Outrage in Houston has erupted following the decision to set a $3 million bond for the second suspect charged with the capital murder of a Texas deputy. This ruling comes from the same judge who previously granted the first suspect release on a $1 million bond. The deputy, Fernando Esa, was tracking down an assault suspect when he was ambushed and shot multiple times by two gunmen. Witnesses placed both suspects at the scene.

Houston Police Union President Douglas Griffith expressed his frustration, criticizing the judge’s decision to grant bond to individuals accused of such a heinous crime. He stated that the judge prioritized the rights of criminals over the safety of law enforcement officers and the public. Griffith emphasized that these suspects could have been held without bond while awaiting trial, yet the judge chose to allow them the opportunity for release.

Prosecutors had filed a motion to hold Draymond Francis, the first suspect, without bond. However, due to a legal technicality requiring a bond hearing within ten days, the judge was reportedly forced to set the bond. Griffith refuted this claim, arguing that the judge had discretion to keep the suspect in custody, particularly given his extensive criminal history. He also pointed out that this same judge had previously allowed at least eight other suspects to be released on bond, only for them to later commit additional violent crimes, including murder.

The case has drawn widespread criticism, including from Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who condemned Judge Hillary Unger’s decision, calling it “outrageous.” Abbott emphasized the need for bail reform to prevent dangerous criminals from being released back into the community. The governor’s statement reflects growing concerns over repeat offenders being granted leniency and then committing further crimes.

This is not the first instance of judicial leniency leading to deadly consequences. A similar case occurred when another judge, Greg Glass, released a suspect on multiple felony bonds, only for that individual to kill a police officer. Griffith expressed frustration that Harris County continues to witness such incidents and called for stricter measures to prevent violent offenders from being released.

Adding to the controversy, questions have arisen regarding how Francis, who claimed to be indigent, was able to post the $1 million bond. The Houston Police Union has raised concerns over whether the funds were legally obtained.

In a rare occurrence, this marks the first time in over 20 years that a suspect charged with the capital murder of a police officer has been released on bond. The suspect is currently under house arrest, but many argue that ankle monitors provide little assurance of public safety. Former Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg criticized the judge’s decision, citing a pattern of releasing violent offenders despite clear evidence of their danger to society. Ogg revealed that more than 830 individuals are currently out on bond for murder or capital murder in the county.

Critics have also questioned the role of the new district attorney, arguing that the office has failed to push back against lenient judicial rulings. While judges ultimately set bond amounts, many believe the district attorney should have fought more aggressively to ensure these suspects remained in custody.

As the legal proceedings continue, Houston residents and law enforcement officials remain deeply concerned about the implications of these judicial decisions on public safety. The case has intensified the call for reform in the criminal justice system to prevent further tragedies caused by repeat offenders being released on bond.