Temple Trial Takeaways

As you doubtlessly know by now, the punishment phase of The State of Texas vs. David Temple ended in a mistrial on Friday after jurors failed to reach an agreement on an appropriate punishment for the man they easily convicted of murder.

I've heard from multiple credible sources that the split between the jurors was 10-2, with ten of the jurors demanding Life in prison for the man they convicted of killing his 8-month-pregnant wife, Belinda, by placing a shotgun to the back of her head and pulling the trigger.  The remaining two jurors were holding out for something far less and neither side seemed willing to budge from their position despite almost two days of deliberations.

A jury that convicts but then deadlocks over punishment is not unheard of, but it is fairly uncommon.  Since Temple was convicted of a 1999 murder, the law of 1999 applies to the case.  Back then a person could receive probation for murder, so Temple could technically receive it, as well.  Due to this, there is apparently an argument to be made that Temple could be placed on bond while awaiting his punishment.

If 178th District Court Judge Kelli Johnson elects to give Temple a bond, she will doubtlessly consider the brutality of the case, how many jurors wanted Life for Temple, and the fact that when released from jail in 2016, Temple vowed "for the people that lied and cheated who put me there to be held accountable."  Texas Attorney General Prosecutors Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner will likely point out that these combined factors make Temple a high flight risk with a revenge agenda who has nothing to lose.

Although the hung jury on punishment prevented bringing the 20-year saga of David Temple to a complete close, the fact that he was convicted again will more than suffice for the time being.

It has been a long and winding road that gave David Temple a second chance at getting away with murder, one that most murderers don't get.

Temple was originally convicted and sentenced to Life in 2007 in a trial that pitted Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler against prominent defense attorney Dick DeGuerin.  Despite the fact that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the case, DeGuerin lobbied the District Attorney's Office under then-D.A. (and Siegler's political rival) Pat Lykos to perform an off-the-books investigation into an alternate suspect.

In July of 2012, Pat Lykos was a "lame duck" D.A., having lost her bid for re-election to Mike Anderson in the Republican Primary.  DeGuerin asked then-1st Assistant Jim Leitner to "review" the Temple case before the Lykos Circus left town at the end of December.  Inexplicably, Leitner complied, as I detailed in this post.

Leitner had been informed that newly-minted defense attorney and former Harris County Homicide Lieutenant John Denholm had been sucking up to working for DeGuerin on developing an "alternate suspect" to the murder of Belinda Temple.  Despite the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeals had recently affirmed Temple's conviction, Leitner was more than happy to do DeGuerin's bidding and assigned Denholm's buddy (and current HCDA investigator) Steve Clappart to work on the case.

By September 2012, the dream team of Clappart and Denholm had drafted a Capital Murder warrant for the arrest of a "suspect" named Cody Ray Ellis based on evidence so absurd that I won't even address it in this post.  You can check out the legal document that these two nimwits tried to get signed by clicking here.   (NOTE:  Don't forget to scroll down to the transcript where Leitner testified that he would have signed that warrant.)

Here's a fun fact, in case you didn't pick up on it already:  During the retrial, Stan Schneider didn't even advance Ellis as his "alternate suspect," instead focusing on another teenager from the neighborhood, Riley Joe Sanders.  The juries in both the 2007 and 2019 trials quickly rejected all alternate suspects in favor of Temple.

In the meantime, DeGuerin (now joined by Stanley Schneider) filed an "Out of Time Motion for New Trial or Alternative Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Actual Innocence, Newly Discovered Evidence, and the Willful Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence." (Stanley apparently gets paid by the word.)  It is worth noting that during all of this, the Lykos Administration never bothered communicating what was going on to the family of Belinda Lucas Temple, which is something I noted here.


Wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety, Lykos appointed local defense attorney Brad Beers to be a "special prosecutor" on the Temple matter.  There was a small conflict of interest on that, however, seeing as how Beers had previously represented Clappart twice (once in a lawsuit and once on a disciplinary infraction within the Office).

All of this ultimately led to a hearing in 2015 that David Temple wasn't entitled to and that very few others have been the beneficiary of.  During that hearing, Stan Schnieder and then-licensed attorney Casie Gotro got to revisit the entirety of the Temple case.  That rendition of Team Temple rejected at least five judges to hear the extra-judicial hearing before settling on Judge Larry Gist.

As we all know, the multi-week hearing ultimately resulted in findings from Gist that Kelly Siegler had been untimely in turning over evidence to Dick DeGuerin during the 2007 trial, and recommended that Temple receive a new trial.  My opinion then and my opinion now is that Judge Gist wasn't paying attention to much of the evidence that he was hearing.  He certainly wasn't paying attention when he signed off on an order where Gotro and Schneider had slipped in an extra finding.

I know that I'm biased, because Kelly Siegler is one of my best friends, but I will go to my grave feeling that the District Attorney's response to Gist's finding, coupled with Houston Press journalist Craig Malisow's article Unreasonable Doubt: Did Kelly Siegler Really Railroad an Innocent Man Eight Years Ago held far more accurate accounts of the Temple hearing than Gist's findings.

Regardless of how I feel, or how Kelly Siegler's detractors feel, David Temple ultimately got his case reversed.  Due to Kelly's fame as one of the best prosecutors in the State of Texas, the Houston Chronicle writers were ecstatic.  Lisa Falkenberg wrote a really touching article on how Clappart and Denholm were heroic and brave for taking a stand in pursuing the "real killer," despite losing friends.

SPOILER ALERT:  Denholm and Clappart lost friends because everyone knew that they (and their warrant) were full of shit, Lisa.  They were full of shit then and they are full of shit now.  Just FYI.

Brother Denholm even had the audacity to file a grievance against me with the State Bar (with attached affidavits from Gotro and Schneider) for daring to blog about Temple (and try to ruin Temple's fight for freedom).  It got rejected summarily.  I'm still a practicing lawyer, and that's all I'll say about that topic.

And then came the Reign of Ogg.

Kim Ogg took Office on January 1, 2017, and in her inauguration speech, she thanked Dick DeGuerin profusely for all he had done for her and her career.  Within a week, she vowed to be the One Woman Review Team who decided whether or not the District Attorney's Office would retry David Temple.  She appointed Steve Clappart to be her CHIEF investigator, and hired John Denholm to a Division Chief position.  Despite these clear conflicts of interest with Team Temple, Ogg steadfastly refused to recuse herself from the case.

Again, the Houston Chronicle was giddy with the prospect of the Temple Case being dismissed, because, you know, Kelly Siegler cheated!

While in the midst of Ogg's One Woman Review of Temple, DeGuerin even threw her a fundraiser! It was co-hosted by Paul Looney, who had also been a member of Team Temple at one point.

Coincidentally, Team Temple attorney Stan Schneider said that he was "completely comfortable" in whatever Ogg decided.  Gee, I wonder why.  

Ultimately, Kim Ogg relented under public pressure and recused the Harris County District Attorney's Office from The State of Texas vs. David Temple.

And the result? Justice. He was convicted again of Murder last week.

The circus that surrounded his case merely resulted in him getting a two and a half year break from prison that he clearly did not deserve.  Somewhere in the midst of all of this, the prosecutorial team of Lisa Tanner and Bill Turner were able to turn the focus back to the evidence of the case and back to Belinda Lucas Temple and her unborn daughter, Erin.

The postponement of the punishment phase to March will hopefully serve as merely an extremely lengthy epilogue for David Temple.  The real story concluded with the guilty verdict and Temple going back into custody.

Justice prevailed last week.  

Tales from the Old Days

From time to time, I'm reminded of a funny story from my days at the District Attorney's Office and I think that they might make for a decent blog post.  I was reminded of one of those moments this morning by former-HCDA investigator Steve Januhowski on Facebook, so I thought I'd share.

Back when I was a new-ish prosecutor, a group of prosecutors routinely got together on Wednesdays after work for Steak Night at the Little Woodrow's on W. Alabama (sadly, it has since been demolished).  I coordinated Steak Night and I was pretty religious about attendance.  We usually had anywhere between ten to thirty people show up.

I never missed.  If I didn't leave early from work, I was out the door at 5:00 sharp on Wednesdays.

During my tenure as the Chief of County Court at Law #5, my secretary was the one and only Barbara Eaglin, who was a true institution of the Office.  She had been around for decades, if not centuries and was well known for her good-natured battles with the smart ass baby prosecutors that came through the misdemeanor.  In addition, if a thought entered Barbara's mind, it immediately came right out of her mouth, and it came out loudly.

One Wednesday, my godfather, Jim Cox, called the Office looking for me.  Jim was an older attorney, who was probably in his mid-to-late-60s when this happened.  He didn't practice criminal law and he didn't know Barbara, nor did she have any clue on earth who she was talking to when she answered the phone.  As he would tell me later that the phone call went something like this.

BARBARA:  District Attorney's Office.

JIM:  May I speak to Murray Newman?

BARBARA:  No, he's gone for the day.

JIM:  Oh, that's right.  It's Wednesday.  He must have left early for steak night.

BARBARA:  No.  He left early because it's raining outside and shit floats.

She then hung up the phone.

Conversations at the Elevator Bank

While standing at the elevator bank at the CJC this morning, a highly agitated lady waded into the crowd of people waiting, yelling out questions to no one in particular.

LADY:  WHERE IS ANDREWS?!?!  CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHERE ANDREWS IS?!

CROWD:  (SILENCE)

LADY:  THEY SAID SHE'S ON SIX BUT I WAS JUST UP THERE AND SHE AIN'T THERE!  IT'S BULLSHIT!  SOMEBODY AROUND HERE'S GOT TO KNOW!

ME:  Do you mean Judge Kelley Andrews?

LADY (calming down some):  Yeah!  Her!

ME (trying to remember what floor Court 6 is on):  Well, she's Court Six, so . . .

LADY:  I JUST WENT TO SIX AND SHE ISN'T THERE!

ME:  Well, there's a difference between the sixth floor and Court Six, I'm trying to remember . . .

ANOTHER ATTORNEY:  I think Court Six is on the 11th floor.

LADY (to other attorney):  THANK YOU!  That's all you had to say.

LADY (giving me a dirty look):  I DON'T NEED SOME ARROGANT ASS LAWYER TALKING TO ME LIKE I'M STUPID.

ME:  [SPEECHLESS]

NOTE:  This post reminded me of my favorite post that I ever wrote about the CJC Elevator Experience, so I decided I should relink to it here.

Discretion and the MAC System

Like many criminal defense attorneys who work in Harris County, my law practice is a division of both retained and appointed cases.  In the ten and a half years that I've been on the defense side of things, my retained cases have increased, but I still take appointments on cases when my caseload can manage some new material.

For those of you unfamiliar with how the appointment system works in Harris County, an attorney who is approved to take appointments has the ability to go on the Harris County website and list himself or herself as available for either an individual appointment and/or a "term" appointment for a day or a block of days on the calendar.  If a court needs an "Attorney of the Day" (a lawyer who will work in the court and represent up to five defendants needing lawyers on any given day) and the attorney has checked the "term" appointment box, that attorney will be eligible to be called up.  If a court needs an attorney for just a case or two, the attorney who put in for an individual appointment would be eligible.

When the coordinator of the court needs an attorney for either "term" or individual appointment, the computer will generate the names of ten different attorneys who have listed themselves as being available.  The coordinator or the judge will then select someone from that ten-person field.  Additionally, the Harris County Public Defender's Office could also pop up as one of the ten options.

It should come as no surprise that the amount an attorney is paid on an appointed case is generally significantly less than what we routinely charge for retained cases.  That's not a complaint -- Harris County pays better than most other counties that I'm familiar with and there was a noticeable increase in the pay scale that went into effect in March.  But the bottom line is that indigent defendants in Harris County get some pretty damn good legal representation for a significant bargain to the County on a daily basis.

Attorneys who take appointments in Harris County find themselves in trial quite often and the more an attorney goes to trial, the better he or she becomes as a litigator.  Some of the very best lawyers that I tried cases against during my time at the D.A.'s Office were appointed and I think that if you ask any prosecutor or judge, they would express the same sentiment today.

Judges and coordinators know what defense attorneys do a good job, and more importantly, they know which ones don't.  Although the Court must select a name from one of the ten names that are provided to them from the electronic "Wheel," the Judges still have the discretion to avoid an attorney that isn't up for the case they are being considered for.  In that regard, discretion is definitely a good thing.

Critics of the current appointment system, however, point out that this discretion is also something that can lead to cronyism and potential abuse, and that is certainly a valid point.  In my earlier days at the D.A.'s Office, there were some judges that I saw appointing mind-numbingly bad attorneys on a routine basis.  I also saw attorneys who were powerful in the Republican Party or big donors that got a lot of mind-boggling appointments.  That being said, I saw that taper off significantly as new judges were elected to the Bench over the past fifteen years or so.

The critics of Harris County's current appointment system, led by County Commissioner and former-State Senator Rodney Ellis, are pushing hard to replace it with a new program known as the Managed Assigned Counsel (MAC) Program. This program would take the power of appointment away from the Judges and Coordinators and give it to a newly created entity that made the appointments in a rotation.   The County Court judges have largely agreed to it, but there is some debate amongst the District Court judges.  The District Court judges have been regularly meeting with each other and members of the Defense Bar to iron out potential details.

The MAC is something that would require a grant from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) and the TIDC is an organization near dear to Rodney Ellis' heart.  His former policy advisor, Scott Ehlers, is Special Counsel to TIDC and would doubtlessly play a large role in bringing the MAC to Harris County.  It is my understanding that the District Court Judges have requested more time from TIDC to research the project, but apparently, Ellis was not on board with this delay.

Today, I was provided with a copy of TIDC's Recommendations for a Unified Harris County Managed Assigned Counsel Program, a 22 page write up of TIDC's ideas of how the new MAC should be implemented and run.  Although it is doubtlessly well-intentioned, I have numerous concerns about how it would work in Harris County.   In no particular order, here are some of the biggest ones.

1.  The MAC should oversee the appointment and payment of counsel in all misdemeanors and non-capital felonies, as well as appeals and post-conviction matters.  A MAC can also oversee appointments in specialty courts.

So, two big things jump out in this particular recommendation.  The first being that the MAC system will oversee not just the appointment of counsel, but also the payment of counsel.  As it currently stands, when an attorney submits a voucher for the work done on an appointed case, the Judge of the court must approve it, edit it, or reject it.  Generally, that's a pretty good system because, you know, the judge actually observed the attorney handling the case in his or her court.  The MAC system is going to turn over what payments are made to an entity that isn't in court handling the case.  In essence, this is pretty much the same premise as a person's insurance company deciding what medical procedures a person needs, rather than the doctor.

The second issue is that TIDC also wants the MAC to decide who can do specialty courts (i.e., Mental Health Court, Veteran's Court, Responsive Interventions for Change Court, etc.)  These particular courts rely on a stable of attorneys who practice solely in those courts on a daily basis.  These are courts that can be complicated as they are designed to rehabilitate rather than incarcerate defendants.  In these courts, it is absolutely critical that there are long term attorneys who are handling the caseloads and are familiar with how the courts work.  A MAC System that assigns a revolving door of appointments to random defense attorneys would be extremely counterproductive.

2.  Attorneys will generally be assigned to cases on a rotational basis, taking into consideration attorney experiences and expertise.  Investigators will be assigned to cases when requested by attorneys.  Experts will be approved by the MAC when requested by attorneys.

Attorneys being assigned on a rotational basis ensures that every attorney on the appointment list actually gets an appointment every now and again.   The rationale for this being that some attorneys get appointed on more than their "fair share" of cases, while some are never getting called.  This rule is designed to be fair to all of the attorneys.

Here's a spoiler alert:  the Indigent Defense System is not designed to make sure that attorneys are treated fairly; it's there to make sure that the CLIENTS are treated fairly.  Attorneys who get more appointments just might be getting more appointments because more judges have confidence in those attorneys' abilities.  If an attorney is on the list and never getting an appointment, one might want to know if the reason is that judges don't have faith in the attorney to do a good job.  Appointed attorneys are taking a client's life into their hands -- it isn't time to make sure that everyone gets a participation trophy.  Would you be comfortable going into heart surgery and being told "Well, Dr. Smith is the best heart surgeon in Houston, but we're giving you Dr. Jones because he hasn't gotten to do heart surgery lately."

As it currently stands, when a defense attorney wants an investigator or an expert on his or her case, he files a motion with the court for approval of funds to hire an expert.  Those are routinely granted and the defense attorney may then pick the investigator or expert of the attorney's choice.   I've been a lawyer now for 20 years and 11 of those have been as a defense attorney.  I tried a lot of investigators over several years before settling on the one I now use on ALL of my cases.  I've also identified and continue to use DNA experts, psychological experts, mitigation experts, and other experts that I know do a good job and I can trust.

Under this proposal, the MAC would have the power to deem whether or not I was worthy of an investigator or an expert.  If I was to be so blessed by this government entity to receive approval to have an investigator or expert, the MAC would then assign me one of their choosing.

This falls under the category of "are you f'ing kidding me?"  As a lawyer, my duty is to the client and to provide the best defense possible.  This includes me using my knowledge and discretion to choose the personnel needed for the case.  What if I have a personal conflict with the investigator?  Or I just know that investigator doesn't do a very good job?  Tough luck.  The relationship between an investigator and an attorney is absolutely critical.  My investigator (although obnoxious) does an amazing job for me on all of my cases and he's self-directed.  I couldn't get by without him and I don't want to work with anyone else.  That's not a slight to other investigators that I've worked for.  We just work well together.  (Don't get a big head, Roy.)

The idea of the MAC being the decider of "if" and "who" on investigators and experts is obscene.  Period.

3.  [The MAC will employ] Supervising attorney [to] assist assigned attorneys and ensure assigned attorneys are providing high-quality defense services.  Supervising attorneys should do such things as:  observe attorneys in court and trial and provide feedback on their performance; assist attorneys in preparing for trial, strategizing elements of cases and answering legal questions; serve as second-chair; respond to an investigate complaints about attorneys from judges, clients, and client family members; ensure attorneys are visiting clients at the jail; and conduct annual attorney performance reviews.  Supervising attorneys should also document attorney performance deficiencies, complaints, and disciplinary matters in the attorney's file, as well as begin any necessary proceedings to move an attorney to a lower level appointment list or remove an attorney from the appointments list due to not meeting the MAC's standards of attorney performance.

I don't even know where to begin with this part. So, the MAC will be staffed with "supervising attorneys" who will, in essence, serve as employers for all of the attorneys who take appointments.  They will give performance evals and keep a disciplinary file on us.  Um, a  disciplinary file?  Isn't that what the State Bar is for?

And the Supervising Attorney is going to investigate complaint's from the "client family members?"  Here's a newsflash, TIDC.  Lawyers don't owe a duty to a client's family members -- many of whom are verbally abusive, unreasonable, and not entitled to know a damn thing about a client's case without the client's permission.

More troubling is that the MAC's Supervising Attorney will be an appointed attorney's de facto second chair.  So, not only does an appointed attorney get a random investigator and expert shoved down his or her throat, he or she also gets a mandatory second chair that he or she may or may not even know.  Sounds great!  I look forward to seeing what supervisor I'm going to get.  I wonder who will be supervising Skip Cornelius or Tyrone Moncriffe or Danny Easterling.

I find this portion to be so amusing because the whole idea of the MAC is to make sure every lawyer on the appointment list gets an appointment, but the ones who will be appointed on every case will be the MAC lawyers.  Nice.

At the risk of sounding like the kid who is threatening to take his ball and go home, I've got no interest in continuing to do appointments under the MAC System.  I can't imagine any attorney with a significant amount of experience agreeing to work under those circumstances, either.  If the System runs off the experienced attorneys, guess who that leaves?

If the MAC System is implemented in a manner that even vaguely resembles these suggestions, the quality of Indigent Representation will fall and fall dramatically.

Joe Gamaldi's Press Release

The Houston Police Department held a press conference today announcing that they had re-arrested Andre Timothy Jackson for the 2016 murder of 11-year-old Josue Flores.  As noted in the Houston Chronicle:

The indictment comes three years after police first arrested Jackson and charged him with murder — charges that prosecutors later dismissed over concerns they would not win at trial.

Apparently, evidence which had been collected during the initial investigation three years earlier just now provided a DNA link between Jackson and Flores.  It is not clear what piece of evidence that DNA was collected from or who that DNA belonged to, but my educated guess is that a piece of evidence belonging to Jackson may have been found to have Flores' DNA on it. 

Enter Houston Police Officer's Union President Joe Gamaldi. 

Gamaldi has been relatively quiet since his infamous "dirtbags on notice" press conference in the wake of the now-infamous HPD raid that left two citizens dead.  He's been around, continuing his on-going battle with Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, but there hasn't really been anything noteworthy to report. 

Today's press conference over the arrest of Andre Timothy Jackson, however, provided Gamaldi the opportunity to do two of his favorite things: 1) tout the awesomeness of the Houston Police Department; and 2) bash District Attorney Kim Ogg.  Gamaldi released the following press release:

There's nothing wrong with Gamaldi giving HPD Homicide a shout out for their hard work and dedication to this emotionally grueling case.  However, Gamaldi wasn't content with just giving his officers an attaboy and going about his business.  He decided that he needed to fire a couple of shots at Kim Ogg in the middle of this otherwise feel-good arrest story.

However, what has not been reported today is the defense attorney for Andre Jackson filed a motion several months ago to have all of his property/evidence returned to Mr. Jackson.  This included the key piece of evidence that the DNA would later be extracted from and would be material to any future trial.  In an act of what can only be described as gross incompetence, the Harris County District Attorney's Office inexplicably did not oppose this motion.

In this, Gamaldi is correct.  If the District Attorney's Office dismissed the case against Jackson in 2016 but hoped that further investigation would allow prosecution at a later date, then they absolutely should have fought tooth and nail against any motion to restore property to Jackson.  Their failure to do so is, as Gamaldi put it, gross incompetence.

But Gamaldi didn't stop there.

. . . Andre Jackson would be free to pick up his property and all the evidence belonging to him, that the Houston Police Department had in its custody.  Which Mr. Jackson actually attempted to do.

Please pay close attention to wording such as "his property" and "all the evidence belonging to him."

If not for the Houston Police Department Homicide Division and Chief Acevedo, who stated that "the items would only be returned over our dead bodies" opposing the motion from the judge, key pieces of evidence would have been turned over to Andre Jackson and lost forever.

So, here is a quick law tutorial for Mr. Gamaldi:  Judges don't issue "motions,"  they issue Orders.  As in, legal orders to do things, like say, return someone's property to him because the case against him got dismissed.

Failure to follow a Court's order is breaking the law. 

A very strong argument can be made that any evidence obtained from Mr. Jackson's property, which was being held by HPD in violation of a judge's order, was illegally obtained.  If a judge were to find that the evidence was illegally obtained, then a judge might find himself or herself well within his or her rights to suppress that evidence.  That same judge would also then suppress the results of any testing done on those items.

Gamaldi's press release indicates that key evidence belonging to Jackson was at the center of today's arrest.  Reading between the lines, that seems to spell out to me that a piece of property belonging to Jackson had DNA belonging to Josue Flores on it. 

So, let's throw out a hypothetical scenario.

Jackson gets arrested in 2016 and the police take clothing belonging to him during the arrest.  The case gets dismissed and Jackson files a motion to get his clothing back.  The District Attorney's Office says; "Sure, have your clothing back.  We don't care!" and a Judge signs an order that says, "HPD, give Mr. Jackson his clothing back."   Mr. Jackson goes to get his clothing and HPD basically says, "We don't care what the Judge's order says, you aren't getting your clothes back."  HPD then sends those clothes to a lab, and finds Josue Flores' DNA on Jackson's clothes.

If I was Jackson's defense attorney, I'd be arguing that all of those DNA results should be suppressed at trial because they were illegally obtained from property that HPD had been lawfully ordered to surrender to Jackson.

Gamaldi's press release is so mind-numbingly stupid, because (in his attempt to slam the D.A.'s Office) he basically acknowledges that HPD was breaking the law.  In fact, he seems downright giddy about it.

This would be akin to Tom Brady giving a press conference after the 2015 AFC Championship game and saying, "The Patriots did a great job today thanks to me ordering our equipment guy to deflate the game balls."

Let me be clear here.  I agree completely with Gamaldi's assessment that it was absolutely gross negligence that the D.A.'s Office didn't oppose the return of Jackson's property.  They should have fought with all of the Office's might to prevent that from happening.  But they didn't.

As wrong as that was, it doesn't give HPD the license to ignore a Judicial Order, however.

Personally, I think the remedy would be to exclude the evidence.  I may end up being proven wrong on that.  Several of my former prosecutor/current defense attorney colleagues think that the remedy would be to simply hold HPD in contempt for failing to return the evidence.  They may be correct but isn't holding them in contempt an acknowledgment by the Court that the law was violated?

How it ultimately plays out in court will be interesting to observe.

What isn't in dispute is that Joe Gamaldi didn't do the Houston Police Department any favors with his press release today.

The Mad Queen

The CJC Community was shocked today by the announcement that Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg had fired her First Assistant Tom Berg.  There were rumors that a few other employees in administrative positions had also been fired.

The move is surprising for a couple of reasons.

The first reason being that Tom Berg has a stellar reputation for being a man of integrity, dedication, and knowledge.  He is a combat veteran who has dedicated his life to the Criminal Justice Center and he is very highly respected amongst both the Defense Bar and the Prosecution.  Tom spent the vast majority of his legal career on the defense side of the aisle so I was somewhat surprised when he joined the D.A.'s Office.  I thought it was a great hire by Ogg and I said so at the time.

Tom had a learning curve at the D.A.'s Office -- largely due to the fact that his primary focus of criminal law had been on the Federal side of things, as opposed to State.  He made a few missteps at first and made a couple of statements that he would probably like to have taken back.  None of those missteps or misstatements, however, undercut that he was a fair-minded man who left private practice to help make the Criminal Justice System better.

His firing today by Ogg says a hell of a lot more about the Ogg Administration than it does about Tom Berg.

Ogg's Office has been under scrutiny lately because of the mass exodus of Harris County prosecutors who are leaving their jobs for . . .  any job but that one.  Morale is in the toilet and a job that was once the most coveted in the prosecutorial profession is now one that nobody wants anymore.  Tom Berg was not a contributing factor to that lack of morale.  He did his best to rally the troops that the Office still had left.

But Kim Ogg has always seemed to embrace the idea that it is better to be feared than loved.  There were multiple prosecutors and defense attorneys today who were comparing her method of ruling to Sunday night's episode of Game of Thrones (No spoilers here, but if you watched the show Sunday, you should understand what they are talking about).

While Ogg is running off good prosecutors in hordes and firing leaders like Tom Berg, she is busily making blatantly political hires like troubled former-HPD Chief Clarence Bradford.  More troubling is the rumor that Berg's firing has paved the way for wildly unpopular controversial Division Chief, JoAnne Musick to be promoted to the position of Trial Bureau Chief.

To my brethren and sistren in the Defense Bar, if you think your trial court prosecutors are currently hamstrung by micromanagement and stupid policies, get ready for Ogg giving JoAnne a blank check to run the whole bureau however she wants.

The firing of Tom Berg probably won't really change the day-to-day operations of prosecutors in a way that is noticeable to the general public, or even the rank and file prosecutors.  The message that is implied in his firing, however, is beyond troubling.  While Ogg has been able to waive off previous departures from the Office as people who weren't committed to her "progressive" ideas, she can't do the same with a man that she handpicked to be her second in command.  She can't do that with a man who has the integrity and reputation of Tom Berg.

Apparently, the First Assistant didn't learn the First Rule of dealing with Kim Ogg.

To disagree with the D.A. is to lose your job.

Sid Crowley

Former Harris County Assistant District Attorney and defense attorney Sid Crowley died last week at the age of 69.

He was a friend of mine and a semi-regular commenter on this blog since the blog started.

To me, Sid was the epitome of what a Harris County criminal lawyer was.  He was disheveled, disorganized, sarcastic, angry, fearless . . .

. . . and a phenomenal lawyer.

I met Sid when I was a baby prosecutor.  He was grizzled and wide-eyed.  My first encounter with him didn't lead me to believe that there was anything special about him.  It wasn't until much later that I mentioned something about Sid to another attorney (I think it was Pete Justin), and that lawyer's response was something to the effect of "Sid is one of the most brilliant legal minds that building has ever seen."

As I would come to find out, Sid may not have always looked like much on the outside, but on the inside, he was an intensely zealous (and wickedly brilliant) criminal defense attorney.  He had the respect of all of his peers that knew of his work.

He commented on the blog quite a bit.  Sometimes he signed his name, but other times he did so anonymously.  He wasn't hiding his opinions when he logged in under the "Anonymous" tag.  I think he just didn't feel like wasting the time it took to log in under his own name.  He would sometimes call me to follow up and explain why he commented the way he had.  He was a keen observer of the Big Picture when it came to the Harris County Criminal Justice System, and he was willing to fight every aspect of it which he believed to be unfair.

Recently, his health was failing him and he was struggling to make ends meet.  I called him to check on him, and he sounded like the Sid that we all knew and loved.  He was aggravated and pissed off, yet still in possession of his sense of humor and oddly upbeat demeanor.

A lot of us reached out to Sid to see if there was anything we could do to help him.  A special word of thanks should go out to Robert Pelton for his efforts in finding Sid the healthcare options that he needed.  As sad as I am to learn of Sid's passing, there is some comfort in knowing how many people reached out to him and let him know that they cared, loved and respected him.

A funeral mass for Sid will be held this Friday, April 26th at 10:00 a.m. in the Chapel of Divine Mercy at St. Laurence Catholic Church, 3100 Sweetwater Blvd., Sugar Land, TX 77479.  Sid's family is asking that donations in Sid's memory be made to the animal rescue group, HOPE.

Sid was a true warrior and a champion of those who didn't have anybody else to stand with them. He was an unassuming Giant in our little legal world.  I'm proud to have known him and I'm proud to have called him my friend.

I will miss him.

Remembering Anh Reiss

It is hard to believe that it has been over three years since Dr. Anh Reiss, wife of Harris County Assistant District Attorney Josh Reiss, passed away from myelodysplastic syndrome, a form of leukemia.

I first met Josh back in 2009 when there was a bone marrow registration drive at the CJC in the hopes of finding a suitable match for Anh.  Although the registration drive signed up many new donors, a match was not found for her.  Josh and I ended up becoming good friends and I kept up with Anh's condition as she and the Reiss family fought the disease for the next seven years.  Unfortunately, she ultimately passed away on February 26th of 2016 after a truly long and courageous battle.

Josh texted me yesterday to notify me of this editorial in the Houston Chronicle detailing Josh's efforts to have the anniversary of Anh's death officially memorialized Texas Bone Marrow, Blood, and Organ Donation Day in Texas.  The bill in the legislature to create this day is sponsored by Democratic Representative (and HCDA Alum) Gene Wu.  As noted in the editorial, it is also co-sponsored by a bipartisan list of area legislators.

Obviously, this is an uncontroversial and fantastic idea.  There are some very interesting statistics listed in the editorial regarding how many people favor the idea of donating organs and blood versus how many people are actually signed up to do so.  You can learn more about the bone marrow registry by checking out bethematch.org.

I'm proud to say that I signed up to be a blood marrow donor during a lunch break when I was a JP prosecutor way back in 1999.  You should do it, too, if you haven't already.

Good luck to Josh and the Reiss family on getting the Texas Bone Marrow, Blood and Organ Donation Day recognized, and thanks to Gene Wu for drafting the legislation to get it done.

Warrants, Snitches and Accountability

Local media is reporting some pretty shocking revelations this afternoon about the botched Houston Police Department raid that occurred on January 28th of this year.  As you probably already know, that raid left five HPD officers wounded and two citizens, Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, dead.  In the days following the raid, there were some early indications that there was more to the story than just a simple search warrant execution that had resulted in a gun battle.

For starters, the affidavit supporting the issuance of the search warrant had been reliant on the word of a Confidential Informant (CI) who had allegedly told the police that he had purchased an amount of heroin from a male at 7815 Harding Street.  The CI also allegedly told the police that the male at the residence had more heroin inside the house and that he had been in possession of a 9mm handgun.

Officers used that little tidbit about the 9mm to ask the magistrate who signed the warrant to authorize them to do a "No Knock" warrant, meaning that they had the right to just kick the door to make entry.  When executing search warrants, officers prefer using No Knock for two reasons: 1) officer safety, and 2) preventing the people inside the place to be searched from having time to destroy evidence.  The alternative to a "No Knock" is a "Knock and Announce" warrant, which officers don't like.  A police officer politely knocking on the door of a drug house and announcing he going to come inside is usually the cue for drug dealers to start flushing their product down the toilet.

Unless a warrant articulates a particularized need (normally officer safety) to make entry without knocking, the presumption is that they must do a "knock and announce" before making entry.  Usually, officers point out the danger to themselves by describing their belief that a person with a gun is inside the place to be searched.  Since the vast majority of people who deal drugs out of locations are armed, it should not be surprising to know that "No Knock" warrants are quite common in narcotics search warrants.

So, when the affidavit supporting a No Knock entry into 7815 Harding Street reported the individual inside the residence had a 9mm, that probably didn't seem to be too big of a stretch of the imagination to the magistrate signing the warrant.  As far as warrants go, there was nothing facially out of the ordinary about the one in this case.

But when the shootout was over and the smoke had cleared on January 28th, the reliability of the information in the search warrant came into question because there were two key things missing from the evidence recovered:  a 9mm handgun or any trace of heroin.

My initial reaction to this lack of evidence to support the CI's claims in the affidavit was that it must have been a lying CI.  CIs, as a general rule, aren't the most reputable of people.  In many cases, a CI has been charged with his or her own charges and are "working a contract" with narcotics officers.  "Working a contract" means that they have a signed agreement with the D.A.'s Office and narcotics officers that they will provide information resulting in the arrests of other drug dealers.  Those contracts are generally quantity based -- meaning that the CI will provide information that leads to the recovery of a set amount of drugs (like a kilo of cocaine, for instance).

Because of that, CIs have a tremendous amount of motivation to exaggerate what they say to their narcotics officer "handlers."  By necessity, CIs interact with suspects outside of direct supervision from their handlers.  They typically don't wear bodycams or "wires" that could be discovered when they make purchases.  They often go inside premises to make the purchases and their handlers lose a direct line of sight on them.  To bolster the CI's credibility, officers search them for drugs before sending them inside to make a purchase.  This assures that the CI isn't planting his or her own evidence.  The officers also provide them with marked money to make the purchase, in the hopes that once an arrest is made, the target suspect will have that marked money in his or her possession.

Other than those two minor safeguards, however, there is no real accountability in how an undercover drug purchase is described by a CI to an officer.  There is no verification of whether or not a suspect is really seen with a gun.  There is no verification of whether or not the CI really saw more drugs inside the premises.  All an officer can attest to in an affidavit for an application for a search warrant is to attest that the CI has provided good and reliable information in the past.

So, when there was no heroin and no 9mm recovered on Harding Street, I figured that HPD narcotics had been taken for a ride by a dishonest snitch.  In this post, I predicted that an investigation into the botched raid would lead to some embarrassment for HPD, but probably nothing criminal.

Today's revelations may have me eating my words about that.

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo today announced that the "confidential informant" utilized by HPD Narcotics in this particular raid didn't actually exist.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Officer Gerald Goines (who was severely wounded in the raid) provided investigators with the name of the CI who had provided him with the information that he used to get a search warrant.  In the subsequent investigation, that CI denied having ever gone to the Harding Street location or buying drugs there.  Additional interviews with other CIs utilized by Goines found that they had no knowledge of drug activity on the property, either.

More disturbing, according to the Chronicle article is that another one of the narcotics officers, Steven Bryant, had admitted to investigative officers that the heroin allegedly provided to him and Goines by the (apparently fictional) CI was actually heroin that he had gotten from Goines' vehicle.

So, to summarize, a married couple (and their dog) were shot to death by Houston Police Officers who entered into their house with a search warrant that was obtained on the word of a non-existent snitch and planted heroin that came directly from the officer who wrote the warrant.

This is absolutely stunning to me.  In my twenty years of being involved in the Harris County Criminal Justice world, I've seen some dumb mistakes, but this level of corruption is like something out of a movie.

It looks like Joe Gamaldi was a little premature in using this incident to give his "putting dirtbags on notice" speech.

The outlook for Goines and Bryant is pretty grim.  If it is proven that they intentionally lied in an affidavit for a search warrant, that would be a felony.  If a felony leads to a death, there's an argument to be made that they committed a couple of felony murders.

The bigger concern for all agencies who participate in undercover drug buys is that this incident calls into question all undercover buys leading to search warrants.  If a Confidential Informant's reliability was cause for concern, the possibility of rogue officers fabricating CIs and planting evidence is devastating.  The bottom line is that all search warrants are signed off on based on an officer's credibility as he or she relates the facts to a magistrate.  There is nothing more required to verify the veracity of the information contained in the supporting affidavits.

It is a fairly common practice in drug cases for defense attorneys to file a Motion to Reveal the Confidential Informant.  Those confidential informants are usually protected from being identified unless otherwise ordered by a judge.  In my experience, those motions are rarely granted.  My suspicion is that in the aftermath of the Harding Street raid, more and more of these Motions are going to be filed, and Judges are going to feel additional pressure to Order those CIs to be revealed.  If that becomes the norm, you are going to find less and less people willing to work as CIs -- regardless of the legal benefit to them.

The aftermath of the raid on Harding Street is going to have a far-reaching effect that goes way beyond what ultimately happens to Goines and Bryant.  There will be calls for more verification
of information before the signing of warrants, but finding a way to have that verification and not compromise an investigation will be no easy task.

Today's announcement from Chief Acevedo is just the beginning of the fallout that will come from the events of January 28th.  Police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges can expect a lot of changes to the way these things are done in the future.

Unfortunately, those changes will be coming too late for Dennis Tuttle, Rhogena Nicholas, and the officers injured in the raid on Harding Street.

Awkward Family Photos: Law School Edition

Since I'm a firm believer in the premise that you shouldn't make fun of others unless you are willing to make fun of yourself, I will share the following awkward memento.

This is an awkward screen grab from an even more awkward video from my 1998 Criminal Trial Advocacy class at UH.  In this exercise, I'm trying (and failing) to learn how to admit a photograph into evidence.

My sponsoring witness is David Cunningham.

The pained looking judge on the bench is George Murphy.

I think I would rather pass a kidney stone than watch how bad I was back then, but I have to give major kudos to Dave, George and (not pictured) Judge Belinda Hill.  This was really a wonderful class that gave some very real and very practical advice to aspiring trial lawyers. 

It's been 21 years since this picture was taken and I'm honored to be able to say I've gone on to practice alongside (and in Judge Hill's case, in front of) these great lawyers. I'm also glad that I apparently got over the nervous habit of slapping my hands to my sides while talking as if I were some sort of spastic penguin.

I just wish someone had told me and Dave to go ahead and shave our heads back then.

The 2020 Race for District Attorney Heats Up, Already

Houston Chronicle reporter Zach Despart sent out a Tweet this evening that has Harris County prosecutors abuzz:

Despart noted that attorney Audia Jones has filed a Notice of Treasurer in the 2020 race for District Attorney.  Jones, who recently left the Harris County District Attorney's Office, has been very vocal on her Facebook page about her vision for the Criminal Justice System.  Her posts have also been critical of the D.A.'s Office's current administration.

Jones is married to 180th District Court Judge DaSean Jones, who just took office on January 1st of this year.  In the event that Jones were to win the race for District Attorney, there would probably be some question as to whether or not her husband could preside over cases prosecuted by the District Attorney's Office.  In all honesty, I'm not sure what the answer to that question would be.

While Audia Jones is the first one to definitely throw her hat in the ring to run for District Attorney (I'm not sure that Kim Ogg has even formally announced that she is running again), there have been rumors that former prosecutor Rachel Palmer Hooper is mulling over a run as the Republican candidate.  That's largely based on this Tweet from last month:

Rachel is sounding like somebody who is getting ready to make a run.  She's been in the Civil World for some time now, but who knows?  Maybe she misses the excitement of the Criminal Justice System.

Quite frankly, I think that any candidate running for Harris County D.A. as a Republican in 2020 is just throwing his or her money in the toilet.  After the bashing that Republicans took in 2018, that's going to be a fool's errand if Trump is still at the top of the ballot in 2020.  Although straight-ticket voting is (fortunately) now a thing of the past in Texas, I don't know if the change will be enough to make up those margins.  I expect that the "protest turnout" of voters who show up just to vote against Trump will remain extremely high and that doesn't bode well for any candidate running as an R in 2020.

On the plus side, I think that most smart candidates know this.  I'm expecting a pretty quiet Republican Primary.  Hopefully, it will be so quiet that no one will feel all that compelled to "buy ads" from sleazy Slate producers like Terry Lowry and Steven Hotze. 

I think that if anyone has a chance to win as a Republican candidate for District Attorney in 2020, it would need to be someone that would appeal to Latino and Latina voters.  The Republican Party has been rather alienating to those voters in the Trump Era and if the Republicans were smart, they would start trying to build some bridges to that community instead of burning them.  A charismatic, qualified, and experienced Latina candidate would be ideal in that situation, and if I were leading the Harris County Republican Party, I would be working overtime to recruit someone that matched that description.

But where could they ever find a candidate like that?

Stay tuned, folks.  2020 is already getting interesting.

Judge Cassandra Hollemon

The Harris County Criminal Justice World was shocked and saddened today by the unexpected and untimely passing of recently-elected Judge Cassandra Hollemon.  Judge Hollemon held the bench of County Court at Law # 12 after winning election this past November. 

I wish that I could offer some personal insight into Judge Hollemon's passing, but sadly, she passed away before I ever had the opportunity to appear before her.

In the 20 years since I've been practicing law, I've never known of a Harris County Judge who passed while in Office.  I believe that the last Harris County Judge to die in office was 230th District Court Judge Joe Kegans in 1997.  It is a significant and sad event.

Although I didn't know Judge Hollemon, I am sorry that we did not get a chance to know her and see what she would have accomplished on the bench.  My sincerest condolences go out to her family and friends.

Progressive Prosecutors Need Help Too

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg found herself in an unusual position last week when her request for funding 100 new prosecutors was met with harsh criticism from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, a progressive group that normally is one of her biggest supporters.  As noted in the Houston Chronicle, Ogg's request for additional prosecutors seems to have been interpreted as some sort of act of war by TCJC's Jay Jenkins.

"Simply adding prosecutors is the strategy that got us here in the first place, with this mentality that the only thing we can spend money on is the police and prosecutors," said Jay Jenkins, project attorney with the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition.

Apparently, Jenkins is so concerned that if Kim Ogg were to get a whole bunch of new prosecutors, the D.A.'s Office would just go out and start prosecuting things unnecessarily so that those new prosecutors won't get too bored.  That's a silly notion if you've paid attention to anything that Kim Ogg has done since taking office at the beginning of 2017, and it clearly illustrates that Jenkins hasn't spent much time in the trenches of Harris County criminal justice.

Ogg countered Jenkins' criticism with an editorial in this morning's Chronicle.  In typical Ogg fashion, she demonstrated her flair for the dramatic:

It's the kind of fear that awakens prosecutors in the middle of the night.

What if I help convict the wrong person?  What if I fail to bring a serial murderer to justice and he kills again?  What is the best outcome for a family plagued by domestic violence?  How do we prevent a drunk driver from leaving jail, getting in his car again and killing an entire family?

Prosecutors wrestle with these worries every day. 

Um, calm down, Kim.  Most prosecutors at your office waking up in the middle of the night are mostly worried about what Joanne Musick is retroactively doing with their evaluations.

That being said, Kim is right on this issue.  The District Attorney's Office does need more prosecutors, and contrary to Jay Jenkins' opinion, that doesn't compromise the Ogg Administration's progressive views towards the Criminal Justice System.  Harris County Assistant District Attorneys are overworked and underpaid.  Seriously.  To the point where it is kind of absurd.

Even with Possession of Marijuana cases and trace cases not being filed, there is no shortage of crime in Harris County, Texas.  Overall filings may be way down, but prosecutors still find themselves handling hundreds of cases.  Sure, those cases vary in degrees of seriousness, but each and every one of them still have things that must be done on them.

If Jenkins spent a little more time in the trenches, perhaps he would become more familiar with the extremely common occurrence of a case being reset because an overworked prosecutor didn't get a "To Do" done.  Those resets are (on average) about a month, and in many instances, that's a month of sitting in jail.

That can be an extra month in jail because:

1.  A prosecutor didn't get a final restitution figure on a theft case.

2.  A prosecutor didn't get in touch with the victim of an assault who wanted to drop charges or was okay with probation.

3.  A prosecutor didn't get a copy of the search warrant or the offense report.

4.  A prosecutor didn't have time to look at a search issue.

5.  A prosecutor didn't have time to talk to an alibi witness offered by the defense.

6.  A prosecutor didn't have time to review a DWI video.

The reason these types of To Do's don't get done is NOT because prosecutors are lazy.  Most prosecutors (especially Twos and Threes) are working ten or twelve hour days and on weekends.  The reality is that they are overwhelmed with cases. 

If a prosecutor is in a court that goes to trial frequently, that makes matters even worse.  You know how whenever you go on vacation, all the things that you are supposed to be working on have a tendency to pile up on your desk?  Well, that same phenomenon occurs every time a prosecutor is in trial.

In many instances, a prosecutor won't take a hard look at a case unless it is actually set for trial.  If you're sitting in jail because you can't make bond, that's going to be a really long wait. 

I think that the 2011 William & Mary law review article (written by HCDA Alum Laura Killinger and her husband, Adam Gershowitz) cited in the Chronicle article frames the overall issue best.  They noted both pros and cons to the idea of adding more prosecutors.

. . . adding prosecutors could "result in increased prosecution of low-level drug or prostitution cases without any real reduction in the caseloads of existing prosecutors."

. . . a better-resourced district attorney's office can allow prosecutors to identify and dismiss weak cases more quickly. 

The interesting thing to note about Laura and Adam's article is that it was written in 2011, which was before the "progressive" movement that is currently sweeping major metropolitan areas in the country.  A more hard-core, conservative elected District Attorney might use more prosecutors to file more cases, but that's not Kim Ogg. 

And, quite frankly, I don't think that expansive prosecution of low-level cases is the future of prosecution.  At least, not in the big cities.

Ogg's appeal for more prosecutors is a well-intentioned and necessary request that will help the progressive agenda, not hurt it.  Jenkins should have a little more faith in Ogg.  They both have the same hopes for the future of Criminal Justice. 

If he spent a little more time in the trenches, he might realize that.

The State of the Criminal Justice World

No, I did not quit blogging.  I've just been really lazy busy lately.

It has been over two months since my last blog post and much has changed since I wished all of the candidates well on Election Day.

In all honesty, I kind of wanted to wait for some time to pass after the election before I wrote again.  A lot of good friends lost their benches and it really didn't feel like the right time to point out that I was pretty sure that was going to be what happened.  Couple that with being off on a couple of Cold Justice shoots, a minor non-cancer-related-surgical-procedure-that-we-shall-never-speak-of-again, an increasingly obstinate 5-year-old, an awkward Christmas, and having to put down one of the family dogs, and I just haven't really had the time or energy to write.

So, fast forward to today, and we've got some interesting things to talk about in the Criminal Justice World.

1.  The New Judges 
As of this morning, I've appeared in front of five of the new District Court Judges and four of the new County Court at Law judges.  The experiences have been very positive.  The judges have all been attentive, courteous, and thoughtful.  In my pre-election analysis, I had said that the majority of the races had qualified candidates running against other qualified candidates.  Therefore, it isn't too big of a surprise to see the judges hit the ground running.

I do feel compelled to point out that new 183rd District Court Judge Chuck Silverman (who I was pretty harsh toward in my pre-election write up) showed that he had a sense of humor about my write-up, and he has been very professional and kind to me in my appearances in his court.

2.  A Judicial Scandal Brewing?
One of the new judges is already in the middle of a scandal, apparently.  I'm not naming that judge right now because nothing is official, but I've heard from multiple credible sources that he is under investigation.  The allegations are that, in open court, he grabbed the arm of an attorney's assistant in an attempt to physically remove her from an area of the courtroom.  The assistant felt pain and has lodged a complaint.  Whether or not that complaint will lead to criminal charges remains to be seen, but everyone is talking about the incident.

3.  The HPD Shootout
I was in Idaho when I learned of the five Houston Police Officers who were wounded in a shootout during the execution of a Search Warrant that left two suspects dead.  The search warrant was for a quantity of heroin and the fact that no heroin was found after the smoke cleared has people talking.  While the District Attorney's Office operates as a 24/7 resource for officers seeking search warrants, this particular one was written by the officers and then presented to a city magistrate for a signature.

There's nothing illegal about that, but in my opinion, the search warrant was a little sloppy.  The warrant was a "No Knock" warrant because a Confidential Informant told police that one of the occupants of the house had a 9mm semi-automatic on him.  No 9mm (or any other type of semi-automatic pistol) was recovered during a search of the crime scene, which means the C.I. was pretty much 0 for 2 for things he described to the author of the warrant.

My prediction is that a full-fledged investigation of this case is going to lead to some embarrassment to HPD but probably no criminal ramifications.  It sounds like they may have sent in a questionable Confidential Informant to make a controlled buy and that got five officers injured and two other people killed.  I'm also going to go out on a limb here and predict that some of the injuries to the officers are going to have come from friendly fire.

4.  Joe Gamaldi
I don't know Houston Police Officers' Union President Joe Gamaldi personally, but he is quickly making his predecessor, Ray Hunt, look like an introvert.  Gamaldi has been front and center of all things involving HPD cases and he has been extremely vocal.  In the past year, he's taken on Kim Ogg and the District Attorney's Office, judges who don't set adequately high bonds (in his opinion), HFD, and, as of this afternoon, HPD Police Chief Art Acevedo.

In the wake of the HPD shootout, Gamaldi made the statement that "dirtbags" were being put on notice, as were groups that disparaged police officers:

If you’re the ones that are out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy, just know we’ve all got your number now, we’re going to be keeping track of all of y’all, and we’re going to make sure that we hold you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers.

I'm not exactly sure what Gamaldi means by "hold you accountable" but some are taking it as a threat to groups like Black Lives Matter.  I understand that HPD and BLM may not be big fans of each other but this seems to be a threat to the 1st Amendment, in my opinion.  Most HPD officers that I know seem to really like what Gamaldi is saying.  Everyone else seems to think that Gamaldi may be the one who is "stirring the pot."

5.  The CJC Building
Nothing has changed here.  I mean nothing.  The building is still a disaster that needs to be demolished.

So, that's all I've got at the moment.  If you have anything else you want to talk about here, let me know.

To the Candidates on Election Day

To all of my friends who are on the ballot today, I wanted to say thank you.

For the past two years, whether you were running to defend an Office you already held or whether you were running as a candidate for the first time, you have both my appreciation and my admiration.

For every dinner you missed at home because you had to attend an event.
For every weekend that you didn't get to relax because you had to block-walk.
For every fundraiser you had to attend or organize when you probably didn't really want to do either.
For every criticism that you receive from some jerk who doesn't even know you.
For every word of discouragement from somebody who told you that you couldn't get elected.
For every straight-ticket voting nimwit who never bothered to even consider you as a candidate.

I don't think that the average voter knows what candidates put themselves through just to face an uncertain outcome on Election Day.  I've had a front row seat to it before, and it solidified in my mind that I never want to do it myself.

Candidates put themselves through Hell just to put themselves in the running.

In doing so, they literally become the last line of defense for our government, regardless of whether they win or lose.  There would be no accountability from our government if there wasn't the competition of the election.

As an arm-chair quarterback who has thrown in his thoughts and criticisms far more than anyone really wanted to hear, I wanted to personally say thank you to everybody who had the guts to run for Office.  The race is almost over and whether you come in first place or second, you've done far more than any of us who just commentated.

To everyone who is reading this that isn't a candidate, it would seem to me that the least you could do is go out there and vote.

Good luck today.  Everyone.

Other Related Races on the 2018 Ballot

In addition to the District and County Court races in Harris County, there are some other races, both Countywide and Statewide, that have ties to Harris County.  I'm not going to spend as much time writing about these races, but I did want to bring them to your attention.

Harris County District Clerk -- Republican Chris Daniel (I) vs. Democrat Marilyn Burgess 
As readers of this blog know, I was a big fan of Chris Daniel's predecessor at District Clerk and I was slow to warm up to Daniel initially.  It didn't take long to figure out that Daniel was an enthusiastic and effective District Clerk.  Over his tenure, he has successfully switched Harris County to the eSubpoena and eFiling systems, which he has done with only relatively minor difficulty.  He's also kept things up and running through Hurricane Harvey and beyond.

His opponent, Marilyn Burgess is a CPA who isn't a lawyer or involved in the Harris County Criminal Justice World.  The Chronicle states she is qualified, and I don't doubt that.  However, Chris Daniel has been doing a good job day in and day out for some time now.  He makes himself available to take questions and/or complainants well outside of business hours.  He's a true public servant.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

14th Court of Appeals, Place 4 -- Republican Marc Brown (I) vs. Democrat Charles Spain
Harris County D.A. Alum, former-180th District Court Judge, and Incumbent Judge Marc Brown is on this year's ballot for the 14th Court of Appeals, Place 4.   His opponent is a Civil Attorney, so obviously I don't know much about him.

But I know Marc Brown.  Judge Brown was a highly respected senior prosecutor when he won election to the 180th District Court.  Upon taking the Bench in the 180th, he quickly became one of the most popular and respected judges in the CJC, and it was a job that he loved.  He was an absolute authority on the law and issues of search and seizure.  Once, I filed a Motion to Suppress in his court where he found that the issues I had cited weren't worthy of suppression, but some other issues that he had spotted and I had missed made the evidence suppressable.  He was committed to doing the right thing.

The crowd at the CJC wasn't surprised when he got appointed to the Court of Appeals.  He was a natural choice.  We were all sad to see him go, but glad that he comes back to visit during his vacation days.  He's done a great job at the Court of Appeals and the only reason he should ever leave there would be to head to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals -- Republican Sharon Keller (I) vs. Democrat Maria T. Jackson
Although a statewide race, this is one that Harris County voters should pay attention to because 339th District Court Judge Maria T. Jackson is running to replace easily the most controversial sitting judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals.

For those of you who don't remember, Judge Sharon Keller drew national headlines in 2007 when she refused to accept a last-minute appeal from Death Row that was filed shortly after five.  Her refusal to accept it resulted in the inmate's execution without the merits of the appeal being reviewed.  When this, understandably, drew a huge wave of criticism, Keller responded with "we close at five."  Per the Chronicle's editorial, Keller also has paid $25,000 to settle multiple judicial complaints against her.  I get that in pro-Death Penalty Texas, some voters might not have a problem with Keller's actions, but they should.  Proceeding with an execution without fully vetting the appeals makes our system no better than a lynch mob.

Since taking the Bench on January 1, 2009, Judge Jackson has rapidly risen in popularity and respect amongst those of us who have practiced before her.  To begin with, she's just a very nice person.  She treats all of those who appear before her with courtesy and respect.  That includes both the lawyers and the people who stand accused of crimes.  She operates from a place of seeking out what is the right thing to do.  I can assure you that Judge Jackson would have never closed the doors on an appeal of any kind (much less one involving the Death Penalty) because it was outside of business hours.

In addition to receiving the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle, Judge Jackson has received the endorsement of the Dallas Morning News and other major newspapers in Texas.  I voted for her this morning.  I'd recommend that you do too.

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 7 . -- Republican Barbara Parker Hervey (I) vs. Democrat Ramona Franklin
Like Judge Maria T. Jackson, 338th Distric Court Judge Ramona Franklin is also seeking higher office with her run for the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Unlike the race for Presiding Judge, however, Judge Franklin's opponent is not so controversial.  She received a 4 star rating from the Houston Chronicle while Judge Franklin did not meet with the Editorial Board and received a 2.5 star rating.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

14th Court of Appeals, Place 5 -- Republican Martha Hill Jamison (I) vs. Democrat Frances Bourliot
As with most of the Appellate Benches, I don't know much about Incumbent Justice Martha Hill Jamison, but I did want to note that former-Public Defender and current defense attorney Frances Bourliot is running as the Democratic candidate.  Without speaking ill of Justice Jamison, I did want to point out that I've known Bourliot for almost ten years and she is a strong advocate for her clients and someone who is extremely knowledgeable in the law.  She would make a great Justice.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

1st Court of Appeals, Place 6 -- Republican Harvey Brown (I) vs. Democrat Sarah Beth Landau
I don't personally know either of the candidates for the 1st Court of Appeals, but I did want to point out that Democratic challenger Sarah "Sorcha" Landau is running for the 1st Court of Appeals, Place 6 against Justice Harvey Brown.  Landau is an Assistant Public Defender.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

1st Court of Appeals, Place 7 -- Republican Terry Yates vs. Democrat Julie Countiss
The 1st Court of Appeals, Place 7 is an open race with Justice Terry Jennings not seeking re-election.  I've known Republican challenger Terry Yates for over 20 years and he's a friend of mine.  I'm very good friends with his brother, Denny, and I'm a big fan of his wife, Judge Leslie Brock Yates.  I like Terry a lot, but I have to admit I'm not a big fan of his association with Steven Hotze or the anti-same-sex marriage platform.  I only know Democrat Julie Countiss in passing, but I agree with her assessment that politics should be left out of the judicial system.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

234th District Court (Civil) -- Republican Wesley Ward (I) vs. Democrat Lauren Reeder
Assistant District Attorney Lauren Reeder is running against incumbent Judge Wesley Ward for the 234th District Court Bench.  I don't do Civil Law and I'm not saying anything negative about Judge Ward.  I will say that I know Reeder and have worked on several cases with her.  I think very highly of her ability and integrity.  She would make a great judge.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

269th District Court (Civil) -- Republican Dan Hinde (I) vs. Democrat Cory Sepolio
And, last but not least, my friend and former-Harris County Assistant District Attorney Cory Sepolio is challenging Dan Hinde for the 269th District Court Bench.  As in the race for the 234th, I'd like to reiterate that I don't do Civil Law.  I read the Chronicle's write up on the race and think that Judge Hinde's decision to stop performing weddings was a little weak-kneed.  According to the Chronicle, Judge Hinde acknowledged that he feared drawing a primary opponent if he had performed a same-sex marriage (also known as being Karahan-ed).  I do know Sepolio and I also think very highly of his ability and integrity.  He's a good man and would make a good judge.  Even though he doesn't return my calls about going to Texans games.

Here's what the Chronicle had to say about the race.

So, that's a wrap on my 2018 Election thoughts.  I hope they helped somebody out there somewhere in making a decision, because they sure took a long time to write!

Whether you folow my recommendations or ignore them completely, please please please just get out there and vote!

The 2018 County Court at Law Races

For those unfamiliar with the Criminal Justice System, the County Courts handle Misdemeanor cases such as Driving While Intoxicated, smaller thefts, Assaults that don't involve weapons or serious bodily injuries, and Possession of Marijuana (if the D.A. filed those kinds of cases).  As most of you already know, there are sixteen Criminal County Courts at Law in Harris County and fifteen of those are on the ballot in November.  The one exception is County Court at Law # 16, which is a relatively new Court, which comes up for election during the Presidential election cycle.  County Court at Law # 16 also has the distinction of being the only one of the County Courts currently held by a Democrat (Judge Darrell Jordan).  All fifteen of the Courts on the ballot in November are held by Republicans.

Most of the judges who sit on County Court benches have been there for many years -- several of them since before I came to Harris County.  Almost all of the judges are former prosecutors from the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Many of the current sitting judges have decided to retire rather than run again.  Personally, I think that there are three main factors that are influencing the Judicial Exodus:  1) terrible conditions after Hurricane Harvey, 2) an uncertain outlook for Republicans in November, and 3) a controversial Federal lawsuit regarding bail bonds.

As an amusing sidenote, apparently, the Houston Chronicle decided not to endorse any of the judges involved in the bond lawsuit.  I guess that's fine, but with the paper's fancy new rating system, that led to them giving higher ratings to some candidates and then endorsing that same candidate's opponent.  That's kind of like saying "sure, four is a higher number than three, but for the purposes of this article, we are just going to pretend that it isn't."  It's Chronicle Math.

Whatever.

With that for a backdrop, here are your candidates for the County Court Benches.

County Court at Law # 1 -- Republican Judge Paula Goodhart (I) vs. Democrat Alex Salgado
The first victim of Chronicle Math is Incumbent Republican Judge Paula Goodhart, who despite getting a 3.5 star rating as compared to challenger Alex Salgado's 3 stars, did not get the mildly coveted Chronicle endorsement.

I've known Judge Goodhart since she was at the Harris County District Attorney's Office, where she was a highly respected Chief and trial lawyer.  She later translated that into becoming a highly respected County Court Judge, where she has served for multiple terms now.  I haven't had too many cases in her court, but when I have, she has been polite, efficient, and fair.  She's a really good judge that is liked by both the prosecution and the defense.  As noted in the Chronicle non-endorsement, Judge Goodhart is also a leading force in SOBER Court, as well leading the effort to get things back to semi-normal after Hurricane Harvey.

I don't personally know Democrat Alex Salgado, but I've heard very nice things about him.  People that I know who practice more frequently in Fort Bend County know him from the Ft. Bend District Attorney's Office, where he is also well-liked and respected.  I'm sure that he would make a fine judge, as well.  As noted by the non-endorsement, he just doesn't have the amount of experience that Judge Goodhart does.

County Court at Law # 2 -- Republican Judge Bill Harmon (I) vs. Democrat Ronnisha Bowman
The second victim of Chronicle Math is Incumbent Republican Judge Bill Harmon, who received a 2.5-star rating, as opposed to his opponent, Democratic challenger Ronnisha Bowman's 2 stars.  In this case, however, the mathmagicians at the Chronicle called a surprising "No Endorsement" between the two candidates.  So, under this math equation, I guess 2 = 2.5 = 0?  I have to admit, I'm really kind of starting to enjoy Chronicle Math.  There are just no wrong answers.

But, I digress.  So, apparently, the fact that candidate Bowman has only tried six cases (which the Chronicle bizarrely refers to as "presiding over") in her short career.  Therefore, they cannot, in good conscience, endorse her.  So, I guess that means that they've got to go with the only other person in the race, right?  Nope.  That would make them go back on their word of not endorsing judges involved in the lawsuit.

I've known Judge Harmon since I was a baby prosecutor and I like him a lot.  However, he is pretty stubborn when it comes to how he handles cases, especially DWI cases.  He is known for being harsher on punishment and driver's license suspensions.  However, as noted by the Chronicle, he does absolutely know what he's doing.  They are also correct that having tried (not presided over) six trials does not give an attorney enough experience to be a judge.

County Court at Law # 3 -- Republican Judge Natalie Fleming (I) vs. Democrat Erica Hughes
Incumbent Judge Natalie Fleming is seeking re-election to the Bench that she has held since 2010.  I've had the opportunity to appear in front of Judge Fleming on several cases and she is an outstanding judge.  She is knowledgeable in the law and runs a friendly and efficient courtroom.  I would gladly appear in front of her any day.

Although I don't believe that I know Democratic challenger Erica Hughes, personally, she does have a very impressive resume in the Chronicle.  Unlike some other challengers, she does have experience in criminal law, as well as military experience in the National Guard with the JAG Corps.  The Chronicle points out that she would have a learning curve since JAG doesn't follow the Texas Penal Code.  I find this ironic since the Chronicle apparently does not follow Math.  If Hughes is doing criminal law in Texas and she has JAG trial experience, I'm sure she would do just fine.

The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Hughes with 3 stars, although it gave Judge Fleming 4 stars.  It seems to me that both candidates are both well-qualified to serve.

County Court at Law # 4 -- Republican Judge John Clinton (I) vs. Democrat Shannon Baldwin
Incumbent Judge and former-Houston Police Officer John Clinton is running for re-election against longtime defense attorney Shannon Baldwin.  I did not know Judge Clinton before he took the Bench in Court Four in 2010, but I've had the opportunity to appear before him several times over the past eight years and found it to be a very good experience.  He is very solution oriented and works with all of the parties in resolving the cases in a fair and equitable solution.  I agree with the Chronicle's assessment that he is a very caring judge.

Democratic candidate Shannon Baldwin is a friend of mine who devotes her practice to Criminal Law.  She's been doing it for quite some time now (20 years!) and would make a fantastic judge.  That, coupled with her military experience as an officer in the National Guard, make her candidacy the Real Deal.

The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Baldwin with 3.5 stars, compared to Judge Clinton's 4 stars.  I would have given Baldwin 4 stars, as well.

County Court at Law # 5 --  Republican Xavier Alfaro vs. Democrat David Fleischer
With longtime Incumbent Republican Judge Margaret Harris not seeking re-election, this race is the first of several wide-open contests in the Misdemeanor Courts.  Republican challenger Xavier Alfaro is a former prosecutor and current defense attorney who previously ran for the 178th District Court in 2016.  His Democratic opponent is longtime defense attorney David Fleischer.

Both Alfaro and Fleischer are friends of mine and both would make great judges.  While it is true that Alfaro has had the benefit of previously serving as a prosecutor (while Fleischer has not), I don't think that should be counted as a mark against Fleischer.  There are plenty of judges on the Bench in Harris County who only served as prosecutors.

Both Alfaro and Fleischer are dedicated lawyers who practice on a daily basis in defense of their clients.  Alfaro is a bit more laid-back while Fleischer is a bit more intense, with an overarching concern about the bigger issues facing the Criminal Justice System.

The Houston Chronicle gave the endorsement to Alfaro, with a 3.5-star rating, as compared to Fleischer's 3 stars.  I found the paper's write-up on the race to be a little confusing.  Personally, I would have graded them both as equals.

County Court at Law # 6 -- Republican Linda Garcia vs. Democrat Kelley Andrews
With longtime Incumbent Judge Larry Standley not seeking re-election, the race for County Court at Law # 6 is also an open race.  The Republican Candidate is Linda Garcia, who was previously appointed to County Court at Law #16 when the Court was first created.  She lost her bench in the Democratic Sweep of 2016 to Judge Darrell Jordan.  Andrews is a longtime defense attorney.  Both are friends of mine.

Garcia has a very impressive resume.  She is a former judge and prosecutor.  She also served on the Board of Pardons and Parole.  She's an extremely nice lady who was well-liked during her brief tenure on the Bench.  She also has a strong background in Appellate Law, which is a plus.

Kelley Andrews is a highly respected and well-liked defense attorney who has been zealously representing her clients for some time now.  She is a good attorney who works hard on her clients' behalf.  She is funny, diplomatic and talented.  The fact that the Chronicle gave her the same grade as a candidate with Garcia's resume is a testament to what a fantastic candidate she would be.

The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Garcia with a 3.5-star rating, although it gave Andrews the exact same rating.  I did laugh at the Chronicle's self-important declaration at the end of their endorsement:

We're giving the nod to Garcia on the express condition that she refuses to accept the status quo at the courthouse and becomes an agent for change.

What does that even mean?  In the event that Garcia wins the election and is not, in fact, "agent for change," the Chronicle will retract the endorsement?  Wouldn't that be a little late?  Who is writing this stuff for them?  They weren't like this in the District Court endorsements.  They seriously need to get over themselves.

County Court at Law # 7 -- Republican Judge Pam Derbyshire (I) vs. Democrat Andrew Wright
When I was a baby prosecutor back in 1999, the first court that I was ever assigned to was County Court at Law #7 with Judge Pam Derbyshire.  I tried my first cases in front of her and it was great.  She was great.  The staff was great.  Some of my favorite memories of my time as a prosecutor go back to those days when I didn't have a clue about what I was doing and I was trying cases in front of a very kind and very patient Judge Derbyshire. She is one of my very favorite people in the courthouse and I always love catching up with her every time I'm in the neighborhood of her court.

Her Democratic opponent, Andrew Wright, is a friend of mine, though, and (despite the fact that he routinely mocks me on Facebook every chance he gets) I think he'd make a pretty good judge, himself.   He is a hard-working attorney who is well-versed in the law and very dedicated to the job he does.  The majority of his practice is in the Misdemeanor Courts, where he is very much at home.  He strives to do a good job for his clients, even though he looks more like a member of an Allman Brothers Tribute Band than an attorney.  Wright is a good person who wants to help and wants to make things better in the Misdemeanor courts.

The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Wright with a 3-star rating despite the fact that they gave Judge Derbyshire a 4.5-star rating and praised her compassion and innovation from the Bench.  I wonder if, at any point, the Editorial Board started to realize that their steadfast refusal to endorse any of the incumbent judges was kind of making their recommendations look a little silly.

County Court at Law # 8 -- Republican Dan Simons vs. Democratic Socialist Franklin Bynum 
This is probably the most interesting race on the ballot this November because of the personalities involved.  As most courthouse regulars know, Republican challenger (former prosecutor and current defense attorney) Dan Simons defeated longtime incumbent Judge Jay Karahan in the primary after a very nasty battle.  His opponent is a longtime defense attorney, Franklin Bynum, who is running as a Democratic Socialist.  Simon's politics are extremely conservative.  Bynum couldn't be further to the Left.  They could not be more polarly opposite.

I've known Bynum since he was a (relatively) young defense attorney.  He's a friend that I bicker with quite a bit and, in fact, he was even my roommate for a brief amount of time.  I don't know Simons nearly as well as I know Bynum, but as I've previously written, he's always been nice to me.

As noted above, the philosophies of the two could not be more different.  Although I like Simons, I wasn't a big fan of the attack on Judge Karahan because Karahan performed a same-sex wedding.  I've got a big problem with the politics of exclusion.  That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if Bernie Sanders was considering giving Bynum a phone call and asking him to tone down the Liberalism just a smidge.  The Chronicle is very correct in describing Bynum as a "brilliant attorney who cares deeply for his clients."  The Chronicle is also correct in comparing his candidacy to that of former-Judge Kevin Fine.  If elected, Bynum would unabashedly start handling things quite differently than any other court in Harris County.  That's not a criticism.  That's just a prediction, and I would imagine he would wholeheartedly agree with it.

Unsurprisingly, the Chronicle gave the endorsement to Bynum with a 3.5-star rating to Simons' 1.5 rating.

County Court at Law # 9 -- Republican John Wakefield vs. Democrat Toria Finch
With the retirement of Judge Analia Wilkerson, political newcomers John Wakefield and Toria Finch are seeking to replace her.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't now Finch very well although we are always friendly when we see each other.  Wakefield and I, on the other hand, are good friends who go back to when he first started at the Office.  Not that I have anything negative to say about Finch.  I just know Wakefield far better.  I can speak to his qualifications based on personal experience, but I've got to rely on the Chronicle write-up for what I know about Finch.

Wakefield is a senior felony District Court Chief with the Harris County District Attorney's Office, where he has worked for the past 12 years.  He's a smart guy with a great sense of humor.  He's reasonable to deal with and he knows his cases.  He knows the law and he follows it.  He is compassionate on his cases and by no means a hard-core prosecutor.  He isn't afraid to do the right thing no matter what the circumstances.  In addition, Wakefield is a strong family man and a great friend.  He would make a great friend.  As noted in the Chronicle's selection, he is Board Certified in Criminal Law.

Finch has also been practicing criminal law for 12 years and worked in both the Misdemeanor and Felony Divisions of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  I learned from the Chronicle editorial that she was Board Certified in Juvenile Law.

Both have impressive resumes, which led to the Chronicle endorsing both candidates with mutual 4 star ratings.

County Court at Law # 10 --Republican Judge Dan Spjut (I) vs. Democrat Lee Harper Wilson
In contrast to the other County Court at Law races on the ballot, I don't really know either of the candidates running for County Court at Law #10.  I've appeared once before Judge Spjut since he took the Bench and he was very nice.  That being said, I've heard nothing but positive reviews from prosecutors and defense attorneys who have appeared in front of him.   Per the Chronicle editorial, Judge Spjut is a retired Houston Police Officer who served for 27 years and practiced civil law for 14 years.  He has been on the Bench since 2014.

I don't believe that I have ever met Lee Harper Wilson and I didn't recognize him from the picture.  He does have an impressive resume, especially considering the fact that he is Board Certified in Criminal Law.  Even Judge Spjut noted that Wilson was a qualified opponent.

The Chronicle again applied their special brand of math by giving the endorsement to Wilson with a 3.5-star rating while giving a 4-star rating to Judge Spjut.

County Court at Law # 11 -- Republican Aaron Burdette vs. Democrat Sedrick T. Walker, II
With the departure of longtime Judge Diane Bull, the race for County Court at Law # 11 is also a wide-open race with Republican Aaron "The Institution" Burdette running against Democrat Sedrick Walker.  In the interest of full disclosure, I know Burdette far better than I know Walker.  Although I worked with Walker on a couple cases during his tenure as a prosecutor, Burdette is a good friend, and also my neighbor.

Having read the Chronicle's write up on the race, I did want to note how much I agreed with Walker's assessment of the overarching problem of the Misdemeanor courts:

 He told us that too many defendants are being punished "on the front end of the system" before they are found guilty and "not at the back end," after it's determined that their actions merit consequences. 

His explanation sheds light on the core inequity of these courts. Too often bail is unaffordable, or it's saddled with punitive and costly conditions, and too many defendants end up being treated like they're on probation even though they've merely been charged and not convicted of a crime.

He's absolutely right about that.  I wish I had thought of it the way he said it.

As I noted above, I worked with Walker on a couple of cases during his time as a prosecutor.  He was always cordial and on-the-level with how he handled cases.  He was very straightforward and easy to work with.  I didn't feel like I ever got to know him very well, because he was really quiet.  He does have experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, which is a positive attribute.

I've known Burdette since he was a young prosecutor and I've always enjoyed working with him.  I've handled cases against him, where he was upfront with the strengths and weaknesses of his case.  I've also dealt with him when he was supervising the Misdemeanor Division as Deputy Chief.  He did a good job with that and I'm glad that the Chronicle recognized the importance that experience had.  That position gave him an overview of the Misdemeanor system as a whole.  He had the opportunity to see all sixteen of the County Courts.  He was able to see what things worked and what things didn't.  If elected, he will be able to put that knowledge into practice.

The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Burdette with a 4-star rating, although they also gave Walker 4 stars.

County Court at Law # 12 -- Republican John Spjut vs. Democrat Cassandra Y. Holleman
With the retirement of longtime Judge Robin Brown, this race is also up for grabs.  The Republican candidate is John Spjut, brother of Court #10's Judge Dan Spjut, and the husband of retiring Judge Diane Bull.  I don't know him personally.  Per the Chronicle endorsement, he spent 30 years with HPD and then 20 years doing juvenile law.  He doesn't look old enough to already have 50 years of career behind him,

Also per the Chronicle, he wants to create a Narcotics Court if elected.  That's not really a practical idea since Misdemeanor courts don't handle cases involving truly serious drugs and the Ogg Administration already has some pretty good programs for people caught with marijuana.  He also stated that he could look at a police report and decide if it has any holes in it, which is all well and good, except that's not really what a judge does.

That being said, at least Spjut showed up to meet with the Chronicle.  Apparently, Holleman literally phoned it in when it came to her interview -- something that didn't sit well with the Editorial Board.  The Board subsequently called out Holleman for not having a good website for her candidacy and disputed her claim that she practiced criminal law.  I don't know if she practices criminal law or not.  I'm not familiar with her name and I didn't recognize her when I looked her up on Facebook.

The Chronicle ultimately endorsed Spjut with 2.5 stars over Holleman's 2 stars.  Based on this ranking, I think I'm finally understanding the Chronicle's "star rating" system.  Apparently, you get 1 star just for having a pulse.  You get another star if you communicate with the Board at all.  You get a half star credit for saying the word "treatment."  You get another star (perhaps two) if you are really good at your job.  And you get all the stars completely disregarded if you are an incumbent seeking re-election.

County Court at Law # 13  -- Republican Jessica Padilla vs. Democrat Raul Rodriguez
With the retirement of Judge Don Smyth, political newcomer Jessica (Needham) Padilla is running as the Republican candidate against Democrat Raul Rodriguez, who has previously run for office.  Both candidates are great candidates and both are friends of mine.

I've known Padilla since she was a baby prosecutor almost 18 years ago.  She has always been a diligent and hardworking attorney -- both during her tenure as a prosecutor and subsequently, as a defense attorney.  She is smart and works hard for her clients.  She has the right demeanor to have a great judicial temperament.  In her Chronicle interview, she emphasized the work she does in Harris County's Reintegration Court.

Rodriguez has been practicing criminal law longer than I have.  Although he practices in both Felony and Misdemeanor courts, his primary focus seems to have been in the County Courts.  He is a very nice guy who is highly respected in the Criminal Justice world.  He also serves as a municipal court judge, per the Chronicle article.

The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Rodriguez with a 3-star rating, although it gave the same rating to Needham.

County Court at Law # 14 -- Republican Judge Mike Fields (I) vs. Democrat David Singer
Incumbent Republican Judge Mike Fields is the only incumbent on the County Courts Ballot to receive the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle during this election cycle.  The reason being that Judge Fields is one of two judges who has elected not to fight against the bail bond lawsuit that is so near and dear to the Chronicle's heart.

The race for Court 14 is an interesting one because it is an exact replay of the race in 2014.  Democrat David Singer challenged Judge Fields then and now.  The Chronicle notes that they endorsed Singer in 2014 but that they have subsequently changed their mind since Judge Fields left the lawsuit.

I've known Judge Fields since I was a baby prosecutor.  I was assigned to his court as a Misdemeanor Three.  Quite frankly, I love the guy.  We've always gotten along and we seem to get each other's sense of humor.  Don't get me wrong.  There have been times that some of his policies have left me scratching my head, but I think his heart has always been in the right place when trying to deal with cases -- particularly DWI cases.  Over the past 19 years, I've seen him make courtroom policies that he subsequently was willing to change if they weren't working.  I've also seen him delve into almost every case before him, devoting as much time as necessary to give it his full attention.  As noted in the Chronicle's editorial, he's willing to change his mind if that's what he thinks is the right thing to do.  That's a good quality for a judge.

I've also known David Singer for quite some time.  I like him too, but I think he gets mad at me for what I write about him on the blog from time to time.  I think Singer is a good lawyer -- a really good lawyer, in fact.  However, he seems to get angry over some small things.  I can recall him getting really aggravated over me referring to him as a "perennial candidate" one time.  He also took to the comments section here to blast me for referring to him as "equally qualified" to another candidate he was running against.   That seemed like a disproportionate response for something written on a blog that isn't really read by too many people.

As noted above, the Chronicle gave the endorsement to Judge Fields with 3.5 stars.  They gave the same rating to Singer.  As a side note, if I mysteriously disappear in the next few days, blame Singer.   Just kidding.  Kind of.

County Court at Law # 15 -- Republican Roger Bridgwater vs. Democrat Tonya Jones
With the retirement of longtime Judge Jean Spradling, Republican Roger Bridgwater brought forth his inevitable, never-ending quest to get elected back out on the road.  Bridgwater was appointed to the 178th District Court bench in 2007, only to lose it in the 2008 election.  He's never actually won an election.

As I've mentioned time and time again, I'm not a fan of Bridgwater.  I used to be. Unfortunately, his actions as a Bureau Chief in the Lykos Administration destroyed the respect I once had for the man.  I've written about it before a time or two.

Bridgwater knows I'm not a fan of his.  He's not a fan of mine either, and I get that.  So, I was rather stunned a few months ago when I learned that he was using something that I over a decade ago to create the absolutely FALSE impression that I supported his current campaign.  That's just dishonest, not to mention stupid.

I don't know Tonya Jones other than a few e-mail exchanges that we've had this season, but she's got my vote.  It is true that she has less years of legal experience than Bridgwater, but I'd rather vote for a young candidate who is honest than an old one who isn't.  The Chronicle gave the endorsement to Bridgwater with 4 stars, citing his years of experience and leadership potential.  The Board clearly doesn't know that much about Bridgwater.  The Board gave Jones 3.5 stars and stated it was only her lack of experience that got her the lower grade.

I have previously stated that I wasn't going to make endorsements this year, but I will make an exception in this race. I wholeheartedly endorse Tonya Jones for County Court at Law # 15.