that $100,000 16

bail in 1977 capital-murder proceeding was excessive when defendant testified that he was

indigent and that he was merely the getaway driver during the robbery-murder; uncle promised a

job if defendant were released and he had no known criminal history or history of failing to

appear in court).

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 6

17

anxiety, suspicion, and often hostility.” In addition, a pretrial detainee is “hindered in his

ability to gather evidence, contact witnesses, or otherwise prepare his defense.” In

balancing the accused’s due-process interests and the community’s safety interests, the Texas

Legislature has statutorily ensured that a trial judge will, in the vast majority of cases, release

a defendant pre-trial, while giving the trial judge appropriate tools to provide suitable

oversight to prevent the accused from fleeing the jurisdiction, intimidating witnesses,

committing crimes, or posing a realistic threat to the community.

18

19

III.

At his bail hearing Mr. Benefield presented his case to be released on his own

recognizance. Witnesses testified that he was an “extremely loving” father who was

“excellent” with his all of his children—overall, a “very good dad.” Except for an arrest

warrant issued for failure to pay traffic tickets, Mr. Benefield had no criminal history. He

had lived in Wichita County for upwards of fifteen years, and had strong family ties in that

area. While he had little to no money to post bail himself, family members testified they

could help him post bail, within reason.

Mr. Benefield also argued that the State would not be able to prove its case against

him. He presented police records showing Benefield’s wife had experienced post-partum

 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532–33 (1972). 17

 Id. at 533. 18

 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 17.43–17.49. 19

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 7

depression after the birth of their son and had stopped taking her medication shortly before

the baby’s death, implying that perhaps she caused the child’s fatal injuries. Mr. Benefield

also introduced into evidence a conversation between his trial attorneys and the pathologist

who performed his son’s autopsy in which the pathologist explained he was unsure “whether

[the State would] be able to come up with legal proceedings because. . . you have to get into

beyond a reasonable doubt realm” and “this is a–you know, kind of out in the gray zone.”

The State argued against Mr. Benefield’s release, stating that he was a flight risk

because he was facing a sentence of up to 99 years or life. Mr. Benefield responded by

testifying that he would not flee if he was released because he has two young children to take

care of. To support his claim, he explained that he was aware of the investigation leading

up to his arrest and had “ample opportunity” to flee, but chose not to do so. Indeed, the

arresting officers called Mr. Benefield’s home on the day of the arrest and explained they

were on their way to arrest him. He patiently awaited their arrival and peacefully allowed

20

21

 The pathologist indicated that the infant had several old injuries, which might indicate 20

that Mr. Benefield’s wife, a victim of post-partum depression, could have caused both the old

and new injuries.

 Of course, every citizen charged with a first-degree felony is facing a sentence of up to 21

99 years or life. While the seriousness of the charges may be considered in setting bail, they are

not alone sufficient to require a pre-trial bail of a million dollars or even a bail of $200,000.

Intentionally setting bail so high as to ensure that the defendant cannot pay it violates the

Excessive Bail Clause of both the federal and Texas constitutions. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII;

TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. Bail is excessive “if it is set in an amount greater than is reasonably

necessary to satisfy the government’s legitimate interests.” Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566, 573

(Tex. App.– Austin 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 753–54

(1987)). Jurisdictions that rely heavily upon the offense level in determining the appropriate

level of bond may wish to promulgate standardized bail schedules to ensure that all those charged

with the same level offense are treated equally.

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 8

them to arrest him.

This case raises legitimate constitutional concerns about our pretrial-release system:

a citizen, presumptively innocent, may be detained in jail before trial—on the taxpayers’

22 23

dime —when he would most likely appear for trial if released on his own recognizance.

Indeed, the ABA notes that “[i]t should be presumed that defendants are entitled to release

on personal recognizance,” although this presumption may be rebutted by “evidence that

there is a substantial risk of nonappearance or need for additional conditions.” In reality,

24

22

According to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, in 2011, counties spent an

average of $62.79 per day per jail detainee. The total cost to Texas counties to house the average

60,000 inmates per day throughout the state amounted to 12% of each county’s annual budget.

TEXAS COMMISSION ON JAIL STANDARDS (TCJS), JAIL POPULATION REPORTS (2011).

 Several studies suggest that the failure-to-appear rate between a “release on 23

recognizance” bond and a cash or bail bond are similar. See Samuel L. Meyers, Jr., The

Economics of Bail Jumping, 10 J. LEGAL STUD. 381, 382 (1981) (citing Steven H. Clarke, Jean

K. Freeman, & Gary B. Koch, Bail Risk: A Multivariate Analysis, 5 J. LEGAL STUD. 341 (1976));

see also Esmond Harmsworth, Bail and Detention: An Assessment and Critique of the Federal

and Massachusetts Systems, 22 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 213 (1996)

(surveying a number of release-on-recognizance studies across the country, finding failure-to-
appear rates between .7% and 19%; also noting that many times a failure to appear is a

“technical” default relating to “family problems, inadequate transportation, forgetfulness, and

personal reasons unrelated to a desire to escape possible punishment for crime.”).

24

 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION STANDARDS: PRETRIAL

RELEASE, Std. 10-5.1.

In 1966, Congress passed The Bail Reform Act of 1966, which required federal courts to

release any defendant charged with a non-capital offense on his recognizance or an unsecured

appearance bond, unless the trial judge determined that the defendant would fail to appear for

trial under minimal supervision. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DEP’T OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND DETENTION, 1966, at 5 (1999) (citing H.R. Rep No. 1541-89 (1966)).

The Act addressed one of the central problems with denying bail: the increased likelihood that

defendants will plead guilty, even when they are not, to resolve their cases quickly so they can

get out of jail. Defendants who remain in pretrial custody are not only more likely to plead guilty

than those who are released pending trial, they are also handicapped in assisting their attorneys to

locate witnesses and evidence, and thus less likely to be able to mount a viable defense. See

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 9

the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence frequently results in an implicit presumption that

a defendant will flee unless a very high bond is set. This is often the case even when there

is significant evidence, as there was in this case, suggesting that the defendant will not flee.

Furthermore, a significant proportion of those who are actually convicted of serious

felony offenses are placed on community supervision. If the person is non-threatening

25

26

Ronald F. Wright, Trial Distortion and the End of Innocence in Federal Criminal Justice, 154 U.

PA. L. REV. 79, 124-25 (2005). But the provisions of the 1966 Act, designed to encourage

greater numbers of pretrial releases, were modified by the Bail Reform Act of 1984 based on

increasing concerns about dangerousness. The 1984 Act provided that “the judicial officer shall

order the pretrial release of the person on personal recognizance, or upon execution of an

unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the court . . . unless the judicial officer

determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required

or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.” Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18

U.S.C. § 3142(b).

 The trend toward setting ever-higher bonds that result in the accused’s inability to 25

obtain pretrial release from jail has been accelerating. “[S]ince 1992, fewer people have been

released pretrial without bail, fewer have been granted bail at all, and, of those granted bail,

fewer have been able to make the payment.” Amanda Petteruti & Nastassia Walsh, Jailing

Communities: The Impact of Jail Expansion and Effective Public Safety Strategies, JUST. POL’Y

INST. 11 (Apr. 2008), http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-

04_REP_JailingCommunities_AC.pdf.

 According to the Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA), in 2012, 3,733 26

individuals convicted of aggravated assault or attempted murder were placed on community

supervision while 3,930 were sent to prison; more were released into the community than went to

prison. For those convicted of sexual assault of an adult, 192 were placed on community

supervision, while 616 were sent to prison–for every three convicted rapists sent to prison one

was released into the community. For those convicted of indecency with a child or sexual assault

of a child, 532 were placed on community supervision while 2,115 were sent to prison–for every

four convicted child molesters sent to prison, one remained in the community. In almost every

single Texas county jail, the largest number of jail inmates are those charged with felonies who

are awaiting trial. TCJS “Abbreviated Population Report for 5/1/2013.” Indeed, in December

2010, approximately half of the detainees in the Harris County jail were being held in pretrial

detention. Martha Johnson and Luckett Anthony Johnson, Bail: Reforming Policies to Address

Overcrowded Jails, the Impact of Race on Detention, and Community Revival in Harris County,

Texas, 7 NW. J. L. & SOC. POL’Y 42, 46 (2012). About 80% of the persons jailed for felony

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 10

enough to live in the community after he has been convicted of a very serious crime, why is

he presumed too threatening to live in that community on his own recognizance before he has

been convicted of any crime? Is it because the person who might commit a crime if released

is more threatening than the person who has been convicted of committing a crime?

Finally, it seems far from certain that setting a high bond does a better job of ensuring

a defendant’s presence at trial than releasing that person on his own recognizance.

Empirical studies suggest that simple prophylactic measures can be taken to decrease failure-
to-appear rates when defendants are released on their own recognizance. And to further

alleviate concerns, trial judges may place conditions on a defendant’s release, such as strict

adherence to a curfew, home confinement, electronic monitoring, and drug testing. In

2009, the Harris County Jail Reduction Committee found that “[a]pproximately 15,000

defendants were considered low risk according to interviews by the County’s Pretrial

27

28

29

offenses and 64% jailed for misdemeanor offenses are pretrial detainees. Id. at 48. Comparing

the OCA and TCJS numbers, it appears that the probability of being released into the community

under supervision with no monetary strings after conviction is significantly greater than the

probability of being released into the community under supervision on a personal recognizance

bond before conviction.

 See Meyers, supra note 23 at 389, 392 (noting that releasing a defendant on his own 27

recognizance and requiring that defendant to post bail result in a similar appearance rate).

 See generally Mitchel N. Herian & Brian H. Bornstein, Reducing Failure to Appear in 28

Nebraska: A Field Study (2010) (finding a significant decrease in failure-to-appear rates when

defendants are mailed a reminder of their court date); CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING

COUNCIL & FLAGSTAFF JUSTICE COURT, Court Hearing Call Notification Project (2006) (finding

a similar reduction in failure-to-appear rates when defendants are notified of upcoming court

dates via telephone).

 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 17.43–17.49. 29

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 11

Services,” and recommended that these individuals should be “eligible for a personal

recognizance (PR) bond.” At that time, “at least 500 individuals have been jailed longer

than a year awaiting trial, while approximately 1,200 have been in jail six months or more.”

In some cases, even when the bond is set at a reasonable, low-dollar amount, the

defendant still cannot post it. While some defendants have friends and family who can help

them post bail, others do not. These unfortunate many, then, are left with two choices: remain

in custody until trial (which likely means losing their job, and being separated from their

32 33

family), or, if they qualify, seek the services of a for-profit bail bondsman, which comes

with its own set of costs and risks.

Setting an appropriate bail or permitting pretrial release on a personal recognizance

bond is a weighty decision with important considerations and constitutional concerns on all

30

31

 Harris County Jail Reduction Committee Facts and Recommendations 1 (presented to 30

the Texas Commission on Jail Standards Meeting August 5, 2010), available at:

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/DOC008.PDF.

 Id. 31

 See Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. 32

 Not all defendants will be able to retain the services of a commercial bail bondsman. 33

Due to the nature of the bond industry, the profitability of a bond increases as its dollar amount

increases. This is due to the fixed costs associated with searching for and bringing in a defendant

when they do not appear. In other words, issuing a bond for only a few hundred dollars profit

may not be worth the potential cost if the defendant does not show up. Therefore, many bail

bondsman will not issue low-money bonds. Curiously, these defendants with low bonds are the

ones the court deemed the lowest threat to fail to appear, yet they are the ones unable to obtain

the bond and instead await trial detained. See PRETRIAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE & THE MACARTHUR

FOUNDATION, Rational and Transparent Bail Decision Making: Moving From a Cash-Based to a

Risk-Based Process 6–9 (Mar. 2012), http://www.pretrial.org (Under “Featured Resources”).

Benefield Concurring Statement Page 12

sides. It is, however, a decision that all too often results in the pretrial detention of the

accused citizen, despite compelling evidence suggesting pretrial release may be less costly

to the community, fairer to the defendant, and, when appropriate conditions are attached,

capable of ensuring the safety of the community. Appellate courts must provide meaningful

review of the bail and pretrial-release decision to ensure that trial judges strike a

constitutional balance between community safety and ensuring a defendant’s appearance on

one side, and the social and financial costs (both to the State and defendant) of oppressive

pre-trial detention on the other.

Because this petition does not clearly raise these difficult issues, I concur in the

Court’s decision to refuse Mr. Benefield’s petition for discretionary review.

Filed: June 26, 2013

Publish

How do you fight a psychopath?

How do you win against small town politics?
How do you get justice?

These are the questions that haunt my family every.  single.  day.  And while I must admit that when I think of Lucas' birth mother, it is usually to hope that she lives in fear.  Fear that every time the phone rings with an unknown number, or there is an unexpected knock at the door, that she panics thinking it's the police.  But she probably doesn't.  Wichita County is not interested in prosecuting her, even though all of the evidence points to her, so why should she?

Maybe I've just been going about this the wrong way.  I mean, everybody has SOME good in them, right?  Maybe no one has sat her down and said, "YOU are the only one who can make this right".  Maybe no one has given her the chance to do the noble, human thing.  We'll see.



Open letter to Sarah Price


Sarah,
I have been so wrapped up in grief and frustration that I have not stopped to consider your feelings.  I have no idea how Lucas' death has affected you, other than your actions towards my parents.  Let me explain.  You took them to court last year to get custody of Logan for the entire month of December.  Your reason was that they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and therefore did not celebrate Christmas.  You knew it was a lie--and it was easy to prove so.  They have pictures of you celebrating Christmas at their house for years.  I can't wrap my head around something like this, but that is just the tip of the unnecessary legal actions iceberg.

I also can't imagine the thoughts in your head, not only for causing the death of your own child, but for allowing your husband, your partner in life, to sit in jail for a crime he did not commit.  Has anyone brought that to your attention?  Has anyone actually sat you down and said, "Look. You are the only one who knows what happened that night to Lucas.  You were alone with him.  You are the only one who can get the false charges against Brent dropped."  Do you realize that?  Do you realize that we can get medical experts and tests and evaluations the rest of our lives, but YOU are the only one who can tell us what really happened?  Don't we deserve that?  Don't Brent and Logan deserve to know the truth?  Will you let Logan grow up wondering if his father killed his brother?

Since your parents are financially supporting you, I can understand that you feel the need to go along with what they say.  They want Logan, and will lie all the way to their graves to get what they want.  But you don't have to.  I have referred to you as a psychopath-someone who does not feel the same emotions...guilt, compassion, empathy...as others.  Do you lack these feelings?  This is your chance to change things.  This is your chance to prove me wrong about your lack of emotions. You can continue to let someone else pay for your actions, or you can honor the memory of your lost son by telling the truth. We can't threaten you, or force you to talk, but remember, you will have to live with these decisions every minute of every day for the rest of your life.  Please tell us the truth. 

You have three days.

Facts, Semantics, Opinions...and Fiction

Brent's trial date has been moved from October 21 to January 6.

Before I go any further, I want to clear some things up.  Sarah Price's criminal attorney, Bob Estrada, told the judge at a pre-trial hearing (open court, public record) a couple of weeks ago that they didn't want some of her psychiatric records released because "a family member" (referring to me) had posted all of her previous records online.  Such an enormous lie.  You can go through every post on this blog and not find one single record of hers that has not been included in a public document.  I suppose in order to represent someone like her, one has to have a lack of ethics and/or scruples.  I'm also not happy about being referred to as her "family" while we're at it, but that is at least technically true.

Wednesday, September 25th, the grand jury re-indicted Brent on different charges.  You can go to the Wichita County jail website right now, yourself, click on Brent's name, and see these charges.  It looks a little something like this:

 That was the THIRD time the prosecution elected to ask a grand jury to indict him.  A quick review of grand juries: the defense is not allowed to present anything, only the prosecution is.  So to quote one of my friends, "You can get a ham sandwich indicted if you really want to."  Nice.  And since they are all different, another one I like is, "they're throwing all the shit they can at the wall to see what sticks."  Also nice.  Especially since the District Attorney of Wichita County's main page looks a little something like this:

You can go there right now, yourself, publicly and view it.  See that last paragraph there?  In case the picture isn't clear, it says, "It is our ethical duty to see that justice is done and not merely to seek a conviction".  Well that seems wrong on both counts.  Not only is the person responsible for the death of Lucas still walking around free (i.e., justice not being done), but my brother is sitting in jail while the prosecution tries to find something they can get a conviction on.

The ADA assigned to his case is Grace Pandithurai.  This is also public record.  There was an article in the Wichita Falls Times Record News about her recently, where she describes her Christian values and how she strives to help children who are victims of abuse.  You can google her name, all by yourself, with your computer or phone, publicly, and see it.  It looks a little something like this:

I have two problems with this also.  First, Brent's four year-old son is still being subjected to someone who has been seen by many people (myself included) yelling at him, has had thoughts of throwing her baby out a window, etc.  Where is his protection?  Does he not matter?  Sure, just sweep him under the rug.  Second, I attended a pre-trial hearing on October 4 where the defense asked for a continuance, given the new indictment/charges.  She said that she "needed to get this off of her calendar"--sounded like a personal problem to me--and that the county had already spent a significant amount of money on this case.  That court transcript is public record.  Well, maybe she should have thought of that before she elected to ask a grand jury to indict him three separate times.  A man whose life is at stake, and who has already been incarcerated for 545 days doesn't matter--it's her busy calendar that matters.  Not very Christ-like in my personal opinion.  <--- See, that's an opinion.  I've included pictures to reference previous statements of FACT because people seem to get the two confused.

The judge agreed to reconsider the issue of bond amount since the new charges are lesser, and since the appellate judge who ruled on the issue previously said she had serious concerns about Brent's rights being violated, but because of how the appeal was worded, she could not rule in his favor.  You can google that appeal as well.  Public record.  Hopefully he will lower it to an amount we can afford so that we can get him out in time to adequately prepare for his upcoming trial.

Tomorrow's birthday

Tomorrow Lucas would have turned two. 

To honor his memory, we will be doing a "pay it forward" day.  I've seen other people do this in memory of a loved one.  I'm sure you are all familiar with the pay it forward concept at drive-thru windows.  Pay for the person behind you in line, and then hopefully they continue and pay for the person behind them, etc.  It's a nice way to brighten someone's day a little. 

We'll be including a piece of paper that says,

"Paying it forward in loving memory of Lucas Bryant Benefield. 
October 2, 2011-February 12, 2012
www.justiceforlucas.blogspot.com"

We're posting this a day early in case any of our friends would like to participate.


Thank you for reading and for your continued thoughts and prayers.



----jaime

Beware the Ides of October

Brent's trial is set for October 21st.  Unfortunately, this will mean he will miss another one of his daughter's birthdays.  She has been a brave little soldier through this ordeal, and hopefully will be reunited with her daddy soon.  I feel that saying anything more at this time would be counterproductive.  Even though it is scheduled for the 21st, it has already been pushed back, and could likely be pushed again. Thank you all for your continued support.



<3


---jaime

How you can help

It's been a while since I've posted anything because, as I've said before, unless things are public documents, I can't share details of an on-going investigation.  I can say that even though Brent's trial was supposed to start sometime this month, it has now been moved back to "sometime between October and December" of this year.  In review, he has been held in the Wichita County Jail since April 17th of last year, being treated like a criminal, even though he has not been convicted of anything.  He has missed birthdays, holidays and many other milestones in his children's lives.  We do not want him to have to wait until then. 
I have set up a fundraising campaign through Fund Anything (www.fundanything.com).  They suggest offering a reward for people who donate, so I am going to post photos of the rewards here in a post to follow.  This is brief, as I have a lot to work on, but more details will follow!

thanks for reading


---jaime

www.facebook.com/justiceforlucas

Tomorrow

Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of the day that Lucas Bryant Benefield was removed from life support following non-accidental trauma on February 8th, 2012.  I have thought and thought of the best thing to say...the best way to remember him...and I'm blank.  When a grandparent or other loved one passes away after a long, full life, happy memories can be shared.  Stories can be told.  My family has learned the hard way that when an infant passes away, there is only pain. 
Thank you all for your support the past year.  We are still working diligently on the justice that Lucas deserves, but because of the sensitive nature of legal proceedings, that is all I am liberty to say right now.


<3


---jaime

Just another day...

Today is Brent's birthday.  I thought about not mentioning it at all, but then maybe some of you would like to drop him a note.  Obviously it won't get to him on his birthday, but everything I send him is through snail-mail, so who knows when stuff gets there.  It definitely lifts his spirits to hear from friends, even ones he hasn't met.

If you are so inclined, here is the address:

Brent Benefield
AD9214 57122 S/19
P.O. Box 8526
Wichita Falls, TX  76307

I spoke with an attorney friend last night who told me about a case where a woman sat in jail on a first degree murder charge and (it was a long story) when it came before the judge at trial, he threw it out, saying it was the most clear-cut case of self-defense he had ever seen.  It amazes me that someone can sit in jail for over a year when all of the evidence points away from that person.  Thanks to prosecutors, this happens.  Thanks a lot.  At least it gave me a little hope, and I'll take what I can get these days.

Thanks for reading and sharing


<3

---jaime

Denied.

The appeal that we have all been waiting on (the writ of habeas corpus) was denied on Friday by the Circuit Court of Appeals.  That means that unless someone posts bail for him, Brent will have to sit in jail under his trial, which is supposed to be in mid-May.  It was quite a blow to all of us.  They did not even give a reason for the denial.
I am focusing on raising money for an attorney to work with the Public Defender.  I say work with because the public defender's office has worked on this case for so long, they are the most familiar with it, and would be able to assist a private attorney with the massive amount of information.
In other news...Brent asked me to make some pillows for Jenna out of superhero t-shirts.  That's what he usually wears, and Jenna loves to sleep in them.  I bought a Spiderman and Superman shirt and did as he asked.  There are pictures below.  Her mom says she sleeps with them every night, so that makes me happy.  More information coming soon.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

<3

---jaime

Darlin, you give lawyer a bad name...

Hopefully all of you had safe and happy holidays.  You may have noticed that I haven't posted in a while.  We tried to maintain some sense of normalcy, as difficult as that was, so I didn't do any updates here.  Lucas was not left out--below are pictures of a Christmas/New Year's visit to his grave.

I am told that the absolute latest the circuit court in Ft. Worth that is reviewing Brent's habeas corpus writ appeal can rule on it is the end of this month.  That means if they rule in his favor, he could be released before his trial (whenever that will be).  If they rule against him, he will have to continue to sit in a tiny jail cell and be treated like a criminal, even though he has not been convicted of anything.  That's just how our wonderful system works.  I would say, "justice" system, but the more dealings I have with this, the more apparent it becomes that it is just like any other business system.  The more money you spend, the more valid your opinions, options and general well-being.

Pretty much every profession has certain stereotypes that come along with it.  My degree is in dental hygiene, and people make comments frequently about dentists having the highest suicide rate of any profession.  Statistically, yes, that is true.  I've worked for many, many dentists over the years temping in the Dallas area, and while many of them are a bit off-kilter, I've yet to hear of one that I know committing suicide.  Teachers are seen as kind-hearted.  Firefighters are seen as brave.  The list goes on and on, and while these are sweeping generalizations, there is some bit of truth that fuels the perceptions. 

Then, there are lawyers.  I have friends who are lawyers, and they are great people.  Intelligent, fun, all-around great people.  But we all know that the stereotype for lawyers involves terms generally associated with smarmy crooks.  Until this case, I had not had the displeasure of dealing with someone who lived up to the stereotype so perfectly.  One of Lucas's birth mother's attorneys is the embodiment of an ego who has NO scruples and is supremely concerned with money, totally disregarding "justice" and what is morally right. 

The points of this case regarding Lucas's birth mother that I have been allowed to share on this blog are so very limited.  If it hasn't been said in open court or posted in a public document, I can't talk about it.  As "just" a citizen, I do not enjoy the same protections as legal professionals, reporters, etc.  The best way for me to illustrate the rest of the information that I have personally seen/witnessed is this:  take the information on the writ of habeas corpus about her wanting to "throw the baby out the window", yelling at Lucas, not taking her prescribed anti-psychotic and depression medications, being in contempt of court, and realizing what type of person we are dealing with, multiply.  And keep multiplying.  Then multiply some more.  Because every time I get new information, it is worse. 

After all of the trials and hearings, the truth will come out.  In the mean time, I ask you to imagine what type of person, knowing all of this and more, would stand up for her in court?  How low would a lawyer have to go to see all of these facts and still make false accusations about innocent people to help Lucas's birth mother.  I really don't know how this person sleeps at night.  I don't know how one can look at this case and choose to help someone so truly horrible.  Is the money really worth it?  Would you, the reader, trust someone like her to babysit your children?  She is a teacher.  Would you want her being with your children all day?  She isn't even allowed access to her surviving child without direct supervision.  Would you accept money to represent this person?  These are just some of the questions that make me lose sleep.  I can only wonder if this attorney loses any sleep over it.  I doubt it.

thank you for reading and sharing.

<3

---jaime