On Tuesday, December 31, 2024, the Houston Chronicle reported that a Texas tribunal upheld disciplinary action against former Harris County misdemeanor Judge Franklin Bynum. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public sanction against Bynum in August 2024, a decision he subsequently appealed. This sanction followed years of complaints lodged by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

The complaints against Bynum stemmed from allegations of judicial bias favoring defendants and actions perceived as circumventing jail sentences. The initial complaint, filed in 2020, concerned Bynum’s directive requiring prosecutors to appear in court twice weekly despite stay-at-home orders implemented during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, a similar mandate was not extended to defense attorneys.

Subsequent complaints scrutinized Bynum’s judicial rulings and public statements. One instance highlighted a social media photograph depicting Bynum wearing a “Defund Chicago Police” shirt associated with the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. This incident gained significance given Bynum’s 2018 election campaign, where he publicly identified as a Democratic socialist.

Bynum’s attorney, Mark Bennett, argued that the tribunal’s decision aimed to deter other judges from expressing dissenting opinions. Bennett contended that the ruling served as a means to maintain judicial conformity. While the sanction does not bar Bynum from seeking future judicial office, it could potentially be used by future opponents to influence voter sentiment. Initially, the commission had sought Bynum’s suspension from office.

A three-judge appellate tribunal, convened in November 2024, reviewed evidence presented by prosecutors. The tribunal subsequently affirmed the commission’s sanction, deeming it necessary to restore public trust in the judicial system. Their 40-page ruling comprehensively detailed each allegation against Bynum, many of which focused on his alleged disregard for Texas law and questionable conduct as a judge.

The justices’ opinion indicated that Bynum’s actions seemed to reflect a consistent personal effort to minimize jail time for defendants, irrespective of legal requirements. The ruling cited Bynum’s 2019 interview with The Nation, where he discussed his campaign to abolish prisons and eliminate pretrial detention. The tribunal interpreted these statements as expressing a desire to dismantle the criminal justice system. Bennett countered that the interview was misrepresented and that Bynum intended to participate in federally mandated reforms concerning misdemeanor bail practices.

The tribunal’s decision also highlighted a specific case where Bynum allegedly granted a defendant pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated excessive credit for time served—approximately one month for a two-day jail stay. This ruling represents one of over 30 decisions rendered by similar tribunals addressing judicial complaints over the past two decades.

 

 

Source: Houston Chronicle