Texas Senate passes legislation to keep some defendants in jail without bail. Here's why.
If approved by the Legislature and Texas voters, Senate Joint Resolution 1, or "Jocelyn's Law," would keep persons without authority to be in the U.S. who are charged with felonies behind bars until trial. The upper chamber passed the proposed constitutional amendment by 29-2 vote Wednesday.
Another proposal, SJR 5, would give judges wider discretion to deny bail for certain violent charges like murder and aggravated sexual assault. The Senate passed that proposed constitutional amendment by a 28-2 vote Thursday.
Under the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights, judges may only deny bail under specific circumstances. Houston Republican Sen. Joan Huffman, who authored the legislation, said the current constitutional requirement to offer bail to some defendants, even if a judge might find them to be dangerous, is a massive public safety risk.
"Since January 2021 … there have been at least 162 homicide cases filed in Harris County, Texas, for defendants released on one or more bonds at the time of a new murder offense," Huffman said Thursday on the Senate floor. "Think about that — 162 people needlessly killed, families grieving and suffering because this Legislature failed to enact common-sense, fair legislation."
It was not immediately clear how many of those cases included defendants who were released on bail after being charged with a violent felony. The Senate adopted similar proposals in 2021 and 2023, but those died in the House.
Four out of the five pieces of bail reform legislation Huffman authored were passed out of committee last week during a hearing that included emotional testimony from surviving family members of homicide victims.
More: Denying bail? Why a Texas Senate panel approved reform plan to keep some defendants in jail
Witnesses at the committee hearing included the mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, after whom SJR 1 is named. Nungaray's body was found in a Houston bayou in June after she was allegedly bound, sexually assaulted and strangled to death by two men who are believed to be in the U.S. illegally, according to authorities.
Though the two defendants remain in jail awaiting trial in Harris County with bail set at $10 million each, Huffman argued that giving them a chance to post bail at all could pose a problem.
"These two men were not denied bail for the murder of Jocelyn, even (with) the preponderance of the evidence that existed at arraignment and the fact that their illegal alien status presented a major flight risk," Huffman said. "If these men had had the financial means, they could be out on the streets today."
Opponents of the Senate's bail reform package said Wednesday during a call with reporters that the legislation is unjust and could further burden an already stressed pretrial system in Texas.
"Not only is this bill unnecessary — judges can and already do detain people pretrial without bail — but it is also dangerous. It threatens to not only undermine public safety by subjecting more people to incarceration, but also to undermine due process protections and increase taxpayer burdens," said Emma Stammen, a policy strategist with the Bail Project.
Organizations like the Bail Project, which provides bail assistance to low-income defendants, are advocating for bail reform that is opposite to what the Senate passed this week. Stammen said the organization supports proposals like House Bill 799 by Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, that would largely eliminate cash bail for defendants charged with a misdemeanor or state jail felony. The bill would require magistrate judges to release those defendants pretrial unless the judge believes they would pose a public safety or flight risk.
"This bill is really important, because more than half of Texans who are held in custody before trial have been accused of low-level, nonviolent offenses, and the system in Texas really should be focusing on dangerous people who actually pose a threat to society," Stammen said.
The Senate passed four bail reform bills Wednesday and Thursday by a significant majority. All four now head to the House of Representatives. The two proposed constitutional amendments would need the support of two-thirds of the House and a majority of Texas voters to become law.
Senate Joint Resolution 1: This would amend the Texas Constitution to prevent defendants charged with a felony and suspected of being in the U.S. illegally from being released on bail.
Senate Joint Resolution 5: This proposed constitutional amendment would allow judges to deny bail to defendants charged with certain violent crimes, like murder and aggravated sexual assault.
Senate Bill 9: This bill would change a number of things about the bail system, including increasing the amount of information available to judges when setting bail. It would also require judges who do not deny bail for certain violent charges to provide a written statement on the reasoning for their decision.
Senate Bill 40: This bill would prevent public money from being transferred to charitable bail organizations like the Bail Project.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Senate OKs bills to keep some defendants in jail without bail
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


American Press
29 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.


The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrat predicts ‘day of reckoning' for private prison employees
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) on Wednesday said private prison employees would have to answer to their treatment of inmates amid the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration and as more detention facilities may pop up around the U.S. 'There, at some point, is going to be a reckoning for all of this,' Ossoff told MSNBC during an appearance on 'The Weeknight.' 'These folks who are working at these private prison companies, who are on Kristi Noem's staff right now, they are at some point going to have to testify under oath about what is happening in the facilities that they're currently running,' he added. Democrats have slammed Republicans for rejecting their attempts to conduct oversight at facilities where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold detained migrants awaiting deportation. Some state lawmakers were also denied entry to 'Alligator Alcatraz' last month, the detention center in the Florida Everglades. They have also been critical of President Trump's robust immigration agenda, with turmoil rising after lawmakers joined with protestors outside of an ICE center in New York earlier this year and anti-ICE protests sprung up in Southern California and beyond in opposition to an uptick in deportation raids after the administration sent National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles to quell demonstrations. Families of those detained and human rights groups have said their loved ones are suffering from abuse while in ICE custody, such as a lack of clean water and electricity. 'We're talking about pregnant women. We're talking about children,' Ossoff told MSNBC's Alicia Menendez. 'We're talking about people who have no business being in one of these horrible detention centers.' 'And, you know, I believe that the American people have rejected this draconian and inhumane approach to interior enforcement,' the lawmaker continued. 'But in terms of my Republican colleagues, no spine is yet visible in the Senate.' The Georgia Democrat also noted that the treatment is 'indefensible' citing what he said is over 500 credible reports of abuses. House and Senate Democrats joined forces to send a Wednesday letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem hoping to address the alleged injustices. 'Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, [DHS] has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health and violate federal law,' Democrats wrote in a letter to Noem inquiring about operations at 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's unclear if they've received a response.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Maine's Mamdani': Maine GOP chief issues warning about new challenger looking to oust Susan Collins
The latest addition to the pool of Democrats seeking to challenge Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is doubling down on Zohran Mamdani-style socialism, says the chief of Maine's Republican Party. Democrat Graham Platner launched his campaign highlighting his history as an Army and Marine veteran as well as an oyster farmer, but state GOP chief Jason Savage told Fox News Digital that rural accolades aren't policy positions. He pointed to Platner's hiring of a top Mamdani advisor, Morris Katz, to produce his campaign launch video. In that video, Platner rails against the "oligarchy" and endorses universal healthcare. His website features messaging that claims the U.S. has a "billionaire economy," and that – if elected – Platner would view it as a key part of his job "to dismantle" it. "Graham Platner is Maine's Mamdani," Savage told Fox News Digital in an interview. "He brought in the Mamdani team to support his campaign. He's out doing a lot of work with socialist groups.… He's a Bernie bro." Senate Democrats Are Feverishly Recruiting Top Candidates To Win Back Majority In 2026 Midterms "What we're seeing here is the exporting of the Mamdani ideology to the state of Maine because they think that they can gain ground in a small state where things aren't as expensive," he added. Read On The Fox News App Trump Ally Mike Collins Launch Key Battleground State Bid To Flip Democrat-held Senate Seat "You can look through Graham Platner's donor history, and you can see that he donated to Harris for President, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar," he continued, arguing that far-left candidates are a major threat to the Democratic Party. Platner's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. "If commonsense Democrats, and then the leadership like [Sen.] Chuck Schumer don't do something and say that isn't the future of our party, then they're gonna run in a bunch of these races. and we're gonna beat them," he said. Savage argued that the Democratic Party's embracing of the far left is a "double-edged sword." He said Democratic candidates can't succeed without the "extreme wing" of the party, and now "they've created a monster that they don't have the ability to control." "In the long run, it's going to be catastrophic for them. I mean, Graham Platner advocates for allowing men to be in girls' and women's sports," Savage said. "He advocates for all sorts of policies that are very, very unpopular, and the Democrats can't say anything to stop that." The Democratic challenger list against Collins is growing, and reports say those already in office are trying to tap Janet Mills, the state's 77-year-old Democratic governor, for the seat. Republicans currently control the majority of the Senate by a 53-47 margin. Democrats would need to flip four seats in the 2026 midterm elections to take the majority. A spokesperson for Collins told Fox News Digital that Platner is "just another progressive entering the race." Fox News' Pilar Arias contributed to this report Original article source: 'Maine's Mamdani': Maine GOP chief issues warning about new challenger looking to oust Susan Collins