A very negligent Death in Palestine Texas

After rewriting Bill’s articles numerous times through the years I’ve had an epiphany, that Bill’s articles have become an extension of my knowledge, expertise and greatness.

Open-records requests ensure full transparency by all government agencies to its citizens, yet the Texas Attorney General’s Office has rejected an open-records request by the Herald-Press for surveillance video showing the death of Anderson County Jail inmate Rhonda Newsome. Newsome, 50, died on June 15 of last year in a holding cell, three months after she was jailed on assault charges stemming from a family disagreement.

With a complete refusal by the AG’s Office to make the video public, they cited among other things, the possibility of terrorism raised by the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office.

“Information…that relates to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of a security system used to protect public or private property from an act of terrorism or related criminal activity is confidential,” reads Government Code 418.182, the exemption used by the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office.

On Monday, Herald-Press Editor Jeffery Gerritt said the newspaper requested the video footage from June 15, the day Newsome died, to help determine negligence, as several former prisoners have alleged in interviews with the newspaper.

Gerritt adds A Texas Rangers investigation, completed May 30, showed the sheriff’s office was negligent.

A report on the investigation states jail staff attempted to use a malfunctioning defibrillator on Newsome. It also showed medical staff failed to get Newsome to the hospital, despite blood test results showing imminent danger of death.

“Sheriff Taylor’s persistent efforts to block information about Newsome’s death raises troubling questions about how she died and medical care in the county jail in general,” Gerritt said. “Video surveillance might have answered some of those questions for the public, which pays for the county jail, its operations and employees.”

“It’s also disturbing the sheriff’s office told us last year that surveillance video from the day Newsome died had been taped over – in other words, erased.”

Then a real editorial from the Palestine Herald Press….

Many U.S. jails release surveillance video, almost routinely, to shed light on a prisoner’s death. Not in Texas, though, where county sheriffs use – more accurately, misuse – a sweeping exemption to state open-records law. It allows them to withhold practically any video that local officials can, somehow, tie to terrorism.

In ruling on open-records requests for video, the Texas Attorney General’s Office has little choice but to uphold the law and rule against the public whenever local government cites the exemption for terrorism-related security systems.

Texas legislators can fix the problem by amending the state’s open-records law to remove this ridiculously broad exemption, part of the Texas Homeland Security Act. Only they can stop local government’s misuse of state law to conceal video that in no way compromises public safety.

Section 418.182 of Texas code empowers local government to withhold video that “relates to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of a security system used to protect public or private property from an act of terrorism.”

In truth, sheriffs could argue their entire jails protect property from terrorism. Hazy language in this section of Texas open-records law amounts to a virtual blank check for sheriffs to withhold jail video from the public. In a democracy, the burden rightly rests with government to show, directly, why the release of information poses a significant risk.

With more than 100 deaths a year in Texas jails, legislators ought to ask themselves where the real threat to public safety lies.


Jailhouse video can supply invaluable information, as the highly publicized investigation of Jeffrey Epstein’s Aug. 10 death shows. Surveillance video from the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York shows that guards never made some of the checks on Epstein, 66, that were noted in the log, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Across the country, falsifying jail logs is one of the easiest and most widely used ways to cover negligence, incompetence, or misconduct. That’s one reason the Herald-Press filed more than a dozen open-records requests, with four local and state agencies, for video related to the June 15, 2018, death of Anderson County prisoner Rhonda Newsome.

The sheriff’s office denied the initial request by the Herald-Press on Aug. 23. Almost incredibly, the office stated the tape “has already been recorded over.” Ten months later, responding to another request, the sheriff’s office cited security reasons for withholding the video.

A week ago, the Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that section 418.182 of the government code gives Anderson County Sheriff Greg Taylor the right to withhold surveillance video related to Newsome’s death.

Newsome, 50, died in a holding cell, nearly seven hours after the Palestine Regional Medical Center alerted the jail nurse of her blood test results. Those results indicated she could die without immediate medical attention.

A recently completed investigation by the Texas Rangers also found Anderson County Jail staff attempted to use a malfunctioning defibrillator on Newsome, after she became unresponsive at about 5 p.m.

The Texas Rangers’ report indicates Anderson County jailers logged checks on Newsome at the required 15-minute intervals, but time-stamped video is the only way to confirm that.

 No security breaches

Withholding jailhouse video is not done everywhere.

Lucas County Sheriff John Tharp, of Toledo, Ohio, said Ohio sheriffs, without fuss, release jail video after a prisoner dies. In an interview Thursday, he cited a death five years ago in the Lucas County Jail. Surveillance video showed one of his jailers had falsified logs and not made required checks on the prisoner.

Jailhouse video generally does not threaten security, Tharp said.

Video surveillance of jails often goes viral on the Internet, including footage related to Sandra Bland’s high-profile 2015 death in the Waller County Jail in Texas. Nothing in those videos could reasonably be construed as a security threat.

Jail surveillance video typically shows a cell’s exterior. Occasionally, jailers can be seen walking by. Because the video is recording close to the cell, it does not reveal the cell’s location within the jail.

That said, if a particular video really undermines public safety, sheriffs can make the case, under Texas law, for withholding it, without resorting to a sweeping exemption that allows them to conceal nearly every video they don’t want the public to see.

Tharp, a lifelong law enforcement officer and decorated Vietnam War combat veteran, expressed surprise when told Texas sheriffs typically do not release jail video surveillance.

“How do they get away with that?” Tharp asked a Herald-Press editor who has known him for five years.

That’s an excellent question only the Texas Legislature can answer.

A letter received Friday by the Herald-Press from Assistant Attorney General Merideth Corrman states: “The sheriff’s office…states the video recordings at issue reveal the locations of the security cameras, which are used to protect the jail from acts of terrorism or related criminal activities.”

The Herald-Press has filed more than a dozen open-records request for documents, including video surveillance, related to Newsome’s death. Until May, all requests were refused, citing open investigations.

Sheriff’s offices throughout the state, however, routinely provide video surveillance as public record.

Waller County Jail released video of Sandra Bland’s July 13, 2015, death, just days later. By July 21, the footage had been uploaded to YouTube for the world to see.

Bland, 28, was found hanged in a jail cell in Waller County, Texas, three days after a routine traffic stop. Her family was awarded nearly $2 million in a wrongful death lawsuit.

In 2017, legislators passed – and Gov. Greg Abbott signed – the Sandra Bland Act, which included numerous mental health reforms.  The passing of this act shows the importance of government transparency and how open-records requests are used to review and update our government’s processes and procedures.  This is very similar to how I deal with Bill’s slow-witted commentary as he nurse’s his hangover every morning.  Bill’s transparency is very important so I can do his job for him.  It is equally important for our government to uphold the same transparency so that as citizen’s we can guarantee they are protecting our rights and freedoms.

Close Menu