Attack on district judge highlighted concerns about how officials handle threats
By Tony Plohetski
Austin American-Statesman
and KVUE-TV
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Hundreds of Texas judges say they have feared for their safety, both inside their courtrooms and at home, but didn’t know they are legally required to report threats and other dangers, according to a survey commissioned after a November attack on state District Judge Julie Kocurek.
The Austin American-Statesman and KVUE-TV report the study by the state Office of Court Administration confirmed what the newspaper reported in January about lax reporting of potential dangers facing Texas judges. Agency officials said such information is necessary to determine whether they should seek more money from the Legislature for judicial and courthouse security.
“I think it pointed out a few issues that we were not expecting, but, for the most part, I think it confirmed what judges had been telling us throughout the past few months about the situations in their counties,” said David Slayton, administrative director of the Office of Court Administration. Slayton said some of the more surprising results aren’t included in a publicly released report to prevent possible attackers from learning about security vulnerabilities.
In response to the survey results, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht has appointed a permanent committee to study security and to issue recommendations. Travis County state District Judge Scott Jenkins will head the committee; members also will include state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, Court of Appeals Justice Bill Boyce of Houston, Dallas County Justice of the Peace Valencia Nash and Kilgore Municipal Judge Glenn Phillips.
State officials commissioned the survey after the Nov. 6 attack on Kocurek in the driveway of her Tarrytown home. Police say they think a defendant in her court, Chimene Onyeri of Houston, opened fire on Kocurek weeks before a hearing in which prosecutors were seeking to revoke his probation on a larceny charge that would have sent him to prison.
The attack highlighted concerns about how officials locally handled a threat against an unnamed judge about two weeks before the attack — and whether authorities have written protocols for how to handle such threats. The Statesman found most large counties did not.
Kocurek returned to the bench Monday, greeted by hundreds of well-wishers.
The survey included responses from 1,115 judges of all ranks, including district, county and municipal judges, and asked an array of questions about courthouse security and personal safety.
According to the responses, 38 percent reported that, during the past two years, they felt afraid at least once while at work, most frequently after receiving verbal or written threats. However, the number who reported fearing for their safety outside of work increased to 42 percent.
The Office of Court Administration survey found about 40 percent of judges were aware of a “security incident” in the past two years, including disorderly behavior, attempted physical assaults, verbal threats against a judge or someone attempting to bring a weapon into a courtroom.
Yet last year, counties reported just five instances of threats against a judge, court staff or juror, compared with 18 in 2014.
The survey also included possible reasons judicial threats are underreported to the state, as required by a 2007 law. The survey found 64 percent of judges didn’t know about the reporting requirement, and, among those who did, a quarter didn’t know who is responsible for reporting such threats.
The survey also focused on security of courthouses, finding that few have special entrances for judges and that secured parking for judges is “infrequent and a concern.”
“An additional concern raised is that security screening at public entrances is inconsistent, with almost half of the courthouses containing no screening at public entrances,” the study found. “Movement inside the courthouse is generally unrestricted, with a significant number of courthouses containing no separation in hallways utilized by the public and judges.”
According to the survey, most judges said they would be interested in attending a workshop to educate them about “best practices in courthouse and personal security.”
An American-Statesman review in January found that, even though threats against judges appear to happen often in Texas, Travis County isn’t alone in operating under sometimes loosely defined security protocols. Determining the frequency of threats across Texas is also difficult because of underreporting by counties to the state, despite a law requiring them to do so.
The survey, by the numbers:
• More than 1,000 judges across the state, including district, county, municipal and appellate judges, participated in a recent survey about judicial security.
• 38 percent feared for safety at work in past two years.
• 42 percent feared for safety outside of work in past two years.
• 64 percent didn’t know of requirement to report threats to state.
• 25 percent didn’t know who is required to report threats to state.
