FORT WORTH – If a judge is going to slap stun cuffs on an accused child predator in his or her courtroom, make sure there’s a record as to why the defendant is zapped three times during the trial – that’s the lesson a Texas judge learned recently.
On Aug. 19, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct hit Judge George Gallagher, who presides over the 396th District Court in Tarrant County, with a public warning.
According to the commission’s findings, in 2016 Judge Gallagher presided over a criminal case against Terry Lee Morris. Because of Morris’ disruptive behavior at pretrial hearings, Judge Gallagher’s bailiffs recommended a stun cuff be placed on his ankle for the trial.
During the trial, Judge Gallagher ordered his bailiffs to activate Morris’ stun cuff three times. The activation of the cuffs caused Morris injury and resulted in his refusal to return to the courtroom for his own trial. Judge Gallagher concluded the guilt-innocence phase of the trial while Morris was absent.
Morris was tried and convicted on one count of soliciting the sexual performance of a child.
On appeal, the El Paso Court of Appeals overturned Morris’ conviction and ordered a new trial, finding Judge Gallagher did not order the activation of the stun cuff for legitimate security purposes.
In response to the commission’s inquiries, Judge Gallagher explained he ordered the activation because Morris began moving from behind the defense counsel table into the court well and posed a security threat to others in the courtroom.
The trial court’s record is devoid of any description of a security threat.
However, written statements from those present at the trial, including Morris’ attorney, support the judge’s version of events.
“In his appearance before the Commission, Judge Gallagher testified the sole reason he ordered the activation of Mr. Morris’ stun cuff was for security purposes but admitted this was not fully apparent from the record of the proceeding,” the commission’s findings state.
“Judge Gallagher expressed his opinion that his failure to adequately preserve the record resulted in the El Paso Court of Appeals making the findings it did with respect to this matter.”