Tumbleweed County

About this Data

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

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

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

County Findings

Defendants in Tumbleweed County were magistrated at the county jail by one of the county’s Justices of the Peace (JP). JPs filled out standard magistration forms, though two different forms were used during the period of data collection, and only one included a place for the magistrate to record the defendant’s desire to request counsel. Because the JP did not have authority to appoint counsel, any completed applications had to be collected by the JP and sent to a County Court judge for a final decision. Researchers verified magistrates used paper applications for appointed counsel, but did not find any completed applications in the files they reviewed.

Data Legend

1: Request for Counsel Documented. Cases were coded ‘filled out’ if the JP’s magistration form included whether the defendant wished to apply for appointed counsel . Cases were coded ‘left blank’ if the JP’s magistration form included a section to record the defendant’s desire to apply, but the section was not completed. Cases were coded ‘Form did not document request’ if the case was magistrated using a form that did not include a place to document the defendant’s desire to apply for counsel.

2: Counsel requested. In cases where researchers found forms that included a place for the JP to record the defendant’s desire to apply for counsel, and that field was completed, the defendant’s request was coded. Cases were coded ‘yes’ if the form indicated the defendant wished to request a court-appointed attorney. Cases were coded ‘no’ if the form indicated the defendant did not wish to request a court-appointed attorney.

3: Arraignment counsel status. The identity of a defendant’s attorney at arraignment was inferred from documents from that arraignment. Cases were coded as ‘court-appointed’ if the attorney’s name matched that on an approved application from a date on or before the arraignment. Cases were coded as ‘Retained’ if the attorney’s name matched that on a ‘letter of representation’ dated on or before the date of the arraignment. Some other cases were coded as ‘Retained’ when researchers found other documents (such as a notice of hearing or motion) that incidentally indicated an attorney was retained on the case. Cases were coded as ‘some kind of counsel’ if an attorney was listed on arraignment paperwork, but researchers found not evidence to establish whether the attorney was appointed or retained. Where no indication of an attorney’s presence at arraignment was found in arraignment documents, cases were coded as ‘unrepresented’.

 

Where the data came from

Center researchers collected files from 496 cases in the County Court Clerk’s office. The cases were disposed between January 1, 2016, and March 7, 2023.

County Clerk records rarely included magistration records. Center researchers also searched for magistration records in the office of the Justice of the Peace who magistrated the large majority of cases in the county, but none was found there. Center researchers next searched court files in county archives, but found no magistration records. Finally, Center researchers searched the electronic files of people admitted to the county jail, and discovered jail staff had scanned and stored magistration records in a large majority of cases dating back to August 10, 2018.

Center researchers ultimately found a total of 126 records of magistration, as shown in the diagram. 368 cases were omitted because researchers could not retrieve a magistration record. A further two cases were removed because they were magistrated under a substantially different process for defendant applications than described above.