The Chronicle made its judicial endorsements in today's newspaper on the 9 races up for grabs in the CJC.
I disagree with them on their endorsement of Reuben Guerrero over Bill Moore for reasons I've stated here, but other than that, I was kind of amused to see that we agreed on eight of the nine races.
I'm glad to see that the Chronicle editorial board has some sense.
But on the other hand, I feel like I've totally lost my street cred.
Showing posts with label The Judicial Races. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Judicial Races. Show all posts
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The 351st District Court Judicial Race
The race for the 351st District Court has Republican incumbent Judge Mark Kent Ellis facing Democratic candidate and defense attorney Mekisha Walker Murray. In this instance, my personal knowledge of Judge Ellis is only in passing, but Mekisha is a former prosecutor and a personal friend of mine.
Judge Ellis is an 8-year veteran of the District Attorney's Office, which he followed with 3 years of private practice. He has been on the bench since 1997. He has handled numerous death penalty Capital Murder trials and brings to the table eleven years of experience on the Bench. He is known as a very capable and intelligent judge who truly loves the law.
If anything, it could be said he might actually love the law a bit too much, as he is well known for spending upwards of about four hours during his portion of voir dire educating the jury panel on the "ins and outs" of how criminal law works. Now, this is often times rather aggravating to the prosecutors and defense attorneys (who are already quite familiar with the law), but Judge Ellis regularly gets compliments and thanks from the jurors who listen to his lecture. I don't think that anyone could make an argument that Judge Ellis is cutting any corners when it comes to ensuring well-educated jurors will end up on juries in his court.
In addition to his regular duties in the 351st, Judge Ellis is a former-member of the STAR Court judges dealing with defendants with substance abusers. In 2006, however, he switched from working in the STAR Court to being one of two judges supervising the Harris County Mental Health Court, which is a specialized court dealing with Defendants suffering from mental health issues.
I think that both prosecutors and defense attorneys alike can agree that dealing with mental health issues in the criminal court system is a complex and often troubling prospect. Everyone agrees that the criminal justice system and the way it is currently set up is ill-equipped to deal with persons accused of crimes who also suffer from legitimate mental illness. There is a line that must be walked that balances fairness to people who don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions and still takes into account the safety of the general public.
It's not an easy task, but it is one that Judge Ellis has volunteered his time to help work through.
Mekisha Murray, as I mentioned before, is a former prosecutor and current defense attorney. I like Mekisha and I think she has a brilliant legal mind and is an extremely hard worker.
When she was in the Justice of the Peace Division, Mekisha was known for doing legal research on Class C violations and case law regarding the traffic code. She was known for being an extremely intense prosecutor who worked very hard on her cases, often very late into the night. She served at the D.A.'s Office for somewhere around five or six years, I believe, before leaving as a Felony Two.
For those of you not familiar with the Office, the position of Felony Two is one of the most difficult positions in the Office. A Felony Two carries an enormous case load of serious felony trials ranging from high amounts of narcotics to Aggravated Robberies to Aggravated Sexual Assaults to Murders. Pretty much the only case that a Felony Two is not considered qualified to try is a Capital Murder case. A prosecutor will spend anywhere between four to five years in the position of Felony Two before being considered for promotion to Felony Chief. If the prosecutor has been able to survive those years of being a Felony Two, they can pretty much handle anything.
Mekisha left the Office fairly early on into her tenure as a Felony Two and didn't rise to the level of Felony Chief.
I don't say this to disparage Mekisha, because I think that at some point she will gather the credentials to be a good candidate for Judge. But as it stands now, she has been attorney for slightly less than six years. There's something to be said for experience, and she is still in the process of acquiring it at this point. I, myself, have only been a lawyer for almost ten years now, and I don't consider myself qualified to be a judge at this point based on my years of experience. I have a hard time thinking that Mekisha is quite there yet, either.
In the case of Judge Ellis, you are dealing with a long-standing judge who, not only has experience, but also is trying to make a difference in the community. His work with both the STAR Court and now the Mental Health courts clearly illustrate that it would be in the public's best interest to keep Judge Ellis on the bench.
Judge Ellis is an 8-year veteran of the District Attorney's Office, which he followed with 3 years of private practice. He has been on the bench since 1997. He has handled numerous death penalty Capital Murder trials and brings to the table eleven years of experience on the Bench. He is known as a very capable and intelligent judge who truly loves the law.
If anything, it could be said he might actually love the law a bit too much, as he is well known for spending upwards of about four hours during his portion of voir dire educating the jury panel on the "ins and outs" of how criminal law works. Now, this is often times rather aggravating to the prosecutors and defense attorneys (who are already quite familiar with the law), but Judge Ellis regularly gets compliments and thanks from the jurors who listen to his lecture. I don't think that anyone could make an argument that Judge Ellis is cutting any corners when it comes to ensuring well-educated jurors will end up on juries in his court.
In addition to his regular duties in the 351st, Judge Ellis is a former-member of the STAR Court judges dealing with defendants with substance abusers. In 2006, however, he switched from working in the STAR Court to being one of two judges supervising the Harris County Mental Health Court, which is a specialized court dealing with Defendants suffering from mental health issues.
I think that both prosecutors and defense attorneys alike can agree that dealing with mental health issues in the criminal court system is a complex and often troubling prospect. Everyone agrees that the criminal justice system and the way it is currently set up is ill-equipped to deal with persons accused of crimes who also suffer from legitimate mental illness. There is a line that must be walked that balances fairness to people who don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions and still takes into account the safety of the general public.
It's not an easy task, but it is one that Judge Ellis has volunteered his time to help work through.
Mekisha Murray, as I mentioned before, is a former prosecutor and current defense attorney. I like Mekisha and I think she has a brilliant legal mind and is an extremely hard worker.
When she was in the Justice of the Peace Division, Mekisha was known for doing legal research on Class C violations and case law regarding the traffic code. She was known for being an extremely intense prosecutor who worked very hard on her cases, often very late into the night. She served at the D.A.'s Office for somewhere around five or six years, I believe, before leaving as a Felony Two.
For those of you not familiar with the Office, the position of Felony Two is one of the most difficult positions in the Office. A Felony Two carries an enormous case load of serious felony trials ranging from high amounts of narcotics to Aggravated Robberies to Aggravated Sexual Assaults to Murders. Pretty much the only case that a Felony Two is not considered qualified to try is a Capital Murder case. A prosecutor will spend anywhere between four to five years in the position of Felony Two before being considered for promotion to Felony Chief. If the prosecutor has been able to survive those years of being a Felony Two, they can pretty much handle anything.
Mekisha left the Office fairly early on into her tenure as a Felony Two and didn't rise to the level of Felony Chief.
I don't say this to disparage Mekisha, because I think that at some point she will gather the credentials to be a good candidate for Judge. But as it stands now, she has been attorney for slightly less than six years. There's something to be said for experience, and she is still in the process of acquiring it at this point. I, myself, have only been a lawyer for almost ten years now, and I don't consider myself qualified to be a judge at this point based on my years of experience. I have a hard time thinking that Mekisha is quite there yet, either.
In the case of Judge Ellis, you are dealing with a long-standing judge who, not only has experience, but also is trying to make a difference in the community. His work with both the STAR Court and now the Mental Health courts clearly illustrate that it would be in the public's best interest to keep Judge Ellis on the bench.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The 339th District Court Judicial Race
In all of the political contests involving the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, there is probably no greater disparity between the candidates' qualifications and ability than there are between Republican Incumbent Judge Caprice Cosper and her Democratic opponent, Municipal Court Judge Maria Jackson.
As I've written before and my friend, Mark Bennett has written, Judge Cosper is the best Judge in the Criminal Courthouse. Please keep in mind that although Mark is one of my very good friends, he and I seem to disagree on damn near everything. But we are in agreement here that Judge Cosper is an amazing Judge and the thought of her losing her bench to a judge that tries only traffic cases is both nauseating and sad.
I've mentioned previously that there are four judges who comprise the supervision of the STAR Court Program. All of their roles are equally important in the success of the program, but (call me biased) I would describe Judge Cosper as the heart and soul of the program. She was one of the founding judges who helped start it, and she takes personal pride in the program.
When the STAR Program was first established, I'll admit that I was skeptical over the possibility of really making a meaningful change in the lives of hard-core addicts. I was very wrong about that. Under the guidance of Judges Cosper, Thomas, Anderson and Wilkinson, I've seen some amazing stories of recovery and redemption. I've also seen the pride and happiness in the faces of people who are winning their fight with their addictions.
That type of meaningful change couldn't have happened without judges like Judge Cosper.
When not working in the STAR Program, Judge Cosper is even better on the bench in the 339th District Court.
Trying a case in front of Judge Cosper is like trying a case in front of a Westlaw data base. She keeps up to date on all of the latest case law and legislation. During a tricky (from a legal standpoint) case in many courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys often are having to take "time out" to do some last minute legal research. It doesn't happen in the 339th, because the Judge knows the law off the top of her head.
As far as her judicial demeanor, she approaches each case with an open mind. Somehow she manages to tackle her job with a combination of compassion and toughness that is difficult to describe without seeing it in person.
Those defendants that appear before her on non-violent offenses that deserve a second chance will get them. But, Judge Cosper will order them into a treatment program that will do everything possible to ensure that defendants won't find themselves back in the criminal justice system again. She is the Judge who won't let a young person take a final felony conviction on a first time drug case, if she feels that a deferred adjudication will give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves and avoid a final conviction.
On the other hand, she will hand out the maximum sentence to violent offenders without batting an eyelash when appropriate. She knows the difference between people with legitimate problems and those who are just grasping on to any excuse that they can find for their behavior. She can cut through the difference and administer true justice.
She consistently does the right thing over and over again. She plays no favorites with either the State or the Defense, and I doubt that anyone could find a defense attorney who has practiced in front of her that would describe her as anything less than completely fair.
Like I said, she is the best Judge in the Courthouse.
Her opponent is a municipal court judge that has been a lawyer for less years than Judge Cosper has been a judge. Municipal court judges serve an important function in government and I do not mean to diminish that. But the bottom line is that the municipal courts handle only Class C Misdemeanors. For those of you who read this that aren't familiar with criminal law, a Class C misdemeanor is only punishable by a fine.
That basically translates into the fact that Maria Jackson has never had the power to sentence a person to a day in jail and now she seeks to hold a position where she would be handing down life sentences and signing death warrants. Her experience is primarily with traffic violations and now she seeks to deal with Capital Murders?!
The disparity between the two candidates is beyond enormous and is probably the best illustration why Judicial elections should have absolutely no ties to partisan politics.
Sadly, there is a real danger that those people who are still foolish enough to vote "straight ticket" on their ballots could remove from office the Best Judge in the courthouse in favor of a person who isn't even remotely qualified. I've never voted "straight ticket" in my life, nor will I. If anyone is so weak-minded that they can't put individual thought into who they are voting for, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Folks, do me a favor and get the word out to all of your friends who might possibly be voting straight-ticket Democrat and tell them about the mistake they would be making.
Unless Judge Cosper is re-elected, everybody loses on this one.
In case you missed it the first two times, she's the Best Judge in the Harris County Criminal Justice System.
As I've written before and my friend, Mark Bennett has written, Judge Cosper is the best Judge in the Criminal Courthouse. Please keep in mind that although Mark is one of my very good friends, he and I seem to disagree on damn near everything. But we are in agreement here that Judge Cosper is an amazing Judge and the thought of her losing her bench to a judge that tries only traffic cases is both nauseating and sad.
I've mentioned previously that there are four judges who comprise the supervision of the STAR Court Program. All of their roles are equally important in the success of the program, but (call me biased) I would describe Judge Cosper as the heart and soul of the program. She was one of the founding judges who helped start it, and she takes personal pride in the program.
When the STAR Program was first established, I'll admit that I was skeptical over the possibility of really making a meaningful change in the lives of hard-core addicts. I was very wrong about that. Under the guidance of Judges Cosper, Thomas, Anderson and Wilkinson, I've seen some amazing stories of recovery and redemption. I've also seen the pride and happiness in the faces of people who are winning their fight with their addictions.
That type of meaningful change couldn't have happened without judges like Judge Cosper.
When not working in the STAR Program, Judge Cosper is even better on the bench in the 339th District Court.
Trying a case in front of Judge Cosper is like trying a case in front of a Westlaw data base. She keeps up to date on all of the latest case law and legislation. During a tricky (from a legal standpoint) case in many courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys often are having to take "time out" to do some last minute legal research. It doesn't happen in the 339th, because the Judge knows the law off the top of her head.
As far as her judicial demeanor, she approaches each case with an open mind. Somehow she manages to tackle her job with a combination of compassion and toughness that is difficult to describe without seeing it in person.
Those defendants that appear before her on non-violent offenses that deserve a second chance will get them. But, Judge Cosper will order them into a treatment program that will do everything possible to ensure that defendants won't find themselves back in the criminal justice system again. She is the Judge who won't let a young person take a final felony conviction on a first time drug case, if she feels that a deferred adjudication will give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves and avoid a final conviction.
On the other hand, she will hand out the maximum sentence to violent offenders without batting an eyelash when appropriate. She knows the difference between people with legitimate problems and those who are just grasping on to any excuse that they can find for their behavior. She can cut through the difference and administer true justice.
She consistently does the right thing over and over again. She plays no favorites with either the State or the Defense, and I doubt that anyone could find a defense attorney who has practiced in front of her that would describe her as anything less than completely fair.
Like I said, she is the best Judge in the Courthouse.
Her opponent is a municipal court judge that has been a lawyer for less years than Judge Cosper has been a judge. Municipal court judges serve an important function in government and I do not mean to diminish that. But the bottom line is that the municipal courts handle only Class C Misdemeanors. For those of you who read this that aren't familiar with criminal law, a Class C misdemeanor is only punishable by a fine.
That basically translates into the fact that Maria Jackson has never had the power to sentence a person to a day in jail and now she seeks to hold a position where she would be handing down life sentences and signing death warrants. Her experience is primarily with traffic violations and now she seeks to deal with Capital Murders?!
The disparity between the two candidates is beyond enormous and is probably the best illustration why Judicial elections should have absolutely no ties to partisan politics.
Sadly, there is a real danger that those people who are still foolish enough to vote "straight ticket" on their ballots could remove from office the Best Judge in the courthouse in favor of a person who isn't even remotely qualified. I've never voted "straight ticket" in my life, nor will I. If anyone is so weak-minded that they can't put individual thought into who they are voting for, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Folks, do me a favor and get the word out to all of your friends who might possibly be voting straight-ticket Democrat and tell them about the mistake they would be making.
Unless Judge Cosper is re-elected, everybody loses on this one.
In case you missed it the first two times, she's the Best Judge in the Harris County Criminal Justice System.
The 338th District Court Judicial Race
The 338th District Court Judicial Race has two candidates that I can actually say were still working as prosecutors back when I started at the Office. The Republican candidate is incumbent Judge Brock Thomas and the Democratic Candidate is former prosecutor (on both the State and Federal levels) Hazel Jones. (And, as a side note, I have to commend both candidates for having extremely well-done websites!).
Although I worked in the Office with both candidates, and was just a lowly Misdemeanor Three, they were both extremely nice and helpful to everyone in the entire Office. Hazel was much more quiet while Judge Thomas was more of a leader. They were both very kind to me as a young prosecutor,
Judge Thomas has presided over the 338th District Court since 2002, and in my opinion, has done an exemplary job. He has presided over tough, and at times, tedious cases (such as the Priscilla Slade trial) and he has done so efficiently and in a professional manner. Although I have not practiced in front of him, Judge Thomas is said to have held himself to an extremely high standard when he was a prosecutor and he holds the prosecutors in his court to the same high standard.
Although some cynical folks like to sarcastically refer to the Harris County District Attorney's Office as a "Judicial Finishing School", I've never heard any complaints from the Defense Bar about Judge Thomas being anything but professional, fair, and intelligent.
In addition to his duties in the 338th, Judge Thomas is also one of the four judges who presides over the STAR Court, helping people charged with crimes and suffering from drug addiction to confront and beat their addiction. It is an extra duty that he has also handled with professionalism, and more important, compassion.
In short, Judge Thomas is an excellent judge.
As I mentioned earlier, I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Hazel Jones. She is an impressive, intelligent, and kind attorney with a very stunning resume. She is a native Houstonian who cares very much about her community and has excelled in the legal community. She has been on both sides of counsel table - as an Assistant District Attorney and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. She currently has her own defense practice.
I would vote for her in different circumstances, but in this case, I think that Judge Thomas has done too good of a job for too long to see him depart from his job.
Although I worked in the Office with both candidates, and was just a lowly Misdemeanor Three, they were both extremely nice and helpful to everyone in the entire Office. Hazel was much more quiet while Judge Thomas was more of a leader. They were both very kind to me as a young prosecutor,
Judge Thomas has presided over the 338th District Court since 2002, and in my opinion, has done an exemplary job. He has presided over tough, and at times, tedious cases (such as the Priscilla Slade trial) and he has done so efficiently and in a professional manner. Although I have not practiced in front of him, Judge Thomas is said to have held himself to an extremely high standard when he was a prosecutor and he holds the prosecutors in his court to the same high standard.
Although some cynical folks like to sarcastically refer to the Harris County District Attorney's Office as a "Judicial Finishing School", I've never heard any complaints from the Defense Bar about Judge Thomas being anything but professional, fair, and intelligent.
In addition to his duties in the 338th, Judge Thomas is also one of the four judges who presides over the STAR Court, helping people charged with crimes and suffering from drug addiction to confront and beat their addiction. It is an extra duty that he has also handled with professionalism, and more important, compassion.
In short, Judge Thomas is an excellent judge.
As I mentioned earlier, I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Hazel Jones. She is an impressive, intelligent, and kind attorney with a very stunning resume. She is a native Houstonian who cares very much about her community and has excelled in the legal community. She has been on both sides of counsel table - as an Assistant District Attorney and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. She currently has her own defense practice.
I would vote for her in different circumstances, but in this case, I think that Judge Thomas has done too good of a job for too long to see him depart from his job.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The 337th District Court Judicial Race
Back to Business today.
The race for the 337th District Court Judicial Race has Republican incumbent Judge Don Stricklin running against Democratic Candidate and defense attorney Herb Ritchie. I checked the Net and could not find a website for either candidate's campaign.
Back when I first started at the District Attorney's Office, Don Stricklin was the First Assistant under Johnny Holmes. He was the man who called and offered me the job there, so I will always have a pretty high level of fondness for the man. Apparently, I must have run him off or something, because not too long after my arrival, he was appointed to the 337th District Court. With me being a brand new Misdemeanor Three and him being First Assistant, I never dealt with him on a professional level.
I never served in the 337th District Court and I've never tried a case in their, either, so my knowledge of how the Judge runs his court is based solely on reputation and word-of-mouth.
Judge Stricklin is known for running a fast-paced and efficient court. He holds the State to a high standard and doesn't have patience with delays or mistakes made the prosecutors in his court. Cases are set for trial and actually go to trial in an efficient and timely manner. The State not being ready on trial day is unacceptable to the Judge, and that can often lead to some job stress for the prosecutors assigned to his court.
However, you don't hear the prosecutors complaining much about being in the court. One of my best friends at the Office spent a significant amount of time in there as a Felony Three, and thoroughly enjoyed the court and practicing in front of the Judge. According to him, the Judge was professional, businesslike, intelligent, and fair.
It is also worth noting that you don't hear the Defense Bar complaining about Judge Stricklin either. I'm sure those of you outside of the legal fields will be shocked to know that all attorneys tend to gripe and whine on occasion (especially over a beer or two). But I never hear the Defense Bar griping about Stricklin.
It sounds to me like Judge Stricklin is doing a good job and running a good court.
As little personal knowledge as I have about Judge Stricklin, I have even less knowledge about his opponent, Herb Ritchie. I've been around awhile and I've heard his name and I've seen him, but I honestly can't say that I've ever dealt with him. I know for certain that I've never had a trial with him, but I don't recall ever having a case with him at all.
I'm not claiming to know all of the defense attorneys in the courthouse, but I'd like to think that I know the vast majority of them. Maybe it's just a fluke, but I am honestly at a loss for words on what to write about Mr. Ritchie. I just don't know him.
So I'll have to turn it over to the commenters for their take on him.
However, he'd have to bring some pretty strong recommendations for me to think he'd be a better judge than Judge Stricklin.
The race for the 337th District Court Judicial Race has Republican incumbent Judge Don Stricklin running against Democratic Candidate and defense attorney Herb Ritchie. I checked the Net and could not find a website for either candidate's campaign.
Back when I first started at the District Attorney's Office, Don Stricklin was the First Assistant under Johnny Holmes. He was the man who called and offered me the job there, so I will always have a pretty high level of fondness for the man. Apparently, I must have run him off or something, because not too long after my arrival, he was appointed to the 337th District Court. With me being a brand new Misdemeanor Three and him being First Assistant, I never dealt with him on a professional level.
I never served in the 337th District Court and I've never tried a case in their, either, so my knowledge of how the Judge runs his court is based solely on reputation and word-of-mouth.
Judge Stricklin is known for running a fast-paced and efficient court. He holds the State to a high standard and doesn't have patience with delays or mistakes made the prosecutors in his court. Cases are set for trial and actually go to trial in an efficient and timely manner. The State not being ready on trial day is unacceptable to the Judge, and that can often lead to some job stress for the prosecutors assigned to his court.
However, you don't hear the prosecutors complaining much about being in the court. One of my best friends at the Office spent a significant amount of time in there as a Felony Three, and thoroughly enjoyed the court and practicing in front of the Judge. According to him, the Judge was professional, businesslike, intelligent, and fair.
It is also worth noting that you don't hear the Defense Bar complaining about Judge Stricklin either. I'm sure those of you outside of the legal fields will be shocked to know that all attorneys tend to gripe and whine on occasion (especially over a beer or two). But I never hear the Defense Bar griping about Stricklin.
It sounds to me like Judge Stricklin is doing a good job and running a good court.
As little personal knowledge as I have about Judge Stricklin, I have even less knowledge about his opponent, Herb Ritchie. I've been around awhile and I've heard his name and I've seen him, but I honestly can't say that I've ever dealt with him. I know for certain that I've never had a trial with him, but I don't recall ever having a case with him at all.
I'm not claiming to know all of the defense attorneys in the courthouse, but I'd like to think that I know the vast majority of them. Maybe it's just a fluke, but I am honestly at a loss for words on what to write about Mr. Ritchie. I just don't know him.
So I'll have to turn it over to the commenters for their take on him.
However, he'd have to bring some pretty strong recommendations for me to think he'd be a better judge than Judge Stricklin.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The 179th District Court Judicial Race
The race for the 179th District Court features 20 year veteran Judge Mike Wilkinson as the Republican Candidate against Democratic challenger Randy Roll. (NOTE: There were some technical difficulties when I tried to link to Judge Wilkinson's website, so I just linked to the District Courts page. I think that stat photo was taken in 1982).
I served as a Felony Two in the 179th District Court for several months, and I got to know both Judge Wilkinson and his court staff. It was a great court to work in.
Judge Wilkinson is one of those folks that has such a brilliant intellect that it is almost frightening. He is actually quite amazing in his knowledge of the law and when considering a legal ruling, it seems like you can actually see him going through the data banks in his head for the right answer.
Do you know the kind of smarts I'm talking about here? Like one of those types of guys that could play a chess match entirely in his head.
During trial, he keeps his own detailed notes of the testimony in "real time" as it is occurring. And I mean really detailed notes.
And Judge Wilkinson has a sense of humor. That may not seem like the most valuable asset that for a Judge on a Criminal Court bench, necessarily, but when a prosecutor is assigned to a court every day, it is certainly a bonus to have a pleasant work environment.
He's a great judge, not to mention a great person.
Unfortunately, Judge Wilkinson has suffered through some criticism over the years due to the time table he keeps on running his docket. It is true that he rarely gets to court before 10:00 a.m. or later.
And that has always been the single largest criticism about him.
The counter-point to that criticism is that Judge Wilkinson will also work late into the night and stays later than most judges. Around the Office, when a Judge is needed to sign a warrant or a dismissal in the late afternoon or early evening, the most likely person to be found will be Judge Wilkinson.
Was it annoying on occasion to deal with the Judge's time-table? Sure, it was.
Was it annoying enough to negate what a great judge he is otherwise? Not even close.
In addition to his regular duties on the 179th bench, Judge Wilkinson is also one of the 4 judges who volunteers his or her time with the STAR Court Program.
He is a compassionate man and an excellent judge.
His Democratic opposition in this race is Defense Attorney Randy Roll.
Randy has run for Judicial election in what seems like every election year since I've been working around the CJC (much like Lloyd Oliver). His own website mentions that he's "gained voters over the past 3 elections".
I suppose that is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at it is that he's been rejected for the possibility of judge now three times.
My dealings with Randy Roll as a defense attorney were quite some time ago, and were not impressive. There are a great many defense attorneys that have the respect and admiration of prosecutors in the D.A.'s Office.
Sadly, Randy does not enjoy that reputation.
Under the idea of "not saying anything when you have nothing nice to say", I will just leave it at that.
Just suffice it to say that if there is a voter out there who think that Judge Wilkinson's schedule is a problem, please believe me in saying that Randy Roll is not the solution.
Judge Wilkinson is an excellent judge and he's getting my vote. This one shouldn't even be close.
I served as a Felony Two in the 179th District Court for several months, and I got to know both Judge Wilkinson and his court staff. It was a great court to work in.
Judge Wilkinson is one of those folks that has such a brilliant intellect that it is almost frightening. He is actually quite amazing in his knowledge of the law and when considering a legal ruling, it seems like you can actually see him going through the data banks in his head for the right answer.
Do you know the kind of smarts I'm talking about here? Like one of those types of guys that could play a chess match entirely in his head.
During trial, he keeps his own detailed notes of the testimony in "real time" as it is occurring. And I mean really detailed notes.
And Judge Wilkinson has a sense of humor. That may not seem like the most valuable asset that for a Judge on a Criminal Court bench, necessarily, but when a prosecutor is assigned to a court every day, it is certainly a bonus to have a pleasant work environment.
He's a great judge, not to mention a great person.
Unfortunately, Judge Wilkinson has suffered through some criticism over the years due to the time table he keeps on running his docket. It is true that he rarely gets to court before 10:00 a.m. or later.
And that has always been the single largest criticism about him.
The counter-point to that criticism is that Judge Wilkinson will also work late into the night and stays later than most judges. Around the Office, when a Judge is needed to sign a warrant or a dismissal in the late afternoon or early evening, the most likely person to be found will be Judge Wilkinson.
Was it annoying on occasion to deal with the Judge's time-table? Sure, it was.
Was it annoying enough to negate what a great judge he is otherwise? Not even close.
In addition to his regular duties on the 179th bench, Judge Wilkinson is also one of the 4 judges who volunteers his or her time with the STAR Court Program.
He is a compassionate man and an excellent judge.
His Democratic opposition in this race is Defense Attorney Randy Roll.
Randy has run for Judicial election in what seems like every election year since I've been working around the CJC (much like Lloyd Oliver). His own website mentions that he's "gained voters over the past 3 elections".
I suppose that is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at it is that he's been rejected for the possibility of judge now three times.
My dealings with Randy Roll as a defense attorney were quite some time ago, and were not impressive. There are a great many defense attorneys that have the respect and admiration of prosecutors in the D.A.'s Office.
Sadly, Randy does not enjoy that reputation.
Under the idea of "not saying anything when you have nothing nice to say", I will just leave it at that.
Just suffice it to say that if there is a voter out there who think that Judge Wilkinson's schedule is a problem, please believe me in saying that Randy Roll is not the solution.
Judge Wilkinson is an excellent judge and he's getting my vote. This one shouldn't even be close.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The 178th District Court Judicial Race
The race for the 178th District Court has the newest Judge in the CJC, Republican candidate Judge Roger Bridgwater, defending his bench against Democratic attorney David Mendoza, Jr. (who does not have a website listed for him on the Harris County Democratic Party webpage).
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, because I don't know the first thing about Mr. Mendoza. I've checked out the internet for information with no luck, and I actually don't recognize him from his picture on the Democratic Party's website. I will say that after having been around that courthouse (in one form or another) since 1996, that it would be somewhat unusual for me to not recognize an attorney who practices there regularly.
But, stranger things have happened, and I don't mean to sell Mr. Mendoza short. If you know him and have dealt with him, please let us know your thoughts on him.
Judge Bridgwater, on the other, I have known pretty much since I first started working in Harris County. However, for the vast amount of time, obviously, I knew him as a member of the Defense Bar.
My experience with Roger Bridgwater as a defense attorney is one of great admiration and respect. He was one of the members of the Defense Bar that you could take every representation that he made to the State as the 100% truth. He was honest as the day was long, and he was a formidable adversary in trial. He was very soft-spoken, but prosecutors knew that they had better listen when he spoke.
There was actually something very Judicial about Roger Bridgwater long before he became a judge.
Judge Bridgwater has only been on the bench since July of last year. As the "rookie" Judge, he was virtually guaranteed an opponent, which is shame, because I expect great things out of Judge Bridgwater in his continued tenure.
I don't have much to report on his first year in Office, which is to be expected.
He hasn't had any major high profile cases or rulings that he's tackled quite yet, and he is probably considered to still be "transitioning" from the role of "attorney" to "judge".
If Judge Bridgwater is still in a "transition period", it is one that I expect he will come through with flying colors.
He's got my vote, and I hope to see him on the Bench for many more years to come.
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, because I don't know the first thing about Mr. Mendoza. I've checked out the internet for information with no luck, and I actually don't recognize him from his picture on the Democratic Party's website. I will say that after having been around that courthouse (in one form or another) since 1996, that it would be somewhat unusual for me to not recognize an attorney who practices there regularly.
But, stranger things have happened, and I don't mean to sell Mr. Mendoza short. If you know him and have dealt with him, please let us know your thoughts on him.
Judge Bridgwater, on the other, I have known pretty much since I first started working in Harris County. However, for the vast amount of time, obviously, I knew him as a member of the Defense Bar.
My experience with Roger Bridgwater as a defense attorney is one of great admiration and respect. He was one of the members of the Defense Bar that you could take every representation that he made to the State as the 100% truth. He was honest as the day was long, and he was a formidable adversary in trial. He was very soft-spoken, but prosecutors knew that they had better listen when he spoke.
There was actually something very Judicial about Roger Bridgwater long before he became a judge.
Judge Bridgwater has only been on the bench since July of last year. As the "rookie" Judge, he was virtually guaranteed an opponent, which is shame, because I expect great things out of Judge Bridgwater in his continued tenure.
I don't have much to report on his first year in Office, which is to be expected.
He hasn't had any major high profile cases or rulings that he's tackled quite yet, and he is probably considered to still be "transitioning" from the role of "attorney" to "judge".
If Judge Bridgwater is still in a "transition period", it is one that I expect he will come through with flying colors.
He's got my vote, and I hope to see him on the Bench for many more years to come.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The 177th District Court Judicial Race
Before Hurricane Ike, I had a plan to write one profile a week on the Judicial Races. Unfortunately, I'm in a bit of a time crunch. I'm trying to double up here and cover all of them before the Early Voting starts, so forgive me if the quality of the profiles suffer.
The 177th District Court Judicial race pits Republican Incumbent Judge Devon Anderson against Democratic challenger Kevin Fine.
This particular race is interesting to me, because I know both candidates, and I like them both very much.
I first met Judge Anderson when she was still a prosecutor with the D.A.'s Office, and she was prosecuting the infamous Railcar Killer, Rafael Resendiz Ramirez. She was trying the case along with Lyn McClellan and then-District Attorney, Johnny Homes. In watching that trial, even amongst those "Old Dogs", Judge Anderson was the most impressive attorney in that heart-breaking and terrifying trial.
I was thrilled when Judge Anderson was elected to the bench in 2004 and I knew she would represent the Harris County Criminal Justice System well.
In my opinion, she has lived up to, and exceeded those expectations.
Judge Anderson is a smart, tough, and fair Judge who manages her docket in a no-nonsense manner that is efficient and timely. Her docket is always one of the Top Two lowest dockets (the other one being her husband, Judge Mike Anderson's docket) of all the 22 District Criminal Courts. I agree that "numbers aren't everything", but the low numbers are indicative of a Court that is moving at a very effective rate.
To be fair, I know that there are some complaints from the Defense Bar about Judge Anderson, and I think they need to be closely examined. Some have complained of her brusque demeanor with Defendants. One highly respected defense attorney (who asked to remain anonymous) stated to me: "She has never been anything but courteous and respectful to me, and she's never screwed me over on a ruling, but she's pretty rough on my clients."
Fair enough, but let's take a look at that.
An example of that which I heard from a (different) member of the Defense Bar was the following story:
"I had a guy charged with a Third Degree (NOTE: Punishable by 2 years to 10 years in TDCJ) dope charge, and the State had offered him a year in the county jail. My guy turned it down, and asked for his trial setting. When [Judge Anderson] learned what the offer was and what he had turned down, she just went off on him about how stupid it was that he was turning the offer down."
This particular attorney was relatively aggravated about the Judge going off on his client, but when asked what ultimately happened to his client, the story comes into perspective: He was found guilty and got 8 years in TDCJ.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think everyone who enters into the CJC should be treated respectfully, but if this particular defendant had listened to Judge Anderson's brusque criticism, he'd be out of jail by now. She was trying to scare some common sense into him, and he didn't listen to her. Ultimately, his feelings may have gotten hurt, but she was right. If I were in his shoes, I'd have taken a little berating in exchange for not having to serve an additional seven years of incarceration.
The bottom line is that the Defense Bar complaints about Judge Anderson have always seemed a little hyper-sensitive to me. I think this is a Judge who is doing the right thing and following the law. As a voter, and as a lawyer, I think being a little bit brusque is called for from time to time.
Her opponent, Kevin Fine, is a respected, skilled, and very intelligent defense attorney. And he's also a hell of a nice guy.
He's a member of the law firm of Stanley Schneider and Troy McKinney, who are also some extremely smart attorneys. I wish that his website had a little more background information on him, because I would gladly include it here. I really do think Kevin is a great guy. He's also a brilliant lawyer.
But when it comes down to it (although I know Mark Bennett and crew will probably be blasting me for this statement), there's nothing wrong with a "tough" judge on the bench, and I think that is pretty much what Judge Anderson exemplifies.
Does she hurt some feelings? Perhaps.
But does she call them like she sees them and still provides a fair trial? Yep.
To me, that makes a great judge.
[NOTE: I forgot to mention in my earlier posts that Judge Anderson (along with Judges Cosper, Wilkinson, and Thomas) also volunteers her time to preside over the STAR Court program, which provides meaningful help to defendants with drug addiction.]
The 177th District Court Judicial race pits Republican Incumbent Judge Devon Anderson against Democratic challenger Kevin Fine.
This particular race is interesting to me, because I know both candidates, and I like them both very much.
I first met Judge Anderson when she was still a prosecutor with the D.A.'s Office, and she was prosecuting the infamous Railcar Killer, Rafael Resendiz Ramirez. She was trying the case along with Lyn McClellan and then-District Attorney, Johnny Homes. In watching that trial, even amongst those "Old Dogs", Judge Anderson was the most impressive attorney in that heart-breaking and terrifying trial.
I was thrilled when Judge Anderson was elected to the bench in 2004 and I knew she would represent the Harris County Criminal Justice System well.
In my opinion, she has lived up to, and exceeded those expectations.
Judge Anderson is a smart, tough, and fair Judge who manages her docket in a no-nonsense manner that is efficient and timely. Her docket is always one of the Top Two lowest dockets (the other one being her husband, Judge Mike Anderson's docket) of all the 22 District Criminal Courts. I agree that "numbers aren't everything", but the low numbers are indicative of a Court that is moving at a very effective rate.
To be fair, I know that there are some complaints from the Defense Bar about Judge Anderson, and I think they need to be closely examined. Some have complained of her brusque demeanor with Defendants. One highly respected defense attorney (who asked to remain anonymous) stated to me: "She has never been anything but courteous and respectful to me, and she's never screwed me over on a ruling, but she's pretty rough on my clients."
Fair enough, but let's take a look at that.
An example of that which I heard from a (different) member of the Defense Bar was the following story:
"I had a guy charged with a Third Degree (NOTE: Punishable by 2 years to 10 years in TDCJ) dope charge, and the State had offered him a year in the county jail. My guy turned it down, and asked for his trial setting. When [Judge Anderson] learned what the offer was and what he had turned down, she just went off on him about how stupid it was that he was turning the offer down."
This particular attorney was relatively aggravated about the Judge going off on his client, but when asked what ultimately happened to his client, the story comes into perspective: He was found guilty and got 8 years in TDCJ.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think everyone who enters into the CJC should be treated respectfully, but if this particular defendant had listened to Judge Anderson's brusque criticism, he'd be out of jail by now. She was trying to scare some common sense into him, and he didn't listen to her. Ultimately, his feelings may have gotten hurt, but she was right. If I were in his shoes, I'd have taken a little berating in exchange for not having to serve an additional seven years of incarceration.
The bottom line is that the Defense Bar complaints about Judge Anderson have always seemed a little hyper-sensitive to me. I think this is a Judge who is doing the right thing and following the law. As a voter, and as a lawyer, I think being a little bit brusque is called for from time to time.
Her opponent, Kevin Fine, is a respected, skilled, and very intelligent defense attorney. And he's also a hell of a nice guy.
He's a member of the law firm of Stanley Schneider and Troy McKinney, who are also some extremely smart attorneys. I wish that his website had a little more background information on him, because I would gladly include it here. I really do think Kevin is a great guy. He's also a brilliant lawyer.
But when it comes down to it (although I know Mark Bennett and crew will probably be blasting me for this statement), there's nothing wrong with a "tough" judge on the bench, and I think that is pretty much what Judge Anderson exemplifies.
Does she hurt some feelings? Perhaps.
But does she call them like she sees them and still provides a fair trial? Yep.
To me, that makes a great judge.
[NOTE: I forgot to mention in my earlier posts that Judge Anderson (along with Judges Cosper, Wilkinson, and Thomas) also volunteers her time to preside over the STAR Court program, which provides meaningful help to defendants with drug addiction.]
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The 176th District Court Judicial Race
Okay, I got a little sidetracked on my election profiles by some dude named Ike. But, I'm back again.
Back in January, I posted an article making note of the fact that if it weren't for the Rosenthal e-mail scandal (and subsequent D.A. Race), that the race for the 176th District Court would have probably been the spotlighted race for this election season in Harris County. (NOTE: When I said that it was before the Obama phenomenon had occurred).
I'm sure that every large county has it's judge that everyone dreads appearing before.
In Harris County, that judge would be Republican Judge Brian Rains of the 176th District Court, and in November, he will be challenged for his bench by Democratic Candidate and Defense Attorney Shawna Reagin.
In my January article, I pointed out that Rains' short temper, angry outbursts, and overall rudeness to attorneys were some of his major flaws. In reality, those things are just the tip of the iceberg. I think most voters could easily forgive a judge who was rude to arrogant prosecutors and defense attorneys that were practicing in front of him. However, Rains' anger, arrogance and stubbornness go way beyond the bounds of a lawyer's hurt feelings. They often bleed over into his rulings and how he handles his court in ways that create very troubling results.
For instance . . .
-over the years, Judge Rains has been the only one of the 22 Criminal District Court Judges who has done everything in his power to prevent probations or deferred adjudications from happening in his court. I'm sure that might sound really "tough on crime" to Joe Citizen, but the reality is that it is really taking away a viable alternative for people charged with crimes worthy of probation. His official position is that he never opposed probation, but standard conditions of his probations were often significant amounts of jail time. The jail time condition made it much more preferable for a Defendant to take a 12.44(a) sentence for a shorter amount of jail time that resulted in a final felony conviction. This was what led to the joint D.A. Office/Dick DeGuerin alliance that I mentioned in the earlier article.
-in a Capital Murder trial last year, the prosecution entered into evidence a video tape of the murder occurring (during a convenience store robbery). Rains allowed the admission of the tape, but refused to allow it to be shown to the jury for some reason. Both defense counsel and the State requested that it be shown to the jury, but Rains decided better of it. The State had to play the tape during closing arguments, rather than during testimony.
-in a recent Aggravated Robbery case, Rains refused to even entertain the idea of putting lesser included offenses in the jury charge, even though the evidence may have called for it. Failure to do so could potentially end up in a reversal.
-in another Capital Murder trial, Dang v. State, Rains had a capital murder case reversed because of his refusal to grant the defense more time to argue.
-several years ago, Rains granted a bond to a man named Neville Sapp. Sapp had picked up an attempted sexual assault case in a very violent episode against his ex-girlfriend, Ella Marie Broussard. The State, rightfully, requested that Sapp be held without bond (as he was a true habitual offender). Rains disregarded the State's pleas to keep a violent defendant in jail until trial, and let him out on bond. Days later, Sapp brutally murdered Ms. Broussard.
Rains' Democratic opponent is Defense Attorney Shawna Reagin.
I had the opportunity to sit down and talk with her about her qualifications and her ideas about how to run a court, as well address some concerns that I had previously had about her being very "anti-D.A. office".
Shawna has been practicing criminal law since 1989 and has a deep background in both criminal trial work and in appellate work. In my opinion, that kind of balance makes for a great potential to be a good judge.
She told me that her philosophy is that a good trial judge is one that sits back and lets the attorneys try their cases. As a trial attorney, that's pretty much music to my ears. If we are talking about a judge that knows the "ins and outs" of trying a criminal case, the appellate knowledge to what the current state of the Law actually is, and that same judge will let me try my case, we just might be talking about attorneys wanting to return to the 176th for a change.
In addressing my earlier addressed concerns about Shawna being "anti-D.A. office", she responded that her role of a defense attorney was to be an adversary to the State, and she prided herself on being a very zealous advocate for her clients. She pointed out that if elected to the Bench that her role would be drastically different from the one she currently holds. She also stated that, if elected, she would take her Oath to Administer Justice fairly and neutrally ever bit as seriously as she currently takes her Oath to defend her clients. She stressed that Assistant District Attorneys should not have any concerns about her ability to give the State a fair trial.
I think she makes a good point, and I enjoyed meeting with her.
Shawna Reagin has my vote in this race.
Back in January, I posted an article making note of the fact that if it weren't for the Rosenthal e-mail scandal (and subsequent D.A. Race), that the race for the 176th District Court would have probably been the spotlighted race for this election season in Harris County. (NOTE: When I said that it was before the Obama phenomenon had occurred).
I'm sure that every large county has it's judge that everyone dreads appearing before.
In Harris County, that judge would be Republican Judge Brian Rains of the 176th District Court, and in November, he will be challenged for his bench by Democratic Candidate and Defense Attorney Shawna Reagin.
In my January article, I pointed out that Rains' short temper, angry outbursts, and overall rudeness to attorneys were some of his major flaws. In reality, those things are just the tip of the iceberg. I think most voters could easily forgive a judge who was rude to arrogant prosecutors and defense attorneys that were practicing in front of him. However, Rains' anger, arrogance and stubbornness go way beyond the bounds of a lawyer's hurt feelings. They often bleed over into his rulings and how he handles his court in ways that create very troubling results.
For instance . . .
-over the years, Judge Rains has been the only one of the 22 Criminal District Court Judges who has done everything in his power to prevent probations or deferred adjudications from happening in his court. I'm sure that might sound really "tough on crime" to Joe Citizen, but the reality is that it is really taking away a viable alternative for people charged with crimes worthy of probation. His official position is that he never opposed probation, but standard conditions of his probations were often significant amounts of jail time. The jail time condition made it much more preferable for a Defendant to take a 12.44(a) sentence for a shorter amount of jail time that resulted in a final felony conviction. This was what led to the joint D.A. Office/Dick DeGuerin alliance that I mentioned in the earlier article.
-in a Capital Murder trial last year, the prosecution entered into evidence a video tape of the murder occurring (during a convenience store robbery). Rains allowed the admission of the tape, but refused to allow it to be shown to the jury for some reason. Both defense counsel and the State requested that it be shown to the jury, but Rains decided better of it. The State had to play the tape during closing arguments, rather than during testimony.
-in a recent Aggravated Robbery case, Rains refused to even entertain the idea of putting lesser included offenses in the jury charge, even though the evidence may have called for it. Failure to do so could potentially end up in a reversal.
-in another Capital Murder trial, Dang v. State, Rains had a capital murder case reversed because of his refusal to grant the defense more time to argue.
-several years ago, Rains granted a bond to a man named Neville Sapp. Sapp had picked up an attempted sexual assault case in a very violent episode against his ex-girlfriend, Ella Marie Broussard. The State, rightfully, requested that Sapp be held without bond (as he was a true habitual offender). Rains disregarded the State's pleas to keep a violent defendant in jail until trial, and let him out on bond. Days later, Sapp brutally murdered Ms. Broussard.
Rains' Democratic opponent is Defense Attorney Shawna Reagin.
I had the opportunity to sit down and talk with her about her qualifications and her ideas about how to run a court, as well address some concerns that I had previously had about her being very "anti-D.A. office".
Shawna has been practicing criminal law since 1989 and has a deep background in both criminal trial work and in appellate work. In my opinion, that kind of balance makes for a great potential to be a good judge.
She told me that her philosophy is that a good trial judge is one that sits back and lets the attorneys try their cases. As a trial attorney, that's pretty much music to my ears. If we are talking about a judge that knows the "ins and outs" of trying a criminal case, the appellate knowledge to what the current state of the Law actually is, and that same judge will let me try my case, we just might be talking about attorneys wanting to return to the 176th for a change.
In addressing my earlier addressed concerns about Shawna being "anti-D.A. office", she responded that her role of a defense attorney was to be an adversary to the State, and she prided herself on being a very zealous advocate for her clients. She pointed out that if elected to the Bench that her role would be drastically different from the one she currently holds. She also stated that, if elected, she would take her Oath to Administer Justice fairly and neutrally ever bit as seriously as she currently takes her Oath to defend her clients. She stressed that Assistant District Attorneys should not have any concerns about her ability to give the State a fair trial.
I think she makes a good point, and I enjoyed meeting with her.
Shawna Reagin has my vote in this race.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Before I Begin . . .
Before I start off on my court by court previews of the Judicial races in Harris County, Texas, I think it only fair that I go ahead and admit some of my biases on the front side.
I've been working in and around the CJC for over ten years now, and I've had the opportunity to work with a lot of the judges and people running for the benches. I have to say that I think that the vast majority of the judges on the bench as we speak range from good to outstanding. I like them personally and I like them professionally.
Recognizing my own biases, I've sought out some opinions of members of the Defense Bar (whom, at their request won't be named in the posts) and gotten their perspectives, too. I also have added the links to each candidate's web site (where I can find them).
I welcome your input in the comments section.
I've been working in and around the CJC for over ten years now, and I've had the opportunity to work with a lot of the judges and people running for the benches. I have to say that I think that the vast majority of the judges on the bench as we speak range from good to outstanding. I like them personally and I like them professionally.
Recognizing my own biases, I've sought out some opinions of members of the Defense Bar (whom, at their request won't be named in the posts) and gotten their perspectives, too. I also have added the links to each candidate's web site (where I can find them).
I welcome your input in the comments section.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Coming Soon
Over the next couple of weeks, I plan to start doing a profile on each of the contested criminal court races that are going to be on the November ballot.
My idea is to start with the 174th District Court race and then work all my way up through the 351st race, and finish off with the race for District Attorney (maybe by then, my constantly-changing opinion on that race will have stabilized). I will probably do a preliminary article about what I know about the candidates and then toss it to you guys for your comments.
If you have something that you think ought to be included in the article itself, e-mail me off-blog and I'll take a look at it.
In the meantime, have a good Sunday!
My idea is to start with the 174th District Court race and then work all my way up through the 351st race, and finish off with the race for District Attorney (maybe by then, my constantly-changing opinion on that race will have stabilized). I will probably do a preliminary article about what I know about the candidates and then toss it to you guys for your comments.
If you have something that you think ought to be included in the article itself, e-mail me off-blog and I'll take a look at it.
In the meantime, have a good Sunday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Truth About Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases
When I was in college at A&M, I worked as an intern at the Brazos County District Attorney's Office for two and a half years. It wa...
