I mean, how do we know he did it? >> No one's saying that he did. I mean, no one saw, you know, it's >> to be honest. Just what we have is that the window was broken and then she saw came outside with at the time when she came downstairs to check the >> right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you, sir. >> Yes, judge. >> In a Harris County, Texas courtroom on February 11th, 2025, a judge faced a complex case involving a defendant, Mr. Franklin accused of criminal mischief and a prior terroristic threat charge. The right to a fair trial is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees an impartial tribunal and the right to counsel. The judge demonstrated fairness by questioning the lack of physical evidence tying Franklin to the broken window. when presented with the complainant's claim that she saw him walking away from her shattered back door. Despite the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, Franklin holding a stuffed animal with a concealed knife, the judge refused to rush to judgment. Instead, she ordered a formal bond hearing to scrutinize the allegation of Franklin possessing a weapon potentially in violation of his bond conditions. On February 11th, 2025, the officer responded to a physical disturbance at a resident in Harris County, Texas. Dispatch advised that the caller was reporting he had a knife and was going to stab someone because they were bothering him about a broken window. The officer made contact with the defendant and the complainant and the defendant stated he called the officer. The defendant was found to be in possession of a green stuffed animal which had a fixed blade kitchen knife concealed inside. The defendant stated the complainant came to his house with her roommate accusing him of breaking a window at her apartment. >> Whoa, whoa, hold. You're going really fast. >> Yes, sir. The defendant called the officer. >> Okay. He said that the complainant had come to his house with her roommate, accusing him of breaking a window at her apartment. The defendant stated he was walking back to his apartment and that the complainant came out the back door to her apartment, but then he changed the story saying that she came out the front door to his of her apartment to confront him. The complainant stated that the defendant stated that the complainant came with a gun, though he did not see the gun. The complainant stated that she was laying in bed, heard a glass window in the back door break, jumped up, ran to the back door, and saw the defendant walking away from the door holding a green stuffed animal with a knife. Apartment management stated the cost to repair the window was $200. >> There's a lot of randomness in it, judge. Um, the only thing my concern is who broke the window. Did he break the window? And your honor, so according to the D, what hap what the complaintant says that she saw him walking away. She heard the broken window. She came outside and saw him walking away. And then that's what we have in the D. And I spoke with her yesterday as well. She repeated the same thing that he was the only one there when the window was broken. And that's what she said. She saw him outside the window door when it was broken. >> He's walking away. He he actually calls the police because he's being harassed by this woman because she's saying that he broke a window and I don't think there's any list of physical evidence like glass on him or anything or ends the whatever stuffed animal. >> At what point did the cops come and did they arrest him on the spot? >> What do we have any other physical evidence? Do they >> we have the two brother just complain that he was approximately 20 ft away from the back door when she saw him and that the officer found the window to be shattered and then the complainant showed the back door to her apartment. >> I mean how do we know that he did? >> No one's saying that he did. I mean no one saw you know it's >> to be honest just what we have is that the window was broken and then she saw came outside with at the time when she came downstairs to check out. That's what we have. >> I get it. I get it. I don't think it's enough. >> However, the fact is we're still having issues with the same complaining witness. I now have to take more drastic action to make to ensure nothing happens in the future. So now what I'm going to do is I'm putting an ankle monitor on it and I'm barring him from going within 5 500 ft of where she she lives where she works. Yes, judge. Um ankle monitor just want to make sure it's ELM and not Scrant. >> Correct. Okay. As fees be waved. Okay. Um, I'll add they live from each other. Alex, do you know complex? >> It was described as across the street. >> When I spoke to the complainant, she said that he did not live across the street that he was staying at a friend's house, but he told officers that she lives across the street. >> So, what I'm doing, Mr. Franklin, is I'm going to put a monitor on your ankle and there is a radius of where you cannot go where this person lives or works. And I mean, we may have issues with bomb conditions as it is because if I ordered him not to have weapons on the terroristic threat and they show me that or they prove to me that you have weapons, I'm going to put your butt in jail. >> Um, so maybe we should have a formal bond hearing to see if in fact you can prove that he has a weapon. >> Wait. So I have some hesitancy about everything, judge. mostly because my client's orange sheet is quite extensive. So, the the jail has diagnosed multiple me mental illnesses. I'm trying to track down his competency cuz I was appointed um I think December. So, there's been prior competency motions. Um I'm trying to get the reports from them. Um which is difficult cuz the I forget what agency does the mental health evaluations. They're saying that they don't exist. So, I'm trying to I'm trying to find his mental health records. stretch and I it seems to me like it's uh bipolar schizophrenia um or schizoeffective and so I think that my client is likely going to have severe mental health issues which have been causing issues um and I think that's going to be the heart of all this and so I'm trying to fish for treatment the case is just brand new is the problem you have ordered not to be in possession of any weapons and they're telling me now that you have a new case and that you are have an alleged knife as well. I want to set this for a formal hearing on Monday and if they show me that you have a weapon in violation of your bond conditions, I'm going to bring it. Do you understand? You are not to be in possession of any weapons whatsoever. Get a hold of your witnesses. Get a hold of the cop. Let's have a formal hearing on Monday to show me whether you whether he's in possession of a weapon or not. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Judge. >> In the meantime, like I said, if I find that you become a danger to my community, it's really not going to go well for you. Do you understand, Mr. Franklin? There is no excuse. You will get this ankle monitor today and you're not to go within 500 ft of where this complaining witness lives or works. >> If I can politely ask judge that we reset for more than Monday only because this case is new enough that there's literally no offense report. So I don't know officer's names or >> case. So the the new case the criminal mischief which will be the allegation for the motion >> find no probable cause in the criminal mischief. Well, but the problem is your honor is that it's on the criminal mission that we have the officer that saw the alleged knife. So, we'd have to get in contact. We don't have the O. We have the name. I could reach out, but we don't have the O to give defense. So, that way they can review. And >> so, the the allegation and it's it's we don't have an O, so we're reading DIMs. So, the allegation sounds like the officer saw a knife or maybe the CW saw a knife. It's it's unclear. >> To me, it sounded like both he saw a knife. So, that's why. So, I mean, I guess I'll give you a full week. You know, that should be sufficient for you to get an O, get in contact with both witnesses. >> Just to clarify for both parties here, the officer is the one that said when he contacted him, he's found the defendant possession of the knife. >> Okay, let's have a hearing. Get this guy over here. If you need to subpoena him, do it. So that in today's Wednesday, we'll have a hearing next Wednesday. Thank you, Judge. The judge's decision to place an ankle monitor on Franklin and impose a 500 ft restriction from the complainant's home and workplace was a measured step to balance community safety with a defendant's rights. Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 17.40, a judge may impose reasonable conditions of bond to protect the community and ensure the defendant's compliance. Recognizing Franklin's documented mental health struggles, including possible bipolar disorder or schizopeeffective disorder, the judge avoided immediate incarceration, which could have exacerbated his condition. She acknowledged the defense attorney's efforts to secure mental health records, stating, "I think that's going to be the heart of all this," and pushed for treatment rather than punishment. By setting a hearing a week later to allow the defense time to gather evidence and witness testimony, the judge countered the risk of a hasty conviction driven by an officer's potentially biased report of a knife. This judicial oversight ensured Franklin's right to due process was upheld, shielding him from a system where an overzealous officer's actions could have led to unjust consequences. This next case is mind-blowing. >> The right to remain silent. Anything you say can will be used against you. Rex had an attorney present if she cannot afford one want to be appointed to you was slapping and punching the honor. Um the defendant's girlfriend law enforcement officers were dispatched to a disturbance at 70 call to Woods Creekide on duty. >> Law enforcement officers observed a white male sitting on the curb of uh Kendall Road arguing with his girlfriend on the cell phone. Law enforcement officers uh >> law enforcement officers had received an additional call of a disturbance of two parties coming from neighborhood uh two individuals coming from a neighborhood party. Um they observed the complainant and defendant to be highly intoxicated. Uh an Uber had picked them both up and they both started fighting in the Uber. The Uber drivers uh pulled over >> fighting in the Uber. in the Uber. Okay, sure. Um the Uber driver pulled over. Um the Uber driver stated uh to officers that the defendant was slapping and punching the complainant who was his girl who was the defendant's girlfriend. Um and the Uber driver had called the security officer on duty to get help with the situation. Um I'm sorry, your honor. This is it's reading direct DVDs here. I don't know if Sebastian's had a chance to even look at it yet. >> I'm sorry. Actually, stay stay close to that area. We don't come here. Stay close to that area. >> Okay. Sorry. >> So, we're just doing PC. All I've heard so far is that they're both highly intoxicated, arguing he's allegedly punching and slapping in an Uber car. That's all I've heard so far. >> So, then Uber driver pulled over, called a security officer on duty. Um but the defendant got out and started walking. The security guard followed him until he got to the beginning of the subdivision. Then officers arrived and observed the defendant on the sidewalk. Officer tried to talk to the defendant. The defendant started to tell the officer, "Leave me the [ __ ] alone. You people are a piece of [ __ ] and that's all you'll do is treat people with no respect." um started off the defendant started walking towards me. Officer, dropped the pill bottles and kept saying, "Leave me alone. Get away from me." Um officer asked the defendant what it was that they were trying to hide. Uh defendant said that that's my marijuana. Uh defendant was combative, telling the officer to [ __ ] off. I also made contact with the complainant witness said they were a party. They both got drunk and started fighting when they got in the Uber. Um, and the complainant witness uh stated that she did not feel pain. >> I think that's what we're seeing any visible injuries, anything of this nature, >> as far as that goes. Um what's in the dens here is that the uh witness stated that he observed the defendant with enough force that she covered her face, fell to the floor. Um and that the witness observed the the complainant based on her actions to appear to be in pain. Um specifically that it was that the punch was of such a force that it caused her to fall to the floor of the vehicle and covered her face after she was punched. not rules about that. >> Again, no answer no to answer your question. There's no indication that there were any injuries at all, any marks, and um as he just read, she said she was not did not feel pain. She did not want to press charges and I have an prosecution as well that I'm going to be getting to the state. >> Yeah. So, as far as uh bodily injury goes, of course, we don't need necessarily direct evidence. Pain can be something that can be inferred based on conduct. understand that, you know, the punch of a certain amount of force from a witness's perspective. >> Did they get any statements from the person who saw the punch to >> I that was the Uber driver and that's what the Uber driver said that based on what they saw the punch was had enough force that it caused her to fall to the ground covered in her face. >> But the officer goes into the complaining witness, I'm assuming, and doesn't see anything. >> I don't see any indication that they saw anything. and she says I feel okay and I do not want her charges. You know, Mr. Child, there are people in life when they drink, they're the life of the party, they're fun to be around, and then there are those when they consume alcohol, they turn into aggressive means son of a [ __ ] that just they have no business drinking. If this is you, don't drink. You have but one life. You start racking up cases. You start racking up convictions. All you're doing is you're hurting yourself. You know, be nice and good things happen. You're aggressive to cops. You're aggressive here. I mean, the only reason I'm finding no probable cause is because they wrote this report completely just utterly terrible. And it's over and over and over. But >> don't drink if you're going to be an alle. You know, really, we have enough death and dismemberment in our city now as it is. Don't be on the news. >> All right, I'm going to find no probable cause. >> Thank you, judge. >> As the courtroom drama unfolded, the judge not only scrutinized the weak probable cause, but also addressed Mr. Child's behavior, urging him to avoid alcohol if it fueled aggression. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure section 2.01 mandates that it was officers must act with fairness and accuracy in presenting evidence to ensure justice. The judge criticized the officers for their utterly terrible report which failed to substantiate claims of assault with concrete evidence such as visible injuries or consistent witness statements. By dismissing the case due to insufficient probable cause, the judge protected Mr. child from a potential year in jail or a $4,000 fine, demonstrating how a discerning judiciary can counteract hasty or biased police work. This ruling served as a reminder that justice requires precision, not assumptions, and that good judges can shield citizens from the consequences of bad policing. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.