Observations from Jury Duty

 I had jury duty for the first time in a couple of years today.  In the 33 years since I've been eligible to be a juror, I had only sat through three voir dires before today.  I never made the jury on any of them.  The first was a criminal case in Brazos County when I was at A&M.  The second was a criminal case in Harris County shortly after I left the D.A.'s Office where my friend and former co-worker Wendy Baker utilized a State Strike on me because she thought I was too good of friends with Defense Counsel Mark Bennett -- as I pointed out to her later, I never drove Mark to the hospital when he was in labor, but whatever, Wendy!  The third was a civil trial.

Since I had a jury summons for a Monday morning, I was pretty sure that I would at least be called to a panel today.  And I was right.

And truth be told, it was all pretty painless.

Thanks to my frequent visitor badge, I got to skip the metal detectors and got logged in on the computer and sent to my assembly room.  We watched a short video where District Clerk Marilyn Burgess spent about five minutes talking about how she had helped secure more money for jurors for their service and ways to use the gift card that we would be receiving the money.  About fifteen minutes later, Deputy Momin came and collected 65 of us for voir dire in the 180th District Court, Judge DaSean Jones presiding.

So, my first observation is a big shoutout to the 180th Court and its staff for being incredibly efficient.  We were seated and in the courtroom by 9:30 (if not earlier).  Standing around in the hallway is boring and we didn't do it for very long.  Deputy Momin got us there quickly, got us lined up, and got us in our seats efficiently.  There was a brief moment of entertainment when a female defendant (who may or may not have been on meth) in the hallway started yelling at jurors to get out of her way.  This got Deputy Momin's attention, and he chastised her for talking to his jury like that.  The bailiffs are the Court's first ambassadors that the jurors meet and the 180th has a great one.

Different judges do voir dire differently and for varying lengths of time.  Former 351st District Court Judge Mark Kent Ellis used to famously talk for four or five hours for his portion alone.  Some judges I've seen over the years didn't talk at all.  Judge Jones' voir dire was short and to the point.  He and I've known each other for about fifteen years and he called on me to answer some of the basic questions.  He covered some of the major themes that needed to be covered, but he didn't talk for long at all.

Each side was given thirty minutes to ask questions on an Assault-Family Violence Impeding Breathing case.  That's not just a ton of time to talk on a type of case that can potentially have some pretty deep issues.  The State was represented by the Felony Three assigned to the Court and his Chief sat with him.  The time allotted to him wasn't enough for him to get too fancy and he did a fine job of covering the basics.  He spent the majority of his time gauging the attitudes of the panel towards State involvement in matters of family violence.  He had a couple of scaled questions that were good ideas, but I think he spent too much of his limited time following up with their numerical answers without getting anyone struck for Cause.  He also made a point of going over "the State doesn't have to prove motive" which I've been seeing coming from several prosecutors lately.  I don't think that's really necessary.  His presence was good though, and I'm sure those lessons will be learned in time.

Defense Attorney Brennen Dunn was representing the Defendant in the case, and he was great.  I don't know him except in passing but he is well-known as an attorney who isn't afraid to go to trial, and it showed.  He was clearly ready to get through his points in a short amount of time and he did it very well.  Any defense attorney will tell you that we freely steal ideas from one another, and I'll definitely be stealing some things from Brennan -- particularly on how he covered the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the 5th Amendment.  He got plenty of strikes for Cause.  I was a little surprised at some of his questions on self-defense, but all in all, he had an outstanding presence in front of the jury and did a great job.

After both sides were done, we went out in the hallway for about fifteen minutes.  When we came back in, both sides spent about five minutes wrapping up making their peremptory strikes, and they seated a jury.  I was juror number 49, so I didn't get reached.  I was out of there right around noon.  It couldn't have gone any smoother.

Feast of Fashion Returns

 After an absence of several years due to the Pandemic, Pat Kelley and Julie Jones' Feast of Fashion is returning this year.

It's been a minute since the last, but they are always a ton of fun and raise money for several great causes.  For ticket information, contact Julie at 713-248-6864.

Skip Cornelius

Legendary Defense Attorney and former Prosecutor Skip Cornelius passed away yesterday.  To say that his passing has resonated across the entirety of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center Family is an understatement.  From his fellow members of the Defense Bar to the Prosecutors who handled cases against him to pretty much all of the Judges he practiced before, Skip was the Gold Standard of what it meant to be a lawyer practicing indigent defense.   If you've been a reader of this blog over the years, you'll have seen his name brought up many times as I cited him as the best Harris County had to offer.  

It seems that the only thing that really motivates me to write something on the blog these days is when I feel the need to say goodbye to someone who I consider to be an influential force in my legal career. Lately 'm having to do that far more than I wish.  There have been other recent passings that I feel remiss for not having written about here, including Skip's brother, Terry Cornelius, who passed away earlier this year, and retired Judge Don Stricklin, who was the man in 1999 who called and offered me a job as a prosecutor.  Between lawyering and parenting, there have been things I've wanted to sit down and write about over the past months but just haven't had the opportunity.

With Skip's passing, however, I have so much I want to say that I just couldn't . . . not, I guess.  

There were so many eras of my legal career where I dealt with him, learned from him, and tried to imitate him -- starting when I was a new Felony Three who had hastily written a very low offer on a case file (back when we had paper case files) on one of his clients.  He looked at the offer and frowned slightly before handing me the file.

"I appreciate the offer.  I do," he said.  "But it would probably get you fired."  He pointed out that I had neglected to pay attention to his client's criminal history which made his punishment range 25 years to Life -- far higher than the 2-year offer I had extended.  But I had extended the offer, and after explaining my mistake to my chief, we honored it.

So, one of the first things that Skip taught me was in an adversarial system, there was still very much a calling for honor and chivalry in how we deal with each other.  He very easily could have called in the doctrine of No Take Backs and gotten me in trouble for my mistake to the benefit of his client.  In some defense attorney circles, one might argue that he made the wrong call.  I disagree with that argument wholeheartedly.  Skip's demonstration of honor put the onus on me to respond in kind.  It also made me want to follow his example in my future dealings with him and all opposing counsel in the future.

Skip's chivalry didn't always translate into patience with a young prosecutor, however, and I'm sure that I was just one of a multitude of young prosecutors who could annoy him.  I saw him mad on occasion, but more often it was his annoyance that tended to resonate with me.  I always felt if I was annoying Skip, I was definitely doing something wrong.  We once had a case together where a charge had been filed against his client but several other charges hadn't.  As we were getting closer to trial, I had gone ahead and filed those additional charges in anticipation of trial.  

We approached the bench for a pre-trial conference and Skip was clearly exasperated with me for reasons I didn't completely grasp initially.  The judge asked us what the status of the case was.

"Well," Skip said.  "We probably could have worked it out today if the State hadn't filed the C.S. Charges."

"What are C.S. charges?" I asked, very confused.

"Chickenshit charges," he replied, shaking his head.  We ultimately worked his case out on the original charge and dismissed all of those extraneous C.S. charges.

Skip was a highly respected and skilled trial lawyer who handled a multitude of serious cases, including many Death Penalty Capitals.  Because of his experience in trial, he was highly sought-after to be a speaker at Continuing Legal Education classes on Capital Murder cases.  I loved attending lectures where Skip was talking, because he always got straight to the point in a way that so many other lecturers failed to do.

While other lecturers at a Capital Murder seminar have an annoying tendency to wax overly poetic as they pontificate -- 

As we realize that we hold a precious life in our hands in these dastardly cases and everything is riding on us, we must first take a moment to step outside of our limited world view and embrace the situations that our clients have existed in that led them to this horrible and tragic circumstance for so many.

 -- Skip would take to the stage and say things like "The first thing you need to do is make sure there are no damn engineers on your jury."  With no offense towards the many esteemed lecturers on Capital Murder that I've listened to over the years, Skip was king of giving me information that I could put into practice.

My favorite Skip story came from the one trial I ever had against him.  It was an Aggravated Robbery case where a trio of Defendants had robbed a young lady in her apartment complex parking lot.  They had stolen her purse with credit cards and her cell phone and then immediately headed to a local tattoo parlor for some extravagant skin artwork on the young lady's dime.  Cameras on cell phones were still a relative novelty in those days, and the trio used her phone to take pictures of their tatts.   We had recovered the pictures from the phone, but in the one with what appeared to be Skip's client (based on clothing worn at the time of his arrest a short time later), his face wasn't clearly visible.  The case was a whale for me and Skip was fighting an extremely uphill battle.

But it is a truism that in any trial, there will be something that a prosecutor has forgotten to do, and in this case, I had forgotten to get a court order to have Skip's client's tattoos photographed before trial.  Realizing this mistake mid-trial, I approached Skip on a break during testimony.  He was working on the case in the break, taking notes while staring at something intently at the offense report.

"Hey," I said, "I need a favor."

"Oh yeah?" he asked, without looking up or stopping writing his notes.

"So, I should have gotten an order to have your guy's arm tatts photographed before trial and I didn't."

He paused writing but continued reading with a smirk starting to show up on his face.

"So you want to know if the tattoo is there?" he asked.

"Well, yeah," I said, starting to feel my face turned red.  "I was going to have the Court order him to show his arm to the jury.  I mean, if it isn't there you can obviously point it out and get some mileage out of that."

Skip set down his pen and scooted back from the table, folding his arms and looking at me like he was playing with his food.  He didn't say a word. 

So I continued

"I mean, all it would do is just make me look like a big dumb ass in front of the jury if it isn't there.  If it's not there, you can obviously show that to them without making me look like an idiot."

He smiled.

"Do you think it's there?" he asked.

I paused and thought about it for a second.

"Um, yes?"

He shook his head and rolled his eyes.

"Of course it's fucking there," he said and went back to taking his notes.

To be clear, he wasn't giving up anything that would have benefited his client.  He just saved a young-ish prosecutor from a potentially humiliating experience in front of the jury that would have haunted me for life.

Skip once told me that he didn't take retained cases because he had no desire to deal with the "bullshit" that came along with keeping the customer happy.  He preferred appointed work because he knew he was doing an outstanding job for all of his clients.  He didn't feel the need to explain himself unnecessarily to those who were high-maintenance.  There is no telling how many miracles Skip pulled off for clients who never had a clue as to how lucky they were to have him as their lawyer.

He was so good at everything he did and he was so good in trial.  As news of his passing spread, former prosecutors shared stories of their whale cases against Skip where he somehow kept the juries out for hours and hours.  His name rarely made the news but he was most definitely the lawyer that all of the other lawyers knew and respected.  He was a subtle, but commanding presence in the courtroom.  He was serious but also had an outstanding dry sense of humor.  He was confident and steady in all of his cases and there wasn't a prosecutor born that rattled him.  

He was a respected, dignified, and talented attorney who will be greatly missed.

He was what all of us should aspire to be in this profession.

Of Symptoms and Larger Problems

The Houston Chronicle ran an article this week about local criminal defense attorney Jerome Godnich and the fact that he made over half a million dollars last year in court-appointed fees.  In my current role as president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association, I was interviewed at length by Neena Satija, the reporter who wrote the article, although a lot of what we talked about didn't end up in the story.

The quote of mine that she did use pointed out the fact that I thought Jerome (as well as other lawyers who have recently come under the microscope for taking on too many cases) gets appointed on so many cases because judges know he is a good and competent lawyer.  In typical fashion (in what has become the story of my life since becoming HCCLA president), by 9 a.m., I'd received one e-mail saying I needed to defend Jerome more strongly and another saying I didn't blast him enough.  

It's days like these that I really miss smoking.

The point that I was trying to convey to Neena when she interviewed me was that I thought that overloaded attorneys are a symptom of a much larger problem.  The larger problem being that there aren't enough qualified lawyers to handle the more complex and serious cases that permeate the CJC on a daily basis.  I also pointed out that the only difference between those overloaded lawyers and myself is that I regulate myself on how many open and active cases I'm willing to take on at any given time.  And I'm routinely asked why I'm not popping up on the list more often. 

Couple that shortage with the way (as opposed to the amount) attorneys doing indigent defense in Harris County are paid, and voila!, you get the incentivization of the overloaded lawyer.

As I wrote back in 2017, the issue in Harris County when it comes to indigent defense isn't the amount that lawyers get paid, but when they get paid.  Under the system, attorneys aren't supposed to get paid for the work that they do on a case until the case is finally disposed of.  As I noted back then, every judge I know is willing to let an attorney file an interim voucher if they need to, but generally, we are supposed to finish the case before asking to be paid for it.  Under that system, an attorney at any given moment can be owed thousands of dollars by the county and is working on the promise that they will get paid eventually.  

Unfortunately, we attorneys aren't provided the same courtesy by people we owe money to.  I wouldn't get very far with my bank if I told them that I'll pay my mortgage as soon as I'm done living in my house.

The way attorneys who rely on court appointments keep their income stabilized is by keeping a steady flow of accepting new cases as older cases are disposed of.  Ideally, that will lead to cases being resolved on a regular basis and an attorney being able to be paid.  The problem is that it isn't an exact science, especially when dealing with more complicated, first-degree cases.  Those cases are far more likely to be set for trial, and how quickly they get to trial can vary drastically on a case-by-case basis.  If a lawyer's balance of incoming to outgoing cases isn't properly managed, that lawyer could potentially go a couple of months (or longer) without getting a paycheck.  

Years ago, when I described how the system worked to my dad, he analogized it to a pipeline, which is appropriate on several levels.  Some attorneys are content to keep a nice, steady flow of cases in their pipelines.

Others keep their pipelines on full blast.

If you are a competent lawyer who handles those first-degree cases, the Courts are more than happy to facilitate the full-blast pressure.

For many critics of the Harris County Criminal Justice System, the suggested answer has been a larger Public Defender's Office.  Given the size of Harris County, the PD's Office is relatively small and handles far less than even half the cases requiring indigent representation.  Some have advocated that the PD's Office be made large enough to handle all indigent defendants in Harris County.   Although I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Harris County PD's Office, I think there are quite a few problems with that idea.  I think it is feasible that the Office grow significantly and take a larger percentage of cases, but that's going to come at a much higher price tag for the County.  Additionally, the PD's Office has some very strict guidelines regarding their case counts and they actually adhere to them.  Throw in things like conflicts of interest and how to handle co-defendants, and I don't think that the private Defense Bar will ever be fully removed from indigent defense, but I could be wrong.  There are just too many Defendants.

Although I think that growing the Public Defender's Office would be helpful to the situation somewhat, I think that more meaningful change can be made by revamping the current case management system (Federation Systems Authentication Gateway aka FDAMS) in a way that bolsters accountability by 1) implementing case caps; and 2) accommodating a bi-monthly payment system.  It would definitely be a big change, but a worthwhile one.

Addressing the issue of case caps first, I have always thought that the standard of how many cases a lawyer handled in a year was less important than how many cases a lawyer was handling at a time.  Under a revamped FDAMS system, each attorney's cases would be tracked as well as the degree of each case.  The judges (or whatever powers that be) could establish how many cases (and of what degree) an attorney was allowed to be appointed to at any given moment.  For example, let's say 15 first-degrees, 25 second-degrees, and 60 third-degrees or State Jails were the numbers.  If an attorney has hit that limit (on any given degree) then they simply won't be eligible to pop up on the list for that degree.  Under that system, the overloaded attorney could still find a way to get overloaded, but not with appointed cases from Harris County.

Switching to the bi-monthly payment system would be more problematic to implement, and the idea would definitely face some pushback from multiple parties -- including the attorneys taking appointments.  I don't do Federal appointments, but I've heard that they follow a system of incremental payments rather than requiring a case be completed before an attorney could file a voucher.  This system would require attorneys to keep more detailed and current records of the work they do on cases, but there would be a two-fold benefit to doing it.

The first and most obvious benefit would be that attorneys would be able to rely on regular payments for the work they had done during the pay period.  There would be no need to keep "the pipeline" full and flowing and therefore the need to overload wouldn't be so tempting.  The second benefit would help not just the attorneys, but the clients and the courts as well.  By logging in the hours on a case in real-time (rather than waiting until a case was finally disposed of), the courts would have access to seeing that cases were actually being worked on.

It's not an infrequent complaint from indigent defendants that they feel their attorney isn't doing any work on their case.   This system would allow the court to check out what hours had been logged on a case thus far to see whether or not those complaints are valid or not.  If a client alleges that their attorney hasn't communicated with them, this system would easily confirm or deny that allegation.  It would incentivize the attorney to make sure he or she is doing what he is supposed to do on a case or risk having to explain themselves to the court.

Like many other attorneys I know, our law firm utilizes MyCase.com to manage our caseloads.  The type of time management accounting that I suggest is a standard part of their platform.  Using this system, attorneys can look at the time they spend on each individual case as well as look at a big picture of their billable hours on all cases over a time period.  Although this may seem like a drastic change from how Harris County currently does things, this is basically just running FDAMS as if it were an actual law firm.

My thoughts are that these changes to the FDAMS system would create an immediate and positive change in the quality of representation of indigent defendants while providing accountability for the system as a whole.  I have no doubt that this would be somewhat difficult to implement, but it would be far from impossible given the advances in technology that we see every day.  I think it would also ultimately be far cheaper than hiring one hundred new public defenders that would be required to keep up with all of the cases filed every day in Harris County.

I'm sure that there are probably some pitfalls in my plan that I'm overlooking, but I'd love to discuss them with anybody willing to have a serious conversation about them.  

Vileness

Man, Kim Ogg had to be missing her some Dudegoggles today.  

Ever since former Harris County District Attorney's Office spokesperson Dane Schiller left the Office (and the country!) following his disastrous appearance as a witness in the Guajuardo hearing last year, it looks like Boss Ogg has been managing her own Twitter account.

And if today's events are any indicator, suffice it to say that things are not going well.

It started off with a seemingly non-Ogg-related tweet from June 6th by a Twitter account called "Urban Reform" that had made note of a recent heated exchange between County Judge Lina Hidalgo and County Commissioner Adrien Garcia.  The original tweet seemed to be more of an observation that the event had happened and did not appear to cast judgment on Hidalgo.

However, as we all know, one cannot say the words "Lina Hidalgo" without awakening the hordes of Lina-haters that seem to cruise the waters of Twitter like a killer whale looking for a wounded seal.  This post was no exception as many pearl-clutching, anti-Hidalgo tweeters came out to illustrate that never in their ENTIRE LIVES had they heard someone drop a (gasp) "F-Bomb" in public, and certainly not a  (swoon) woman!  One of the ultra-sheltered tweeters was a lady whom I have met (and actually enjoyed talking to in person) who posted under the handle of "Michelle GCR."

Now, Michelle is not a big fan of Judge Hidalgo and never has been.  So, it was no surprise to me that Michelle's tweet in response to Urban Reform's tweet was short and sweet:  "She is vile."

What was surprising to me, however, was to see that Kim Ogg retweeted what Michelle had said.

So, if you are unfamiliar with Twitter etiquette, when one "retweets" another's "tweet," they are normally endorsing it and the sentiment behind it.  There may be exceptions, but Twitter gives a user the option to comment along with that retweet (i.e., "this is wrong" when retweeting something you actually disagree with).

But Kim Ogg just retweeted the sentiment that Lina Hidalgo was, in fact, vile.

So, I posted my own tweet, calling attention to what Kim Ogg had retweeted, and some members of the Horde of Hidalgo Haters turned their attention toward me.   Most accused me of being a Lina Hidalgo apologist/fan club member.  I've certainly been called worse, but the truth is that my feelings are probably best described as "okay."  I voted for Ed Emmett over her in 2018 because I thought he was an amazing County Judge.  I did, however, vote for Hidalgo over Alexandra del Moral Mealer, because I felt that Mealer was an election-denying, anti-vaxxing, right-wing kook.  I've disagreed with Hidalgo on some issues and agreed with her on others.  I don't agree with any of the racist or sexist vitriol that so many of her detractors aim at her.

Defending Hidalgo wasn't the reason for me pointing out Kim's retweet.  The issue was that Kim was sharing her personal distaste for someone that she has been actively investigating for a couple of years now.  This wasn't about the job Lina Hidalgo was doing.  It was about the job that Kim Ogg is, yet again, not doing.

A prosecutor's job is to seek justice.  If you don't believe me, just watch jury selection in a criminal case and they'll be happy to tell you.  They seek justice and the implication is that they do so without any type of personal bias or other dog in the hunt.  There's also an implication in there somewhere that a prosecutor isn't supposed to seek justice for media attention or votes, but Kim Ogg has never really adhered to that little unwritten rule.   From her prosecution of Arkema to HPD's narcotics squad to Dr. Hasan Gokal to three staffers in Judge Hidalgo's office, Kim has proven time and again her fondness for charging people with crimes for headlines.  

But with Kim's retweet of Michelle's "She is vile" message, our elected D.A. is showing a strong indication that her motivation for her investigations into Hidalgo and her staff is more than just capitalizing on the anti-Lina Hidalgo sentiment.  Apparently, there's some personal animosity mixed in there, too.

That's no shock to those of us who follow Harris County politics.  Ogg and Hidalgo are clearly political enemies, and Ogg has misleadingly accused Hidalgo of "defunding" the D.A.'s Office on multiple well-publicized occasions.  Hidalgo, as mentioned above, dropped an F-bomb when accusing Commissioner Garcia of being too closely aligned with Ogg.  Both are public officials and both are entitled to their opinions.  They are free to disagree and even fight with each other.

But only one of them has the power to potentially have the other investigated and prosecuted.  

And Kim Ogg's office has done just that for well over a year now.  In an "investigation" into Hidalgo's Office, there were media leaks right and left before three of Hidalgo's staffers were indicted (on what I personally believe are absolutely unsubstantiated charges based on my knowledge of the case).  In the aftermath, Hidalgo expressed concerns that based on Ogg's hatred of her that she (Hidalgo) would be indicted next.  Kim's retweeting of "She is vile." gives fuel to that fire and it's not what society expects from a prosecutor who is supposed to keep Justice blind to personal animosities.  It's a bad look and Kim knows that.  

How do we know that?  Because of what happened next . . .

After attention was brought to the retweet, Kim's Twitter account posted a laughably lame explanation that her account had been "hacked." 

Some were skeptical.

As is typical when Kim Ogg steps in dog crap, she blames someone else.  It couldn't possibly be that she was so stupid to put a stunning lack of ethics on such display, could it?  Of course not.  She had obviously been hacked.

If you are feeling like you are experiencing deja vu all over again, you aren't going crazy.  Remember this fun story from three years ago?  It may sound eerily familiar.   The short version goes like this - Kim Ogg sends out an e-mail to all prosecutors looking for "volunteers" to help at an event where she hands out free stuff to potential voters.  Her e-mail notes that their participation will be reflected in their evaluation.

And when some blogger points out on Twitter that perhaps coercing your employees to work a campaign event for you under threat of retaliation is completely illegal isn't a good look for an elected official, suddenly it turns out to be an unauthorized person using Kim's account without permission.

Amazing!

It seems to me that Kim Ogg's retweet of her thoughts on the "vileness" of Lina Hidalgo might become an interesting exhibit in that Motion to Recuse that was filed last year.

Maybe for once, somebody might actually hold our District Attorney accountable for the extra-judicial statements she makes about the cases her Office is handling.

I'll Take "Things That Aren't Any of the Prosecutor's Damn Business" for $1,000, Alex.

There were a couple of interesting things of note in this article about the Darius Lewis case by Nicole Hensley in yesterday's Chronicle that I thought were worth mentioning . . .

Spoiler Alert:  it isn't really up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not a client is indigent enough to qualify for appointed counsel unless he or she is doubling as the judge or county auditor.  

Also, when did prosecutors start sharing juvenile criminal history?

Lyn McClellan

I have always said that the best thing about working in the Harris County Criminal Justice World is that it provides us the opportunity to walk amongst giants.  Harris County boasts some of the most famous names in the history of Texas Criminal Justice:  Percy Foreman, Racehorse Haynes, Dick DeGuerin, Rusty Hardin, Kelly Siegler, Johnny Holmes, and Dan Cogdell, to name a few.  As impressive as all of those names are and the large volume of famous cases associated with them all, the name and face that I always though of when I spoke of giants was retired Harris County District Attorney's Office Bureau Chief Lyn McClellan.

Lyn passed away this morning after a lengthy illness.

Lyn was a career prosecutor who had been at the Harris County District Attorney's Office for at least twenty or twenty-five years before I started there in 1999.  He retired in November 2008, shortly before I headed out the door.  I wrote this post about him back on the occasion of his retirement.

He was an understated but fierce trial lawyer who had handled some of Harris County's most famous cases.  He became the head of the Misdemeanor Division shortly after I started at the Office, which gave the baby prosecutors of my day the amazing opportunity to learn from a true legend of the game.  It was the legal equivalent of finding out Tom Brady is coaching your high school football team.

Lyn exemplified the ideal of leading from the front as he supervised fifteen county courts with three prosecutors each -- none of whom had more than two or three years of prosecutorial experience.  He raised a generation of us, and he held our love and loyalty throughout our careers.  He was sarcastic and funny without ever being anything that approached unkind.  He would offer advice, and if you asked him, off the cuff, to sit with you in trial, he would do it in a heartbeat.

He never bragged about his trial exploits, and if asked for a war story, he would usually tell a funny backstory to a case that had nothing to do with his trial skills.  He wasn't afraid of getting in trouble if it was for the right reason and he never criticized the prosecutors who made mistakes.  He turned all mistakes into teachable moments and he did so with a sense of humor.  If you were a baby prosecutor who screwed something up, he worked you through it so it didn't happen again.  He was the kind of boss that when you had something that you had reached your limit with, you felt no qualms about taking it to him.  You knew he wasn't going to make you feel dumb or bad for not being able to handle it yourself.

I remember being a Misdemeanor Chief in Court Five around 2001 when my Three brought me a criminal mischief case where a kid had thrown a rock at a car as it drove down the street.   The lady driving the car wanted charges upgraded to (I kid you not) Attempted Murder, and she was going on a verbal rampage toward anyone who would listen.  I tried reasoning with her and was getting nowhere.  When she demanded to speak with my supervisor, I was more than happy to pass it to Lyn.  Without ever losing his temper, he took the lady through what a trial would look like when she took the stand and tried to convince the jury that a rock-throwing teenager had murderous intentions.  

Lyn's catchphrase was loudly challenging someone to combat his logic by leading off with "I DEFY YOU TO SHOW ME . . . " and he used that phrase on me more times than I can count.  I loved arguing and messing with Lyn.  He took it all in stride and enjoyed the banter.  

Around this same time, a large group of my peers were selected to go to Career Prosecutor School in South Carolina if they agreed to extend their commitment at the Office.  Somehow, I didn't get an invite, so I asked Lyn why I had been excluded.  He replied: "We're trying to get all those people to stay longer by sending them.  We know we couldn't get rid of you if we tried."

Lyn saying thanks to me for letting him use the phone in my office.

Lyn was a leader who loved moving amongst his troops.  When I was a younger prosecutor, my group all participated in Steak Night every Wednesday night at Little Woodrow's on West Alabama.  We always invited Lyn to join us to which he would reply, "I'll show up when you start having it north of 1960."  He didn't drink, but would always come to lunch with us young ones just to hang out and talk.  He was our boss, but he was also so very much one of us.  We adored him and we admired him.

In 2000, as notorious serial killer Rafael Resendez-Ramirez (the Railcar Killer) went to trial, Lyn joined future District Attorney Devon Anderson and District Attorney Johnny Holmes (in his last trial as a prosecutor).  His job was to attack the insanity defense, and pretty much the entire Misdemeanor Division attended to watch and learn.  Lyn put on a clinic and taught us all how to handle those cases and handle voir dire on what can be an extremely tricky issue.  He was an outstanding trial lawyer.

Even after we graduated into the ranks of Felony Prosecutors and he left Misdemeanor to be the Felony Trial Bureau Chief, we all still sought Lyn's advice -- and he was always there to give it.  He was someone we would follow into battle and he was always someone who was there to help us through any battles that we were facing -- both personal and professional.

I'm happy to say that Lyn and I stayed in touch after he retired from the Office and I became a defense attorney.  I would run into him from time to time in the misdemeanor courts.  He did a little bit of defense work but only on low-level offenses where no one got hurt.  His heart always belonged to the victims of violent crimes, so I wasn't surprised to see him avoid defending felony cases.  He was also a deeply religious man who worked in prison ministries.  Although he was a prosecutor to his core, he believed in redemption.

He would occasionally come to lunch with us until his health began to fail him.  Whenever we could get him to come south of 1960, there were plenty of his former prosecutors who would come to see him.  We would talk about the old days and laugh until we turned red.  It was a nice reminder that even when you leave the house you grew up in, you are still family.

When I talk to today's current prosecutors about what the Office used to be like, they often express some level of disbelief that it was once a fantastic place to work.  They have a hard time comprehending what having an inspiring leader who backed you up and taught you at the same time would be like.  Sadly, most of them never heard of Lyn McClellan.

That's a shame, but it isn't surprising.  Lyn never sought the limelight or attention.  He just did his job and led from within.  In so many ways, he was the heart and soul of the Office.  He shaped a generation of Harris County prosecutors and we wouldn't be who we are today without him.

I'm proud to have worked for Lyn McClellan and proud to call him my friend.   He was a Giant amongst Giants in one of the most famous places in all of the Criminal Justice World.

And he was one of the best people I ever knew.

Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center: The TikTok Channel

 So, as evidenced by the fact that I haven't written a blog post in several months, I don't have a lot of time to sit down and blog like I used.  That's not a bad thing.  In addition to having a busier work schedule over the past few years, keeping up with my kids' activities pretty much has me on the go all day long.

There have been plenty of times that I've seen a topic that I wanted to do a blog post on (like, say for instance, my thoughts on the November elections) but by the time I have time to sit around and actually write the blog post, its already become old news (like, say for instance, my thoughts on the November elections).

I still love talking about the CJC and all of the things going on in it.  I just need to find a way to talk about it that doesn't involve hours of writing.

So, I discovered this little-known medium called TikTok that nobody has ever heard of and decided that it really needed a pudgy bald guy to share his thoughts on a relatively obscure topic.  

I cannot begin to describe how painfully awkward making a video narrative is, and I detest the way I both look and sound on camera.  However, I do think it is a faster way to talk about ongoing topics at the courthouse, so I'm giving it a shot.  I've done three videos so far, including one on Sean Teare's not-so-shocking departure from the Office yesterday.  Feel free to check them out if you have a couple of minutes of your life that you'll never get back.

Just for the record, I completely intend on keeping the blog up and running and plan to return to it when I'm able.  Some things just need to be written down.

In the meantime, you can find the TikTok page here or look for @lifeattheharriscountycjc on the app. 

It should go without saying that the TikTok views do not reflect the views of my law partner, Cheryl Chapell, who has graciously refrained from rolling her eyes at this project in my presence.

The 2022 Election: The District Court Races - Part Three of Three

180th District Court -- Judge Dasean Jones (I)(D) vs. Tami Pierce (R) -- There is probably no greater contrast in the type of candidates on either side of the ballot than the one we see in the battle for the 180th District Court.  The Republican challenger, Tami Pierce is a retired police officer and former prosecutor whose campaign website encourages voters to be "Fierce with Pierce."  She apparently was a defense attorney for ten years before becoming a prosecutor in Polk County.  Although it is a cute slogan, I'm not sure that ferocity is something that attorneys look for in a presiding judge.  The ideal judge, as I noted in part one of this election recap, is a neutral one who can call balls and strikes without an agenda -- no ferocity necessary.  Although I will give her credit for being well-versed in criminal law, the fact that her career hasn't been in Harris County bothers me.  Harris County isn't a small county like Polk and I don't know how it could be more polarly opposite.

By contrast, Judge Dasean Jones is probably one of the quietest and most subtle people that I know.  I knew him before he was a judge and before I knew of his political aspirations found him to be someone very concerned about the Criminal Justice System being fair to all those who came before it.  He is an Army veteran who saw active duty and continues to serve as a Major in the Army Reserves.  He has strong opinions about how the Criminal Justice System and it should be no surprise that he has not allowed himself to be anything remotely resembling an arm of the prosecution.  The calls that he has made from the Bench are made from a position of what he thinks is best.  He's making calls as a member of an independent judiciary as he should -- even if public opinion doesn't like it.

182nd District Court -- Judge Danny Lacayo (I)(D) vs. Robert Jackson (R) -- there are several things that I find to be wildly amusing about the candidacy of Robert Jackson who is running for the 182nd District Court against the wildly popular incumbent Judge Danny Lacayo.  During the primaries, the DA's Office angrily denied encouraging its prosecutors to run against judges it disliked.   I guess they consider encouraging one of its investigators who just so happens to possess a law degree to be a different matter.  The second thing that I find to be wildly hysterical is Investigator Jackson is touting having won the Houston Bar Association's Judicial Preference Poll when he doesn't actually practice law.

Here's a spoiler alert for any potential voters looking at the Houston Bar Association's Judicial Preference Poll:  it's not an accurate barometer of the opinion of people who actually practice criminal law.  The vast vast majority of Criminal Defense Attorneys in Harris County aren't members of the Houston Bar Association for a couple of reasons.  The first reason is that it largely caters to attorneys who practice civil law.  The second is that it is generally a fairly conservative organization and most defense attorneys are more liberally leaning.  Additionally, the Harris County District Attorney's Office has traditionally paid for membership for all of its prosecutors to be members of the Houston Bar Association so that they would have a voting bloc.    There is probably no better example of how this turns out a skewed result than an investigator who doesn't actually practice law being deemed a better jurist than a very well-liked and respected judge like Lacayo.

I've known Judge Lacayo since he was a baby prosecutor and I am proud to also call him my friend.  He was a fair and reasonable prosecutor during his time with the Office before becoming a diligent and zealous advocate with the Public Defender's Office.  On the Bench, he has proven himself to be a neutral yet tough judge.  He is the first person to give a non-violent a second chance, but he's made himself very clear that he isn't a fan of the third chance.  I've had him rule against me more than I've had him rule for me but his rulings were all based in the law, not personal preference.  He follows the law to the letter and isn't afraid to drop the hammer on someone he finds to be beyond redemption.  He's a fantastic judge and deserves to be reelected.

183rd District Court -- Gemayel Haynes (D) vs. Kristin Guiney (R) -- the 183rd District Court Bench is technically an open bench since Democratic candidate Gemayel Haynes defeated incumbent Judge Chuck Silverman in the primary.  He faces former 179th & 232nd District Court Judge Kristin Guiney on the ballot.  Both candidates are good friends of mine, so this is a tough one for me.  

Kristin Guiney had an excellent reputation on the Bench during her tenure.  She was first elected to the 179th in the 2012 election, only to be swept out in 2016 with the remainder of the Republican Judges.  She was appointed to the 232nd District Court to complete the term of Judge Mary Lou Keel when Keel went to the Court of Criminal Appeals but was swept out again in 2018 as part of that Democratic Sweep.  No one, including her opponents in those races, would attribute those losses to anything she had done wrong.  She was very well-liked and respected during her time on the Bench and that was a feeling shared by both the Defense Bar and the State.  On a personal note, Guiney is someone I've known since she started at the Office.  We don't see each other as often as we used to but she is still a family friend.

Similarly, Gemayel Haynes is also a good friend of mine that I've had the opportunity to know and watch since he started as a lawyer.  We also used to be neighbors (RIP Dorothy's!)  I've watched him grow from a relatively shy (or at least quieter) prosecutor into an outspoken leader within the Harris County Public Defenders Office.  I always enjoy talking to him because he is so passionate about the Criminal Justice System and the fair application of the law to all people accused of crimes.  I think that he also would make a great judge.

184th District Court -- Kat Thomas (D) vs. Lori Deangelo (R) -- The 184th District Court is another open bench after Democratic candidate Katherine "Kat" Thomas defeated incumbent Judge Abigail Anastasio in the March primary.  I find this race to be a curious one because it has a defense attorney running as the Republican and a prosecutor running as the Democrat.  Both candidates are friends of mine.  I've known Lori Deangelo longer, but I would say that I'm closer to Kat.

Lori was slightly ahead of me at the Office in seniority and she stayed on quite a bit longer than I did.  When I dealt with her from the defense side of things, she was always fair and pleasant to work with.  She was on track as a career prosecutor and I was surprised when she left the Office.  She ran for District Attorney in 2020 but did not win the Republican nomination.  She has been a defense attorney for quite some time now and I do think that is a valuable perspective to have as a judge.

For about a year or two, it seemed like almost every case I had pending in Harris County was being handled by Kat Thomas, but I definitely was not complaining about it.  I enjoyed working on cases with her.  She was professional, friendly, and completely above board in all of the cases that we worked on together.  She was the prosecutor in vehicular crimes and we dealt with some pretty gruesome and tragic cases.  She was open-minded and fair.  She was a prosecutor whose word I could take to the bank and she was a pleasure to work with.

185th District Court -- Andrea "Andy" Beall" (D) vs. Chris Carmona (R) -- like the 183rd and 184th, the race for the 185th District Court is an open one after Andy Beall defeated incumbent Judge Jason Luong in the March primary.  I was pretty open about my support for Judge Luong in March and my disdain at the many of the "below the belt" attacks on him as a judge.  I was disappointed that the campaign took that tone because I thought it was unnecessary.  Andy Beall was a strong candidate who could have run a strong campaign on her own credentials.  I did feel that her positions on certain criminal law issues were more closely aligned with Republican ideology than Democrat and I pointed that out.

All of that being said, I'll vote for Andy in the 2022 election because her experience is in Criminal Law.  She is a felony chief prosecutor and she understands that system.

I don't really know Chris Carmona personally, although I'm friends with him on Facebook.  I supported him when he ran for County Attorney in 2016 against Jim Leitner because he, um, was running against Jim Leitner.  That being said, it seems like Carmona runs for a different office quite frequently.  That doesn't mean that he's a bad person or even a bad candidate, but I'd rather have someone on the Bench who is dedicated to the practice of criminal law and not just seeking an elected position.

208th District Court -- Beverly Armstrong (D) vs. Heather Hudson (R) - the race for the 208th District Court Bench is an unusual one for me because I don't know either of the candidates.   As I mentioned in my primary write-up back in February, Beverly Armstrong has been a career prosecutor in some of the surrounding counties and quite a few people that I know and respect have spoken very highly of her.  According to her website, Heather Hudson is a career prosecutor who has worked in other jurisdictions but has been in Harris County for several years now.  It indicates that she is in the appellate division, so that would easily explain why I don't think I've met her.  

209th District Court -- Judge Brian Warren (I)(D) vs. Kevin Fulton (R) --  the race for the 209th District Court is not a close one for me.  Judge Brian Warren and I have been good friends since we served together in the 174th District Court as prosecutors.  He left the D.A.'s Office before I did to start a successful career as a defense attorney, and he took the time to sit second chair with me when I tried my first case as a defense attorney.  In many ways, he's like a brother to me and I couldn't be more excited or proud to see what a great job he's done on the Bench during his first term.   He has proven himself to be a careful and thoughtful jurist who is actively involved the day-to-day operations of the CJC.  

I'm not familiar with the Republican candidate in this race, Kevin Fulton, and I'm not seeing that he even has a campaign website up.  His State Bar profile lists him as a lawyer who practices "business, family, labor-employment, litigation, personal injury, real estate, wills-trusts-probate."  Notably absent from that list is criminal law, which should be tremendously concerning to anyone who actually cares about the Criminal Justice System.

228th District Court -- Judge Frank Aguilar (I)(D) vs. Andy Taylor (R) --  as I noted in my February write-up on the primaries, I'm a big fan of 228th District Court Judge Frank Aguilar and out of the judges elected in the 2018 election, I've probably had the most contested hearings in front of him.  In each instance that I've appeared before him, he let the parties try their cases without intervening unless called upon.  He called balls and strikes and made his rulings based on the law.  His personality was never interjected into the proceedings.  In my mind, that's what a judge should do and how a judge should be.  He is not a judge who could be described as either being pro-Defense or pro-State, and that's all that I think we could ask for.

I've seen his Republican opponent, Andy Taylor, around the courthouse on a regular basis, but I don't know him personally.  I actually didn't know his name until I looked up his campaign website.  To be fair, he does practice criminal law unlike many of the other candidates the Republican Party has chosen to run against good judges.  I don't know much about him.  

230th District Court -- Judge Chris Morton (I)(D) vs. Brad Hart (R) - ugh.  And then we get to these two candidates, who seem to be bound and determined to give me an ulcer by running against each other again.  They ran against each other in 2018 when Judge Morton won the bench previously held by Hart, and I told them both back then that they were stressing me out because they were both close friends.  So apparently, they decided it would be fun to run against each other again.

The reason that the race between these two candidates stresses me out so much isn't just because they are good friends.  It is also because they are both good judges.  Brad Hart was my first chief when I started at the D.A.'s Office and I consider him to be a friend and a mentor.  He was a good prosecutor, teacher and leader.  I was very happy for him when he became judge and I thought he did a great job of it.  I was honored to speak at his investiture.  As I wrote back in 2018, I was disappointed when Chris ran against him although I thought Chris would make a great judge too.

As it turns out, I was right.  Chris Morton has turned into a great judge.  He's proven himself to be the kind of judge that you hope to find on the bench if you find yourself having to go to court.  He follows the law and his conscience without allowing himself to be swayed by public opinion or pressure.  He's making rulings based on his considerable judgment and is more than happy to take as much time as needed to explain his rationale if you disagree with him.  He's not swayed by personal friendships (he set one of my client's bonds at $1.5 million) and takes great steps to ensure that the appointed attorneys in his court aren't selected by him in order to ensure neutrality.

232nd District Court -- Judge Josh Hill (I)(D) vs. Joshua Normand (R) -- one of the easier decisions on the ballot is the race between incumbent 232nd District Court Judge Josh Hill and attorney Joshua Normand.  Since taking office in January 2019, Judge Hill has done an outstanding job on the Bench, running his court fairly and efficiently without showing any level of favoritism toward either the State or the Defense as he makes his rulings.  He has been active in seeking (and giving) input to help keep the Criminal Justice Center moving along as effectively as possible during the Covid crisis.  

On the Bench, he has been a compassionate judge who will take a considerable amount of time talking to Defendants to make sure that they understand the legal process.  He takes his time reviewing all the relevant factors in determining bond.  He does his own legal research on issues that he doesn't know the answer to off the top of his head.  He makes his rulings based on the right factors instead of public opinion.

As with several of the other candidates on the Republican side of the ballot, I don't recognize Joshua Normand by name or sight after looking at his website.  His professional website indicates that he primarily does tax law, which is a far cry from criminal law.  It mentions that he does some criminal law, but I have no idea who he is.

248th District Court -- Judge Hilary Unger (I)(D) vs. Julian Ramirez (R) --  I didn't know Judge Hilary Unger very well before she took the bench in January 2019, although I think I've known her in passing since I've been in Harris County.  During the past several years, I've gotten to know her better as I've appeared in her court on multiple occasions and also had meetings with her and other judges about the Managed Assigned Counsel (MAC) program.

Judge Unger is someone who is extremely passionate about the Criminal Justice System and works hard to make sure that it is fair and equitable to all who appear before her.  She has no qualms about spending as much time as she needs to when evaluating issues before her, both big and small.  She devotes a great amount of attention to all matters before her and she does a good job.

Republican candidate Julian Ramirez and I used to be friends when we were both at the District Attorney's Office but had a falling out after I left.  I'm not a fan and I don't trust him.  He was one of the prosecutors whose contract was not renewed by Kim Ogg when she took Office.  After leaving the Office, he has stayed away from any defense work but has done some special prosecutions.  I'm not sure if that's because he can't bring himself to be on the defense side of things, but he definitely lacks perspective on that side of the Bench. 

262nd District Court -- Judge Lori Gray (I)(D) vs. Tonya McLaughlin (R) --  I only knew Judge Lori Gray in passing prior to her taking the Bench in 2019.  She's a very nice lady, but I don't know her well at all.  During the few times I've appeared in front of her, she's been very nice, but I've never had to try anything contested in front of her.  I don't have anything negative to say about her.

I have known Tonya McLaughlin since she and I worked together at the D.A.'s Office, and I think the world of her.  I supported her when she previously ran for Court 10 back in 2014 and I stand by all of the nice things I had to say about her back then.  Tonya has been a prosecutor and a defense attorney.  She knows trial work and she knows appellate work.  She's also one of the genuinely nicest people I know.  I think she would make a fantastic judge.

263rd District Court -- Melissa Morris (D) vs. Amber Cox (R) -- the 263rd District Court is also an open race after Democratic Candidate Melissa Morris defeated incumbent Judge Amy Martin in the March Primary.  As I mentioned in my February post, I don't know Melissa except in passing and we are friends on Facebook.  She has always been very nice to me, but I just don't know enough about her to say too much.

I know Republican Candidate Amber Cox a little better than I know Melissa.  Amber is a prosecutor at the D.A.'s Office and I worked with her on a very serious case involving some serious injuries that had a very strong self-defense claim.  Amber was extremely above-board and heard me out on the issues I brought to her attention and, in my opinion, she ultimately did the right thing.  I enjoyed working with her on that case, but have not had many other opportunities to do so.  She is always friendly but I do not know her very well outside of work.

482nd District Court -- Veronica Nelson (D) vs. Judge Maritza Antu (R) - the race for the 482nd District Court is an anomaly on the ballot this year because it is the one and only criminal judicial race where the sitting judge is a Republican facing a Democratic challenger.  That's because the 482nd is the newest court in the county, having been created by the legislature only a year or so ago.  Since it was newly created, the Governor got to pick who the new judge would be.  Since the Governor is Republican, he obviously picked a Republican to be judge, and the person he appointed was former prosecutor and then defense attorney Maritza Antu.

There are a couple of caveats that I have to give before proceeding.  

The first caveat that I need to give is that Judge Antu's opponent, Veronica Nelson, is someone that I consider to be a very close friend.   She and I tried a case against each other when she was a relatively junior prosecutor at the District Attorney's Office and I respected the way she tried the case.  She was candid, reasonable, and completely above-board in her handling of a case.  We got to be friends during the course of that trial, and she is one of my favorite people to talk to.  She likes to give me hell, but she knows she loves me.   Veronica left the D.A.'s Office several years ago and since then has served as the Staff Attorney to the Criminal and Civil Courts at Law.  Her duties are advising those judges on issues in the law that they may need assistance with.  

Veronica is very invested in the Harris County Criminal Justice System and what needs to be done to improve it.  We talk quite frequently about issues we see in the CJC and I have always appreciated her insight.  I think she would make a phenomenal judge and she has my full support.   She cares about the integrity of the system and would be a great addition as judge.

I knew Judge Antu when she was a prosecutor and never had a conflict with her.  She handled cases that I was defending and I always found her to be fair (maybe a little overzealous) on my cases.   We didn't often agree, but we didn't fight.  She, too, was a victim of Kim Ogg's purge when Ogg took office in 2016, and I felt that was unwarranted (as I felt about almost all of the other victims).  We were friendly with each other after she left.  I'm friends with her husband, Matt Peneguy, who works for the Feds.  Our kids went to the same daycare and we talked at a great many birthday parties.  We weren't best friends but we certainly weren't enemies.

In the election of 2018, she ran for the Republican nomination for the 185th District Court against former Judge Stacey Bond.  In my blog write-up back then, I said nothing negative about Judge Antu, but I did note that Judge Bond was one of the best judges I had ever practiced in front of.  Ultimately, Judge Bond won the primary, only to lose to Judge Jason Luong in the general election.  Judge Antu never spoke to me socially again, however.  We weren't super close to begin with, but I was kind of surprised at how angry she was about me failing to endorse her.   

I don't bring that up to reopen old wounds, but to give context when I say that to her credit, Judge Antu has been nothing but courteous and professional to me on the Bench.  When the 482nd was created, multiple cases were pulled from the already existing courts and sent to the 482nd to ultimately be disposed of.  Several very serious cases that I had pending elsewhere were suddenly in front of someone who hadn't made eye contact with me in years.  I was concerned.  Ultimately, the concern that she would treat me unfairly for personal reasons was misplaced.  Almost all of those serious cases of mine ended up being dismissed when Judge Antu held the State to a strict timetable for being ready for trial.

That being said, I do have concerns that Judge Antu's has very pro-prosecutorial tendencies that have led to her assisting the State on occasion when the State fails to do its job.  I recently had a client charged with a serious case who was alleged to have committed bond violations.  The State moved to hold him at no bond, and as his attorney, I demanded a hearing on that matter.  The standard of proof that the State would have needed to prove to have my client held at no bond was not very high.  All they really needed to do was subpoena one witness and have that witness testify for about five minutes.

We set the case for a hearing.  The State forgot to subpoena any witnesses.

On the day of the hearing, the State proceeded to the court on the hearing with no witnesses.  I object right and left that without witnesses, my client was being deprived of a hearing.  That was denied.  The State attempted to introduce documents without a witness to authenticate those documents or show that they were relevant to my client.  I objected.  That objection was overruled.  At the end of the hearing, the State's motion to hold at no bond was granted.

In the big scheme of things, I can say that if the prosecutors had put on the evidence that they were required to, pretty much any judge in the CJC would have most likely held my client at no bond.  But, I think that every judge in that building would have required the State to make that minimal effort to prove the facts alleged first.  Judge Antu didn't, and that concerned me. It is my understanding that I'm not the only attorney who has gone through this with her, and I want to be very clear that I don't think her ruling was anything personal.  And if you are wondering, yes, I'm working on a writ to hopefully correct it and get an actual hearing.

The issue that I have with Judge Antu's ruling is what concerns me about what seems to be the platform of the Republican Judicial candidates in general.  I don't like the message that "even if the prosecutors don't do their job and prove a case, the judges will incarcerate the accused anyway."  It's contrary to the principles of the Constitution and the entirety of the Criminal Justice System.  

I believe that if the State does what it is supposed to do, then ultimately the truth will prevail and the System will work.  If the State doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it won't.  It's just that simple.

But what the System definitely does not need is a judiciary that is there to help the State along anyway when the State doesn't meet its burden.  That's not justice.  That's just having a second prosecutor on the bench.  If the State can't win a case without another prosecutor on the Bench, then maybe they shouldn't be trying it in the first place.

The 2022 Election: The County Court at Law Races - Part Two of Three

Okay, let's jump right in.  Hopefully, if you are reading this, you've already read Part One of my sweeping epic on the 2022 Election.  Also, many of these candidates I talked about in more detail during the primary elections earlier this year.

County Court at Law # 1 -- Judge Alex Salgado (I)(D) vs. Nathan Moss (R) --I didn't know Judge Alex Salgado at all prior to him taking the Bench in January of 2019 and my appearances before him during his tenure have been very limited.  I have spoken to him in court and he is an incredibly nice man who runs a very fair and efficient court.  He was a prosecutor for nine years (he mentioned to me that many of those years were in Walker County) before taking the Bench.

Nathan Moss is a Felony Division Chief at the Harris County District Attorney's Office and one of the few remaining prosecutors that were there when I was.  He was a baby prosecutor around the time I left.  He's also my neighbor!  Nathan is a personal friend and an extremely intelligent prosecutor.   He's a career prosecutor (as was Judge Salgado before taking the bench).

County Court at Law # 2 -- Judge Ronnisha Bowman (I)(D) vs. Paula Goodhart (R) -- as was the case with Judge Salgado, I did not know Judge Bowman prior to her taking the Bench, and I don't have any experience appearing before her since she was elected in 2018.  Unfortunately, I just don't have much information to share with her because of that.  Don't read anything into that.  I just don't have a basis to give you any information.  I wish I did.

Paula Goodhart is the former judge of County Court at Law #1 who lost her bench in the 2018 Democratic sweep.  She is also a friend who I've known since we were both prosecutors at the D.A.'s Office.  Paula was senior to me at the Office (that's not an age joke) and was a Felony District Court Chief when she left.  She was very well-liked as a judge and has had a very busy and successful defense practice since leaving the Bench.

County Court at Law # 3 -- Porscha Brown (D) vs. Leslie Johnson (R) -- the County Court at Law # 3 bench is an open bench this election cycle due to Judge Erica Hughes leaving the bench mid-term for a Federal position.  The current judge of the court is Ashley Guice, who did not run as a candidate for the permanent position.  As an aside, Judge Guice has done a great job during her brief tenure and I hope she does run for a Bench in the future.

I don't know either Porscha Brown or Leslie Johnson particularly well, but I'm friends with them both.  Both of them are defense attorneys.  I would say that I've known Leslie longer but I probably know Porscha a little better.

Porscha won a very decisive victory in a three-person Democratic primary earlier this year.  She is a public defender with the Harris County P.D.'s Office and I have seen her argue in court.  She's a very impressive and zealous advocate for her clients and she is very well-liked amongst her co-workers at the P.D.'s Office and the Defense Bar, as well.

Leslie is also a respected member of the Defense Bar.  She is married to defense attorney Dane Johnson, who I've known for ages.  I don't have anything negative to say about Leslie at all, but I don't have a whole wealth of knowledge about her, either.   

County Court at Law # 4 -- Judge Shannon Baldwin (I)(D) vs. Zachary Gibson (R) -- I've known Judge Baldwin since she was a defense attorney prior to taking the Bench in 2019.  We were friendly, but not particularly close friends.  I have had the opportunity to appear before her in her court on multiple occasions over the past four years, however, and I can attest to her being a very good judge.  She is serious, fair, and efficient.  I have not had a trial in front of her, but have approached on evidentiary matters and found her approach to be thoughtful, insightful, and balanced.  She has done a great job on the Bench.

I don't believe that I know Zachary Gibson personally, but I'm aware that he is a Harris County District Attorney's Office prosecutor.  I'm not familiar with him but have noticed that there is a commentor on the blog who seems to really dislike him, according to the comments left on other posts.  I can't (and wouldn't) vouch for experiences that aren't my own, but I will say that my positive experiences with Judge Baldwin have earned my vote for her in this race.

County Court at Law # 5 -- Judge David Fleischer (I)(D) vs. Elizabeth Buss (R). Judge David Fleischer is one of my favorite people at the CJC.  We got to be friends when he was running for judge in 2018 and he has done a great job on the Bench. He works so hard to get everything right and it stresses him out so much when he thinks he's messing something up.  He's a good man and a good judge.  He leads from a place of compassion in his decisions but isn't afraid to be tough when the situation calls for it.  I've appeared before him on several cases during his tenure.  I've had wins and losses on issues with him, but he always did what he felt was right in his heart and I admire that.

Liz Buss is a prosecutor with Harris County that I also like a lot.  I've dealt with her on cases in the past and she has been nothing short of friendly, courteous, and fair.  I have absolutely nothing negative to say about her.  

County Court at Law # 6 -- Judge Kelley Andrews (I)(D) vs. Mark Montgomery (R) -- as I mentioned in my February post on the primaries, I've known Judge Kelley Andrews since she was a rookie defense attorney many moons ago, and I think the world of her as well.  She is a personal friend who I enjoy talking to on those rare occasions that I get the opportunity to.  I've also appeared in her court multiple times over the past several years and have enjoyed the way she runs her courtroom.  She calls balls and strikes and lets the attorneys do their job.  In addition to her regular duties, Judge Andrews also helped create (and currently runs) the Mental Health Court for misdemeanor cases.  She is immensely qualified, has done a great job, and deserves to be re-elected.

I do not know Mark Montgomery, and I don't recognize his picture from his website.  He is apparently a retired Houston Police Department lieutenant who practices in multiple areas of law.  His website says that he does some criminal, but, like I said, I don't recognize him.  

County Court at Law # 7 -- Judge Andrew Wright (I)(D) vs. Mike Monks (R) -- In what can only be described as the greatest disparity in hairstyles on the ballot this year, Judge Andrew Wright is running for a second term against longtime defense attorney Mike Monks.  As with so many of the other contests I'm writing about here, both candidates are friends of mine.  I knew Judge Wright before he took the bench in January 2019, but I've gotten to know him better over the years.  As I wrote back in February, he ran for the Bench because he has strong feelings about how the Criminal Justice System should operate and he's made those feelings the backbone of his time on the Bench.  Almost immediately, he let the State know that he would hold them to their obligations to turn over Discovery and follow those duties that they are required to perform under the Code of Criminal Procedure.  He has firm policies in his court and he expects them to be followed.  There's nothing wrong with that, and I admire him for his vision and direction as a judge.

Although another candidate in a race a few years back referred to himself as an "institution" of the courthouse, Mike Monks is truly an institution in our Criminal Justice Center world.  He was an experienced lawyer when I first walked in the door in 1999 and he is a fan favorite for all of us who practice there.  Mike is such an institution at the courthouse that for years, the D.A.'s Office's Halloween decorations consisted of a skeleton wearing a "Mike Monks for Judge" campaign t-shirt that sat on a couch in the reception area.  He's one of the nicest people you will ever meet and someone happy to answer questions for some of us "younger" lawyers.  

County Court at Law # 8 -- Erika Ramirez (D) vs. Mark Goldberg (R) -- well, here's an interesting race that pits two current Assistant District Attorneys against each other.  Democratic candidate Erika Ramirez defeated incumbent Judge Franklin Bynum in the primary and she faces off against Republican Mark Goldberg.

I think the world of Erika Ramirez and she definitely has my vote in this election.  I've dealt with her as a prosecutor and as a friend.  I admire her ethics, knowledge, and compassion.  She has worked hard on the campaign trail and I hope that pays off for her in November.  

By contrast, I am not a fan of her opponent, Mark Goldberg and I base that on several different factors.  Goldberg is a political hire brought in by Kim Ogg.  He doesn't know much about prosecution, and I had a front-row view of that when I had this case set against him in 2020.  I hope you will take the time to read that article if you aren't familiar with the story already.  The short version is that he lied to the court to get out of a Batson violation.  His reputation for honesty hasn't improved any since then.  He lied to the media in the summer of 2019 as I outlined in this post.  In addition to his issues with honesty, Mark also isn't really a prosecutor.  He's a campaign advisor for Kim Ogg who is holding a prosector's pay position so he can have a taxpayer-funded job.

County Court at Law # 9 -- Judge Toria Finch (I)(D) vs. Sartaj Bal (R) -- I can't say enough nice things about Judge Toria Finch, and I'm not alone in that.  When running against her opponent, John Wakefield in 2018, he couldn't say enough nice things about her either.  It was the friendliest campaign I've ever witnessed.   Since taking the Bench, Judge Finch has maintained a cordial and productive court where prosecutors and defense attorneys are glad to practice.  She is kind, fair, and smart.  She's done a great job during her first term on the Bench and she deserves another one.

I don't know her opponent, Sartaj Bal, and I've never heard of him, either.  I don't recognize him from his campaign website and I'm not sure that I've ever seen him in the CJC at all.    His website is ambiguous about what types of cases he handles, but his State Bar profile indicates that he is licensed in a couple of Federal Bankruptcy courts.  I'm not a big fan of lawyers becoming Criminal Court Judges when they don't practice Criminal Law in the first place. 

County Court at Law # 10 -- Juanita Jackson (D) vs. Dan Spjut (R) --  With current County Court at Law #10 Judge Lee Harper Wilson not seeking re-election, County Court at Law # 10 is an open bench in 2022.  My friend, the youthful and vibrant and not at all old-school, Juanita Jackson, is a defense attorney running as the Democratic candidate against the former judge of Court #10, Republican Dan Spjut.

Dan Spjut was elected to the Bench in 2014 and, like Paula Goodhart, lost his bench in the Democratic sweep in 2018.  During his time on the Bench, I don't believe that I ever had a case in his court.  I know that he had a lengthy career with the City of Houston Police Department.  I never heard any complaints about him.  I think I've met him in passing, but I do not know him personally.  I have nothing negative to report.

I've known Juanita for as far back as I can remember and she is a personal friend.  She is a strong and dedicated defense attorney who fights hard for her clients and I have no doubt that she would do a great job if elected.

County Court at Law # 11 -- Judge Sedrick Walker (I)(D) vs.  Dan Simons (R) -- Although I've known Judge Sedrick Walker since he was a prosecutor, I don't know him very well on a personal level.  During his time as a prosecutor, I believe I had one or two cases against him and found him professional and prepared when we talked.  Since he took the bench, I have appeared before him on a handful of occasions and have always enjoyed being in his court.  He is very professional and runs an efficient court.

I've known Dan since his time at the District Attorney's Office.  In 2018, he won the Republican Primary over longtime incumbent Judge Jay Karahan, who had run afoul of the Republican Party because he (gasp!) officiated over a same-sex marriage.  I thought the move local Republicans pulled on Karahan back then was crap and I was disappointed that Dan ran against him for that reason.  It all became irrelevant anyway as Dan lost to Franklin Bynum in the 2018 Democratic Sweep.  I believe Dan moved out of state for a time, but he has been back in Harris County and practicing as a defense attorney for a few years now.

County Court at Law # 12 -- Judge Genesis Draper (I)(D) vs. Matt Dexter (R) --  If you are a reader of this blog, you probably know that I'm a Super Fan of Judge Genesis Draper.  I didn't know her prior to her taking the Bench but had the opportunity to pick a jury in front of her in the above-mentioned case against Mark Goldberg.  Judge Draper was amazing then as she deftly dealt with suppression and Batson issues that were brought before her.  She has a strong background in criminal defense and is an amazing judge.  Since trying that case with her, I've had the opportunity to talk to her on many additional occasions about the law and the state of the Criminal Justice System.  I admire the passion and dedication she has for Criminal Justice and wish she would seek an even higher office.  She's the type of leader that the world needs more of.

My old buddy, Matt Dexter is running against Judge Draper for Court #12, and he and I go way back.  We became good friends back in 1999 when he was still with HPD and we bonded over the time-honored tradition of mocking Adam Brown.  Matt is a great guy and a good friend.  Most of his criminal defense work has centered around the juvenile system, however, and I'm kind of surprised he didn't run for a bench in that arena.  Although I have nothing negative to say about my friend, the truth of the matter is that I'd vote for Judge Draper even if she was running against me!

County Court at Law # 13 -- Judge Raul Rodriguez (I)(D) vs. Lance Long (R) -- The last three races I'm profiling here are tough ones for me because I think all of the candidates running are great ones.  Lance Long is a former-Harris County Assistant District Attorney who was inexplicably let go as part of Kim Ogg's ridiculous Bloody Friday purge of experienced prosecutors when she took Office.  He is one of the smartest people I've ever met and I sat with him on the one and only death penalty case I ever tried as a prosecutor.  Since leaving the Office, he has served as a prosecutor in other counties trying serious cases.  I do think that he would be kind of bored trying misdemeanor cases, since Capital Murder is pretty much his specialty, though.

As much as I love Lance, Judge Rodriguez is arguably one of the best judges on the bench in the CJC and easily one of the most popular.  In addition to being one of the nicest people that I've ever met, he's also an excellent judge.  He runs a very efficient court and he calls balls and strikes without playing any favorites.  I had a lengthy contested Motion to Suppress in front of him, and although he ultimately ruled against me, I had no doubt that he had attentively listened to all of the involved witnesses and parties and carefully reviewed the applicable law before doing so.

County Court at Law # 14 -- Je'Rell Rogers (D) vs. Jessica Padilla (R) -- the race for County Court at Law # 14 is technically an open race with no incumbent since Democratic candidate Je'Rell Rogers defeated current Judge David Singer in the March primary.  As I wrote back then, I'm a big fan of Je'Rell both professionally and personally and I think that he would make a great judge.  He is currently a Chief Prosecutor in the 180th District Court and a recovering former Notre Dame mascot.

I've known Jessica Padilla since she was baby prosecutor at the D.A.'s Office, a year or so behind me in seniority.  She's a wonderful and sweet person that I think would also make a great judge.  She prosecuted for several years but has been on the defense side of things for quite some time now.  She's very involved in the Republican Party of Harris County.

County Court at Law # 15 -- Judge Tonya Jones (I)(D) vs. Xavier Alfaro (R) --  I did not know Judge Tonya Jones when she ran for the Bench in 2018, but I supported her because I knew that she would be a far better choice than her opponent, Roger Bridgwater.  I'm glad I made that call then because I've had the opportunity to appear in her court since and she's a great judge.  She runs a very open and fair courtroom and is well-liked by both the Defense Bar and the State.

Xavier Alfaro (aka X-Man) is also someone that I think very highly of.  I first met X when he was a prosecutor in Harris County.  He was a defense attorney for a while and then went to work for Brian Middleton at the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office, where he heads the Misdemeanor Division.  Every time I've dealt with Xavier, I've been glad that he was the person I was dealing with.  He is someone that knows the law and how to follow it, but also strongly appreciates fairness and equity in making his decisions.