Guiney

I have been extremely fortunate in my 54 years of life to have never suddenly and unexpectedly lost a person I was close with.  That all changed on Thursday evening with the passing of my friend, Judge Kristin Guiney.

I first met Guiney in the summer of 2002.  I had been at the D.A.'s Office for almost three years and was a Felony Two.  I was working in the 177th District Court where my Chief was Mia Magness and my Three was Denise Nichols.  I had just started dating Sylvia Escobedo, who was also a Felony Two.  Her Three was Craig Still, and his best friend at the Office was Guiney.  

We became a group within the Office that hung out with each other every freaking day.  

I mean every day.  

We all got to work insanely early and we were all at a happy hour no later than 5pm if we weren't in trial.  We drank beer, smoked cigarettes, gossiped, and told war stories.  And laughed.  Man, we laughed so much.  On most occasions, other people from the Office would join us -- many of them quite frequently --  but we hung out together so much that it would be considered unusual if one of that core group wasn't there.  With the exception of Mia, none of us had kids.  We hung out at bars that no longer exist -- the Limelight, and St. Pete's Dancing Marlin.  We usually spent Friday evenings hanging out at each other's houses and sitting around talking well into the night.

It was a different era for the Office.  Like most Old Timers from an earlier time, I look at those days at the Office with a tremendous amount of nostalgia.  After I left the Office years later, the thing I missed the most about it was the camaraderie and friends who felt like family.  

But at the heart of that Office family, at least in my little world, was that core group.

Guiney married Ed McClees very soon after I first met her.  He worked for a civil firm for several years before he, too, joined the D.A.'s Office.  Ed would become a dear friend who I love like a brother.  He remains the best damn designated driver I've ever had for all of my bachelor parties.

But in addition to all of the fun we had back during those early years, there was a seriousness about my friend Guiney that more or less had the rest of us considering her the de facto leader of our little group.  She was hilarious and boisterous, but also wickedly smart and very driven to accomplish anything she set her mind to.  She was extremely dedicated to not just being a prosecutor, but to the Criminal Justice system as a whole.  I recall when she was just a Felony Three, Guiney took on the task of studying other D.A. offices around the country.  It was a research project that ultimately led to her traveling to the Maricopa County D.A.'s Office in Phoenix, Arizona and coming back with data that she would present to Commissioners' Court on behalf of our office.  The work she did led to pay raises and an expansion in the Office that hadn't been seen for some time.  We owed that all to her.

She was most definitely a student of the Criminal Justice game and had very strong opinions on the quality of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and policies that affected the world that we worked within.  I loved talking to Guiney about these topics and she was passionate about them the whole time I knew her.  While I would later take up writing about these topics, Guiney was always busy doing something about them.  I always admired and respected her for that.

As the years went by, our little group stayed together with our happy hours continuing on a daily basis.  Sylvia and I got married in 2004.  In the spring of 2005, Guiney announced she was going to give up drinking beer for Lent.  Although it seemed a little abrupt, nobody in the group said much about it. She was just taking a little leave of absence from socializing.  One Sunday in March of that year, Sylvia came into the room with a pregnancy test in one hand and a cigarette in the other and told me, "You aren't going to believe this shit!"  Sylvia followed up by saying, "We can't say anything to anyone for the first three months."

"No way that works," I told her.  "If we aren't at happy hour for more than two days in a row . . . oh my God, Guiney's pregnant."   

Sylvia's eyes widened and she processed that and then she said:  "Oh my God, she IS!"

We were all so young then and the idea of being parents wasn't on any of our radars really.  It had never entered our genius minds before that moment that Guiney's abrupt temporary departure from the group was brought about by anything other than Lent.  The next day at work, Sylvia practically sprinted to Guiney's office and confronted her with our deductions.  As it turned out, we were correct.  Guiney and Ed were expecting their first kiddo about two weeks earlier than we were.  As it also turned out, there were A LOT of people in the Office that had babies due in Fall of the year.

As we all moved from the Party Circuit to the Parenting Circuit, the happy hours transitioned into more trips to early dinners with the kids in high chairs, birthday parties, daycare meet ups, and trips to the zoo.  Sylvia and I spent a lot of time with Kristin and Ed and our kids spent a ton of time together in those Pre-K years.  

Twenty years later, many of those kids have formed their own friendships with each other and that makes me happy in ways I find difficult to describe.

Sylvia and I split up in 2008 and I left the Office at the end of that year.  As is the case in many divorces, there is somewhat of a dividing of friends along with a dividing of everything else.  Although Guiney remained my friend, she was much closer to Sylvia after that.  We still stopped and talked and went to lunch on occasion, but the days of Limelight and St. Pete's were long over.  Our conversations usually centered on kids, or more often, the state of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.  She would ultimately leave the D.A.'s Office, too, and practiced as a defense attorney for a few years.  Of course, in Guiney fashion, she would go the extra mile by becoming Board Certified in Criminal Law.

In 2012, I remember hearing that Guiney was going to run for judge, and I was surprised to hear it.  It wasn't that I didn't think she was more than capable or qualified for the job.  It was just that the role of a judge is akin to being a referee more so than being a quarterback, and Guiney's personality was much more aligned with being a quarterback, in my opinion.  I also didn't see her as having the patience for all of the tedious things that come along with running for office.  Man, I was wrong about that.

In the Republican primary of 2012, Mike Anderson trounced incumbent Pat Lykos by a very large margin of voters.  The only person to defeat their primary opponent by a larger margin of victory was Guiney, who knocked out a longtime Republican candidate who had a much more significant history with the local GOP.  Guiney had worked her butt off and gone to every meeting, group, and get-together that she was aware of.  She talked to people across the county about the Criminal Justice System that she was so passionate about, and it resonated.  Her biggest cheerleader was Ed.

Guiney was a great candidate, but she would prove to be an even better judge.  Her time on the bench would garner extremely enthusiastic and positive reviews from both the State and the Defense Bar.  As a general rule of thumb, defense attorneys are wary of Republican judges -- concerned that the political platform of being "tough on crime" might result in some unfair rulings in the courtroom.  But that was never the case with Guiney.  She held the State to their burden of proof and expected them to bring their A game in trial.  Defense attorneys who didn't do right by their clients when it called for zealous representation were going to hear about it.  And in her spare time outside of the courtroom, she advocated for money to expand rehabilitative programs like the STAR Court.  She was a truly great judge.

When she lost her bench in the 2016 Democratic sweep, she took it hard.  Partisan politics should have no place in the Criminal Justice World for that very reason.  She had devoted her professional life to the CJC and it broke her heart to leave it.  It broke the rest of our hearts as well.  She wanted a break from coming to the CJC and threw herself into her work with the non-profit Angela House.  As with all other Guiney Projects, she tackled it with everything she had.  She would return to the CJC on occasion on behalf of some of the Angela House participants, and she would receive a very fond welcome when she did.

In September of 2017, she was appointed to the 232nd District Court, and we were glad to have her back, but again, the electorate had a difference of opinion.  In 2018, she would lose the 232nd to Judge Josh Hill.  During the Houston Chronicle endorsement process, the editorial board had noted that Guiney's experience and outlook on the Criminal Justice System was so impressive that she should have considered a run for Congress.  She no doubt would have been excellent at that, as well.

In 2022, Guiney ran and won the bench of the 183rd District Court.  It would be the third District Court she had presided over and I jokingly told her, "You know, if thousands of years from now, the aliens excavate the CJC, they are going to think that you were the judge of ALL the courts."  But she still had one more to go.  In 2024, she ran for the 1st Court of Appeals and won.  Despite now working across the street at the 1910 Courthouse, she would frequently come back as a visiting judge at the CJC.  Even this past week, she had been visiting in the 263rd.

Over the years, Guiney and I saw each other less and less.  We were on different sides of the political spectrum, and although we never had a real argument over it, we drifted apart.  Earlier this year, however, I had the amusing experience of having Guiney show up as a potential juror on one of my panels for a murder case in the 178th District Court.  I was glad to see her, but somewhat nervous.  I knew if I misstated or misrepresented anything during jury selection (even just a little bit), Guiney was likely to call me out on it.  I used her to help illustrate and explain points to the jury.

I had also texted several prosecutor and defense attorney friends that Guiney was on my panel.  The response I got from them all was the same:  "Don't strike her!"

I had no intention of striking her.  Despite her being a very conservative Republican Court of Appeals judge and me being a very liberal Democratic defense attorney, I knew that Guiney would be a fair and unbiased juror who would hold the State of Texas to their burden of proof and nothing short of that.  If you operate in our world, that's a tremendous testament to Guiney's intelligence and integrity.  I did not use a strike on her, but the prosecutor did.  He wasn't skeptical of her ability to be fair and neutral, but it was pretty clear that she and I were old friends.  I made the joke that she had attended two of my three weddings, which made her a Silver Medalist in the Murray Wedding Olympics.

When she was dismissed from her jury service, I immediately texted her, "I did not strike you!"

She immediately replied, "I know.  You're a smart man.  Good luck!  Tell your client to sit up straight.  He looks a little menacing hunched over."

Solid advice.

We started chatting a little more after that, all about courthouse gossip and related things, just like the old days around the table during happy hour.  We had lunch in June and it was great.  As per usual, it was all talk about the courthouse, docket loads, the difference between being an District Court judge and an Appellate Justice.  I truly enjoyed it and we promised to not let so much time go by before we did it again.

I don't think I have internally wrapped my mind around the idea that I'm not going to ever see Kristin Guiney again.  

Intellectually, I understand it, but it is very hard to picture a world without Guiney in it.  Despite the years and the differences, I guess I always found it far more likely that she would eulogize me one day rather than vice versa. There are certainly friends who were far closer to her in recent years than I was: Sylvia, Denise, Wendy, Alexis and the rest of the group that jokingly called themselves "the Coven."  

In reading the reactions to Guiney's passing on social media, it strikes me how many people have so many glowing things to say about her.  Prosecutors and defense attorneys who haven't been practicing for more than a handful of years have written sweet tributes about the leadership and guidance that they got from Guiney.  She was so damn good at her job that it almost defies explanation.  This is a tremendous loss to our world.

I've done my best to convey it here.

To Ed and the girls.  To Craig Still, who was Guiney's best friend for so many years.  I know what I'm feeling doesn't come close to what you are going through.  I love you all and I'm thinking of you.

To quote Guiney's most frequent catchphrase, we will all try to "put our big girl panties on" and get through this, but damn, that is so much easier said than done.  

I'm going to miss you, Guiney.  I'll see you on the other side.

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 was my first real introduction to the world of criminal justice, and I learned a lot during that time.  I worked under the supervision of Gil Schultz, the single investigator the office had at the time. I worked for the prosecutors, made crime scenes, and attended autopsies on cases.  

One of the first crime scenes that I ever went to was a very tragic case involving domestic violence.  I don't remember the names of the parties involved but I remember the details very vividly.

A man had threatened his wife with a knife and she had called the police on him.  He was arrested for Aggravated Assault and he went to jail.  A few days after his arrest, she decided that she didn't want to prosecute.  She came to the D.A.'s office in person to tell the intake prosecutor that she wanted to drop charges.  The intake prosecutor looked at the man's criminal history and saw a long list of arrests for domestic violence.

"He's going to kill you," he told the woman.  "I'm not dismissing his case."

She kept coming back -- asking for meetings with the intake prosecutor, begging him to dismiss the case.  He kept telling her no.  The intake prosecutor was an older man who had a previous career in the military where he had seen combat. Like most decent human beings, he wasn't okay with men who hurt women.  He knew exactly the type of person the defendant was and he knew what a danger he would always be to the woman.

But there was a big problem.  

The woman was the only witness to the aggravated assault.  Without her cooperation, there was no proving the case.  There were no excited utterances that served as a hearsay exception that could prove it without her.  She was the only one.  

The intake prosecutor held out on signing the dismissal.  He held out for months.

But ultimately, he knew he could not prove the case without her.  Ethically, he had to dismiss the case.

So he did.

That afternoon, Gil and I got a call out to a crime scene.  It was about half a mile away from the Brazos County Courthouse.  It was the woman who had finally gotten her wish to get her husband out of jail.  Upon release, he had come home immediately, and was in a rage over the months he had spent in custody because she had called the cops on him.

He began stabbing her inside the one-room row house they lived in.  I remember it being so small and decrepit that the toilet was in the kitchen next to the stove.  It was filthy.  She had managed to get past him and out the front door.  He chased after her and caught her outside the fence of a pre-school, where children were at recess.  He jumped on top of her and took her to the ground.  As he stabbed her repeatedly, he kept yelling,  "Was it worth it?  Was it worth it?"

Gil and I stayed at the crime scene with the investigators from the Bryan Police Department for a couple of hours and then we came back to the office.  As we were getting off the elevators, the intake prosecutor was standing there.  His eyes were red and and he had clearly been crying.  He held out his pen and showed it to me.

"Here's your murder weapon," he told us.  "I killed her as soon as I signed that dismissal."  

I was in my mid-20s then and the intake prosecutor was probably in his sixties.  I had neither wisdom nor words for him.  It was way above my pay grade.  Gil, as a 26 year veteran of the Houston Police Department with 16 years in Homicide, knew what to say.  He was kind and he emphasized the obvious -- the intake prosecutor wasn't responsible for the actions of the horrible piece of shit who had spent his life abusing women.  This was how the Criminal Justice System just turned out sometimes.

Gil's words were, of course, correct.  But they did very little in the moment to console the intake prosecutor.  He was devastated and he blamed himself for something that he ultimately had no control over.  He was one of the most decent and honorable people I ever knew and also one of the toughest.  I will never forget seeing that man in tears.

The truth of the matter is that when it comes to prosecuting domestic violence cases, it is often an insurmountable task for the prosecution.  Domestic violence permeates all corners of the population. In the vast majority of the cases, it is the male in the relationship who is accused of doing the abusing.  The abused (usually) female partner calls the police in the moment for help, and the male goes to jail.

But then reality sets in.  Whether it be for emotional or financial reasons, the victim comes to regret the fact that the defendant is in jail.  In many situations, the defendant being in jail can lead to a loss of income that puts the rest of the family at risk of losing their housing.  If the defendant makes bond but is ordered not to return to the household, the family can find themselves having to pay for rent in two different places.  The charges against the defendant can ultimately destroy the entire family.

It creates a very real situation where there is no good solution.  The easiest solution in the mind of the victim, more often than not, is just to dismiss the charges and hope for the best.  

Prosecutors around the country know this.  Most offices have domestic violence units that are focused on prosecuting cases without the cooperation of the victim.  There are ways to get it done sometimes.  Maybe there are those excited utterances that are hearsay exceptions, where the victim tearfully telling the arresting officer what happened can be admitted into evidence.  Maybe there were witnesses.  Sometimes it happens like that.

But more often than not, it doesn't.  Lots of domestic violence cases have to be dismissed because prosecutors simply don't have the tools to prove them.   It is not unusual to see prosecutors in domestic violence divisions try to hold off on the dismissal for as long as they can.  That can give rise to some ethical questions, but it isn't uncommon.  Sometimes, the prosecutors will offer a time served offer on a reduction in the hopes of just getting a conviction.  That's quite common, too.

All of it is usually a big mess.  People on the outside of the criminal justice world don't understand the difficult dynamic that a prosecutor has when he or she is working against the wishes of the victim of a crime.  It's not a good feeling for anyone involved.

I thought about that intake prosecutor and the crime scene where the man had yelled, "Was it worth it?  Was it worth it?"  when I was reading about the case of Kevin Faux, who is the suspect in the murder of Ashanti Allen, his 8 month pregnant girlfriend.

In addition to the horrible facts of the murder itself, the case is getting significant attention because Faux recently received a plea bargain deal on a felony Continuous Family Violence case where Ashanti Allen had been the victim.  The plea bargain had reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and the sentence was 280 days in the Harris County Jail.  Although I'm not certain of this, I suspect that the 280 days was a "time served" sentence that would have released Faux immediately after the plea.

I'm also not certain, but I highly suspect that the reason this reduction happened was because Ms. Allen didn't want to continue to pursue charges.  I may be wrong about that, but I bet I'm not.  I've seen it before so many times in the thirty years since that bad afternoon in Brazos County.

Ashanti Allen's family is understandably devastated by her murder.  It is reasonable to expect them to believe that if the charges on the Continuous Family Violence case hadn't been reduced, the murder would have never happened.  They are angry with Megan Long, the prosecutor who made the plea bargain agreement.  They are angry with Judge Lori Chambers Gray, the judge who signed off on it.

That anger is misplaced though.  

The reality is that prosecutors are far more likely to hold on to a domestic violence case that they can't prove than they are to ever dismiss (or reduce) one that they can.  

Defense attorneys (such as myself) are constantly complaining about prosecutors who won't dismiss domestic violence cases that they know they can't prove in court.  There are social workers and case workers and victim advocates at the District Attorney's Office who are there to offer resources and encouragement to victims of domestic violence so that they won't feel the pressure to try to drop charges against their abusers.  It's not just in Harris County.  Every D.A. Office in every county and state that I've ever dealt with has domestic violence divisions designed to make weak cases more prosecutable.

Those of us in the system know that.  The judges know it.  The prosecutors know it.  The defense attorneys know it.  The cops know it.  The victim advocates know it.

It's tragic.

Sadly, there are some in the Criminal Justice System who are more than willing to use a tragedy to advance an untrue narrative to an angry public.  That was very evident today as CrimeStoppers' Andy Kahan and Houston Police Officers' Union took to social media to bash both prosecutor Megan Long and Judge Lori Chambers Gray for the earlier plea bargain agreement.  Both Andy and HPOU President Doug Griffith had a lot of intellectually dishonest things to say about it.  I responded to both of them, for what it was worth.

Both Andy and HPOU tend to lean towards supporting more conservative political causes, and the whole "blame the judges" and that "Democratic District Attorney" are common refrains.  Although both know better, they weren't going to let a little bit of intellectual honesty slow them down from trying to make a political point.

Quite frankly, that's just gross.

The truth is that prosecuting domestic violence cases is more challenging than almost any other type of case.  

The truth is that in so very many of those cases, the bad guy gets away or gets a deal he (or she) doesn't morally deserve.  

The truth is that no prosecutor or judge should be blamed for following the law, even when it leads to an unjust result.

The truth is that there are no good answers when it comes to domestic violence.  It is an epidemic without an easy solution.

The truth is this weighs very heavily on those who do the best they can with it, but still fail.  

People like that intake prosecutor I worked with so long ago.

Fun with Kimbra (and the Hoopers)

Man, it has been a crazy day.  Where to begin?  I think I'll start with a certain tweet that I got mentioned in on Twitter (or X, or whatever they are calling it these days) by a certain disgruntled ex-District Attorney.

Now, before I give the backstory on this Tweet, I would like to be very clear that I found it to be absolutely hilarious.  I am keenly aware of how much I piss off certain people online and I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to the responses to things I say.  Kim calling me a cockroach, although not very inventive, was more than fair game.

That being said, in the space of one Tweet, our former District Attorney not only calls for my death, but, as per usual, she's trying to outsource the dirty work.

Do I think she was serious?  No.

Do I think she would be sad if I died?  Also no.

Do I think I would have had a bunch of cops at my door if I had posted anything remotely resembling a tweet like this about her? 100%

But there is a big difference between me and Kim.  The most profound one being that I'm not stupid.  I don't wish death on anyone and even if I did, I wouldn't put it in a tweet.  I don't care how frustrated I was with the person.  There are too many unstable people out there already to make pretending to be one of them seem like a good idea.  

The next difference between me and Kimbra is that I wouldn't try to waste the legal system's time and resources to help me satisfy a personal grudge.  It was suggested to me that I should file a police report.  That's not really my style.  Instead, I just responded to her tweet as follows:

Do I think that I'm funny?  Well, obviously.

But going back to that whole "not wasting legal system's time and resources to help me satisfy a personal grudge" thing, I think it is worth noting my original post that got Kim so riled up.   

Backstory time.

So, as many of you may remember during the Ogg Administration, Kim led a highly publicized "investigation" into Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo.  Although charges were never brought against Hidalgo, three staffers were ultimately charged with felonies.  Two of those staffers had their cases dismissed outright once the case was taken over by the Texas Attorney General's Office, and the third completed a very brief pre-trial diversion.   When all was said and done, Kim's "investigation" into Hidalgo cost Harris County hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more).

The recipient of lots of those thousands and thousands of dollar was none other than Kim's close personal friend and former-5th Amendment-invoking-prosecutor, Rachel Palmer Hooper, who had gone onto bigger and better things working for a big law firm and serving as General Counsel to the Texas GOP.  In her spare time, she was known for running the criminal history of black people she saw voting and other fun Right Wing activities.  Kim hired Rachel as a "special prosecutor" to investigate Hidalgo, but she did everything in her power to keep that a secret from the general public.  Since Kim was a Democrat trying to take out another Democrat, it wasn't a good idea to be using office funds to hire the general counsel for the Republicans to do the dirty work.   The story didn't end well for Kimbra.

Although Rachel blocks me on Twitter because I keep pointing out to the general public that I really don't feel that she is being the best version of herself that she can be, she has been very vocal lately.  That's probably because her beloved husband, Donald P. Hooper, is running to be the Party Chair for GOP in Harris County.  

Now, those of you who have followed this blog for a long time know that the Donner and I have a special relationship.  It's very much a love/hate relationship in the sense that he hates me and I love how much he hates me.  He would probably be very surprised to know that I think he would be perfect for the job of Harris County GOP Chair.  That's not a compliment.  It's just a testament to how badly the GOP has deteriorated.  If you are looking for a homophobic, shit talking, semi-literate, nimwit, Don is definitely the candidate for you.

But I digress . . . 

So, anyway, several days ago, Rachel posted on Twitter that she believed U.S. Senator John Cornyn needed to be investigated for something or other involving Senate Candidate Wesley Hunt's personal information.  Her solution to the problem?  They should just appoint Kim Ogg as the new, permanent U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

Now, I'm not entirely sure who the "Marxist DA" is that Rachel is referencing in this post, but I did find her advocating for Kim to be as predictable as it was shameless.  And I said so.

Little did I know that it would cause Kimbra's mind to turn to MURDER!

Obviously I don't feel particularly at risk after Kim's solicitation of murder upon me, but in all seriousness, what the hell?  

Kim Ogg is a vindictive child with the temperament of a slow-witted rattlesnake.  She abused her power as Harris County District Attorney and she doubtlessly would do so again if (God forbid) she were to become the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District.  She's as stupid as she is ruthless, and that's saying something.  

Regardless of whether or not her tweet was meant to be taken seriously, she has demonstrated yet again that she is not fit to hold public office.

Guest Poster: The Civil Benches

For quite a few years now, I have routinely asked a friend of mine who practices civil law for his recommendations on the Civil Benches in Harris County.  I consider my friend to be a pretty smart guy and I tend to agree with him on political issues.  He's always happy to give me his opinions, and I got his permission to share these views (on the condition of anonymity).  It's always insightful to hear his thoughts on the benches I'm unfamiliar with.  

I do think it should be said that these recommendations are from the perspective a career insurance defense lawyer, although Democrats who don’t know me think I’m a Republican because of my job, and Republicans think I’m going to hell as a woke liberal.  One of them is correct, I won’t say which.  

Appellate Benches:  The yellow dog in me will not let me recommend any of the Republican candidates.  But I cannot recommend any of the Democrats, either.  In my experience Democrats on the civil appellate benches are there on a mission to turn the tables against insurance companies and corporations no matter what the law or the facts are.  Some of them expressly so.  I do not want any of them interpreting the law.  They barely follow it when they’re supposed to.  

Republican Primary:  All benches have only one choice.  

Democratic Primary:

As usual, some of the worst judges in the county did not draw a primary opponent.  The Harris County Democratic Party is absolutely leaderless.  The challengers in these races have some of the lowest case counts I have seen for lawyers since Judge Barnstone in County Civil Court at Law No. 1, who was removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for his absolute incompetence.  On those grounds alone they have no business being in charge of some of the busiest courts in the country.  

157th:  Tanya Garrison.  She is Plaintiff-oriented, but she knows the law and if you show her that you do too, she is likely to follow it.  She tries cases efficiently and will mostly let the lawyers try their case once she has ruled on the evidence.  She is one of the group of Democrats who, when elected years ago, the defense bar thought was the end of fairness in Harris County courts.  I’m not sure if she’s changed or the bar has sunk so low with other more recent elections, but she is viewed as more moderate lately.  I will say that she has made some hard calls in my favor, including dismissing cases on motions where other judges would not have done the same.  Her opponent appears to be a family and criminal lawyer, likely meaning she just hung up a shingle at one point and likely knows little about civil work.  She might be more qualified, if at all, for a criminal or family bench.  I have never heard of her or seen her at the courthouse.  A search of the district clerk’s records shows she has only 20 active cases, the majority of which are criminal, followed by family law cases.  She has only one active county court at law case.  I cannot imagine she can keep up with the administration of thousands of cases as a judge.  Garrison is in the inaugural class of judges who are board certified in judicial administration.  

270th:  Dedra Davis  This is a hot take for an insurance defense lawyer.  I am the only civil defense lawyer I know that would prefer her over her opponent, who on paper is surely qualified but is running on the basis of “I’m not her.”  Several sitting Democrat judges have criticized me for backing Davis, and that should tell you enough—her own party is trying to get rid of her.  But more often than not she follows the law and she makes tough decisions that other judges will not.  She rules on the spot, and will get on her zoom link to help you get hearings set and move your case.  She reads everything.  And she has dismissed cases for me when they should have been dismissed where few other judges would likely have done the same.  Her court is a zoo sometimes.  She has a bad reputation.  Some of that is self-inflicted, but mostly it’s because she also rules against plaintiffs and she is more fair than well over half the judges down there.  I believe she still has the most jury trials in the county over the last four years, and if not, she’s near the top.  I did not like her zoom trials (she can no longer do them after the covid orders expired), but she moves her docket.  Her opponent has exactly six active cases according to the district clerk and none (ever) at the county level.  Two criminal, three car wrecks (plaintiff) and one divorce.  I think they’re dragging him out of retirement just to run, having thrown all manner of opponents against Davis in the past.  On paper he looks good.  He is simply an unknown, whereas I know that Davis will move her cases and make hard choices.  

281st:  Christine Weems.  But only for lack of options.  Weems is incredibly biased and in trial she argues with me more than plaintiff’s lawyers do.  She fights me on every point, often sua sponte, and I believe she often ignores the law.  But her opponent, another candidate running with no experience or qualifications, would do the same and is less qualified.  At least Weems knows she ignores the law and if you corner her she will sometimes reluctantly do what she is supposed to do.  Her opponent shows exactly 10 active cases in district courts and one in county court.  Most are car wrecks; some may be ad litem appointments for minor settlements.  

Court at Law No. 2:  Jim Kovach.  I believe Kovach also favors plaintiffs based on his idea of justice, but he is overwhelmingly honest and goes well out of his way to make sure everyone is heard.  I think he is overall very fair, tries to follow the law, and he has dismissed cases for me as well.  He made me do extra work to get there, but he did it.  His opponent appears to be a family lawyer.  She has 15 active cases at the district court level, and every one of them is a family law case.  She does not now, and evidently has not ever, had a case in the county courts at law.  Yet she is running for a county court at law bench?

Court at Law No. 3:  Lashawn Williams.  Williams tries to get things right.  She has an idea of justice that may differ from mine, but she has gotten better in recent years about following the law.  I like her as a person, more than a judge.  I also believe she is one of the main organizers behind how many women of color are running for benches—and overall that is a good thing.  Her opponent has been licensed for just over three years, has had only two cases (neither currently active) in the county courts, and 56 active district court (or misdemeanor cases maintained by the district clerk) cases, which are overwhelmingly criminal and family.  Maybe she should run for a family bench when she has a few more years underneath her.  

County Attorney:  Lawton Evans.  Recently resigning from County Court at Law No. 1 to run for this post, I like her policies in general.  Evans is one of the most cordial people you will ever meet and turned county Court 1 around.  And it’s time for Abbie Kamin to go away.  

I don’t have opinions on the JPs.  

The 2026 Primary Recommendations

Tuesday, February 17th is the beginning of Early Voting in Texas for the March 3rd Primaries.

In the Republican Primary, there are not any judicial races that are contested at the District or County Courts, so there isn't much to write about there.  I will note that in the Texas Attorney General's Race that former-District Court Judge and current State Senator Joan Huffman is running against three other candidates.  I'm not a huge fan of Joan Huffman, but in a field where the other three candidates seem to be running on the platform of who can suck up to Donald Trump the most effectively rather actually following the job description of Attorney General, she seems to be the better choice.

There are not an overabundance of contested primaries on the Democratic side of things that affect the Harris County Criminal Justice Center world, but there are some extremely important ones that deserve your attention.  I have been very glad to see that a lot of my colleagues have already shared their recommendations on Facebook and other social media.  I hope that you will help spread the word on these recommendations, as well.  I also agree with the Houston Chronicle's recommendations in these races.

Those contested races are:

183rd District Court -- Katie Wilson vs. Julia Maldonado

As anyone who follows this blog knows, I'm a big fan of criminal benches being held by people with experience in the Criminal Justice World.  As far as I'm concerned, the more familiarity with criminal law one has, the more qualified they are.  In this instance, Julia Maldonado does have some familiarity with criminal law from earlier in her practice, but she's been away from it for quite some time.  Maldonado was actually a family court judge for quite some time and now her practice seems to focused on family law, as well.

By contrast, Katie Wilson is immersed in the practice of criminal law and always has been.  Her resume shows that she is a former prosecutor and has been practicing criminal defense for many years now.  Not only does her devotion to criminal law make her the more qualified candidate for this primary, the fact that she has worked as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney give her the balance that we hope to see on all criminal benches.  

Although I don't have anything negative to say about Julia Maldonado, the clear choice on this is Katie Wilson.

Recommendation:  Katie Wilson

209th District Court -- Judge Brian Warren (I) vs. Robert Johnson vs. Ysidra "Sissy" Kyles

There has been a lot of courthouse conversation about this particular race due to the fact that Incumbent Judge Brian Warren is so well-liked and respected by both prosecutors and defense attorneys that it defies logic that he would draw any opponents, let alone two of them.  Judge Warren has distinguished himself as a judge who calls balls and strikes with impartiality, compassion, and adherence to the law.  In a world where lawyers tend to gripe about judges, you don't hear criticisms of Judge Warren.  No one who practices in the CJC can articulate any reason why they wouldn't want to see him continuing as Judge of the 209th.

By contrast, his first challenger, Robert Johnson, was widely regarded as the second worst judge in the courthouse during his all-too-lengthy tenure as Judge of the 177th.  The actual worst judge was Ramona Franklin, but we will talk about her a little later,.  During his time on the bench, Robert Johnson was known for a lack of knowledge in the law, inconsistency in his rulings and policies, and a level of animosity towards those who came before him.  In short, he was a terror on the bench.  He had high turnover rates in his court staff and it was generally just an unpleasant place to be.  Most attorneys that I know who practice indigent defense, refused to take appointments in his court based on his terrible demeanor.  The fact that he feels the need to run for judge again after being rejected by the voters in the last election speaks only to his unmitigated arrogance.  He does not belong on the bench.

I do not know Sissy Kyles personally, but I do believe that she practices criminal defense.  I don't have anything negative to say about her.  My recommendation of Judge Brian Warren is based on the positive things I believe about him.  He's been great on the bench and I believe he will continue to be great on the bench.

Recommendation:  Judge Brian Warren

232nd District Court -- Judge Josh Hill (I) vs. Roderick Deon Rodgers

Like the race for the 209th, the fact that the 232nd is a contested primary is also confusing for those of us routinely practice in the criminal courts.  Judge Josh Hill is also a highly respected and well-liked judge that both sides of the courtroom feel very strongly about.  He is Board Certified in Criminal Law and does his own legal research on complex legal issues that come before him.  He is not afraid of making unpopular decisions if the law demands it, but he is also a kind and compassionate judge.  Those who practice in front of him enjoy being in his courtroom because they know that he works hard to make sure that the right and just outcome happens on all cases before him.

His challenger, Roderick Deon Rodgers, is a prosecutor from Fort Bend who is married to former judge Ramona Franklin.  Normally, I don't believe in guilt by association, but in this case, I will make an exception.  Although I'm going to discuss Ramona Franklin's candidacy here in a second, it is worth noting Rodgers' suspected involvement in the "Federal Judgeship Hoax" that went on following his wife's primary defeat in 2024.  For more on that, please read the Houston Chronicle's Nicole Hensley's outstanding article here.  If one were to give Mr. Rodgers the benefit of the doubt and presume he didn't have any role in that ridiculous scam, he still does not hold a candle (inside joke here) to Judge Josh Hill in terms of qualifications.

Recommendation:  Judge Josh Hill

496th District Court -- Michael Abner vs. Ramona Franklin

Perhaps the nicest thing that can be said about former 338th District Court Judge Ramona Franklin is that she makes Robert Johnson seem slightly less bad.  That's not really a complement to Robert Johnson as much as it is a testament to what a terrible judge Ramona Franklin was.  Again, I highly recommend that anyone who is even slightly on the fence about who to vote for in this race, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read Nicole Hensley's article.  I'll even post another link to it here, because it is so important.  You can also go back and read this post that I did on one of her many violations of Constitutional Rights during the pandemic.

Franklin's tenure during her time on the bench can best be described as "if you don't understand the Constitution, then screw over the accused."  Her rulings included such hits as preventing lawyers from being in court alongside their clients, banning media coverage in her court, raising bonds for no reason other than she felt like it for people already out on bond, and finding no harm in an attorney failing to do an appeal for a convicted client where the attorney had a duty to do so.  During the pandemic, there were rumors (never confirmed) that she wasn't even in the courthouse when presiding over docket (although she claimed to be Zooming in from her chambers).  Franklin and her husband have a side business of making candles.  They should both stick to that rather than being in charge of safety of the community and the rights of those who come before them.

By contrast, Franklin's opponent, Michael Abner is a very well-liked prosecutor with the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  I have known Michael since he first started at the Office and have always found him to be a fair and honorable prosecutor.  He is compassionate when he is able to be on the cases that he has prosecuted and he has always been willing to patiently listen to and review any type of evidence or argument coming from the defense.  I believe that he would make a great judge regardless of who he was running against, but in this instance, recommending him is a No Brainer.

Recommendation:  Michael Abner

County Court at Law # 7 - Judge Andrew Wright (I) vs. Rustin Foroutan vs. Jorge Garcia Diaz

I found the write up in the Houston Chronicle endorsement of Judge Andrew Wright to be eerily similar to my feelings about this particular race.  Judge Wright is a friend of mine and he's a good person.  But the Chronicle indicated that they believe his personality is what caused him to draw two primary opponents in this race, and I kind of get where they are coming from.  Judge Wright has proven himself to be a very independent thinker on the bench and that is a positive quality.  Early on in his career, he held prosecutors in contempt for failing to turn over discovery in a timely manner which was a bold and long overdue move at the time.  But there have also been complaints over his rigidity in his policies that have seemed so unnecessary to many of us and he hasn't always been receptive to listening to arguments against those policies.  It makes me sad, because (1) he's my friend; and (2) because I know he has the intellect and intestinal fortitude to be better than that.

I don't know Mr. Foroutan personally and I only know Mr. Diaz in passing.  I have nothing negative to say about them at all.  I do still believe that Judge Wright is a compassionate and intelligent judge who does a good job and I will be voting for him (although he will probably be unhappy with me for this blog post).

Recommendation:  Andrew Wright

County Court at Law # 14 - James Hu vs. Yahaira Quezada

This is a strange one for me, because I literally do not know either candidate at all.  I read the Chronicle's endorsement of James Hu, who is a Harris County Assistant District Attorney and I found their reasoning solid.  But, I think Ms. Quezada's qualifications are also solid and her background is impressive.  

However, due to my lack of familiarity with both candidates, I don't feel comfortable making a recommendation on this race.  They both seem like good candidates.

315th District Court -- Judge Leah Shapiro (I) vs. Gloria Sanchez Glover

As I've noted before, I don't practice much Juvenile Law.  Quite frankly, the only candidate that I know in the Juvenile Justice World is Incumbent Judge Leah Shapiro.

But, I would vote for Judge Shapiro for any bench she chose to run for because she is so strongly qualified to be a judge.  I've known her since she was a young prosecutor at the District Attorney's Office and I have always admired her devotion to the pursuit of justice.  The few times I have had dealings with her on a professional level since she became a judge have been on Juvenile Certifications that ended up being my clients.  It has always amazed me that Judge Shapiro can recall everything about those cases when we have had the occasion to discuss them after they are long disposed of.  That's a strong indicator of how much Judge Shapiro cares about the cases she handles.  She is no nonsense and follows the law in a very tough arena.    

I don't know anything about her opposition, but I can't imagine anyone being better at the job than Judge Leah Shapiro.

Recommendation:  Judge Leah Shapiro

And finally . . . 

Harris County District Clerk:  Desiree Broadnax

My friend for over twenty years (and one of the best people I know), Desiree Broadnax is running in a very wide field for Harris County District Clerk.  When I was a prosecutor, Desiree ran the intake division like a champ.  She has the knowledge of the inner working of the District Clerk's Office and would be a great District Clerk.

Chief Justice, 14th Court of Appeals:  Sara Beth Landau

Former Justice Sarah Beth "Sorcha" Landau is running for this bench.  I don't do appellate work but I am familiar with rulings she made during her previous tenure on the Court of Appeals.  I recommend a vote for her.

Justice, 14th Court of Appeals - Place 7:  William Demond

Although I only know William Demond in passing, I am familiar with his work as an appellate attorney in the criminal law arena.  I believe that his qualifications will be very much put to good use and are needed at the 14th Court of Appeals.

So, that's a wrap on this year's primary recommendations.  Please feel free to share this list (or any other list that you agree with) with friends and family members.  I don't have to tell you that the general public has a lack of familiarity with what we do down at the CJC so the more people are informed, the better.

Whatever you do, just make sure to vote!

The Best Worst Dog

 On March 1, 2013, I was living in the 5th Ward in a townhouse with my (current) wife who was in her first trimester of pregnancy (and having a terrible time with morning sickness), a 7-year-old who split time with me and his mom, and zero dogs.  

Having zero dogs was by design for several reasons.  I had lost the world's greatest dog, Marley, the year before and that had wrecked me.  Having a dog in a townhouse with no yard was also not ideal.  I had also just started working on Cold Justice and was traveling out of state all that summer.

As a huge dog lover, I was feeling pretty comfortable without one for the first time in my life.

That March morning, Luke had spent the night at my house in the 5th Ward and I had dropped him off at Garden Oaks Elementary School before coming back to Downtown to the CJC.  I was exiting the McKee exit off of I-10 when I saw a small black dog running back and forth across the two lane exit.  At the time, he seemed to have a life expectancy of about ten more seconds, and I just didn't have the stomach or conscience to let that happen.  I pulled over and got out as other cars whizzed past me and the dumb dog.

He had a leash on, and presumably an owner.  After knowing the dog a few days, I became convinced (and always remained convinced) that someone lost their patience with him and just threw him out the window, leash and all.  He started to run from me at first, but I stomped on the leash and was able to snag him and throw him into my 4-Runner, just as a damn METRO bus whisked by us without so much as tapping the brakes.

As I pulled back onto the road, I swear the dog looked at me and put his paw on my shoulder.  That sounds like bullshit, I know, but it actually happened.  I drove him home and told my wife that we had a visitor.

We tried to find his owner.  I posted on every lost and found page I could think of and even did a blog post on him.  I debated over calling him Keith Richards (mainly because I just always wanted to name a dog after Keith Richards), but ultimately we went with Buddy Holly.  In retrospect, his absolute devotion to doing whatever the hell he wanted to do would have made Keith the more appropriate choice.

This dog was the worst.  I mean, the absolute worst.  The vet estimated his age at four years old in 2013, and we couldn't tell if he had been an indoor or outdoor dog with his previous owner.  He peed all over the hardwood floors of my townhouse.  He screamed at the top of his lungs if we tried to put him in a kennel.  We tried putting a pallet in the bathroom and closing the door, but he leapt onto the door and pulled down the handle after scratching through all of the paint on the door.  He refused to go to the bathroom on the small patio attached to our townhouse, and had to be walked multiple times a day if we wanted to save our floors.  

But man, that dog sure did seem to love us.  

We realized pretty quickly that nobody else was coming for Buddy Holly, and he made himself at home.  That summer was a big one.  Not only was Emily pregnant with Smith, I got diagnosed with leukemia and had to go through a little bit of chemotherapy.  Luke was at the townhouse a lot.  And Buddy suddenly became Mr. Popularity.

When my youngest, Smith, was born in October, however, Buddy was ecstatic.  He rarely left his new friend's side.

It didn't change the fact that Buddy remained absolutely devoted to following no rules that were expected of him.  The following Spring, we moved out of the townhouse into a little house in Oak Forest.  Buddy continued his love of peeing on hardwood floors, but his new hobby was destroying the mail whenever the postman dropped it through the mail slot in the wall.  He shredded bills, birthday cards, and magazines better than most industrial shredders.  Because the dog had a vertical leap of almost five feet, he also discovered that he had no problem leaping onto kitchen counters to get food.

We ultimately sealed the mail slot and got an outside mailbox and we installed doggie doors since he had no interest in waiting to be let out to go to the bathroom.  Even after the doggie doors were installed, he still loved a good poop inside, standing right in front of them.  He would also flip out any time we left the house.

But he was growing up right alongside my kids, and I loved watching that.

About nine years ago, we took in another foster named Lady, who had been out on the streets for most of her life.  She was as sweet as she could be, but deathly afraid of thunder and lightning.  After a few months together, Buddy decided that he, too, needed to be afraid of thunder and lightning.  He had never been scared before, but since Lady was a bigger dog and it scared her, it stood to reason that he should probably be terrified of it, as well.  

So for the past nine years, whenever there was a thunderstorm at night, I would usually wake up to find Buddy sitting on my head like a chicken would sit on an egg, and shaking like a leaf.  

He was also an escape artist who had absolutely no problem slipping out the front door without being seen.

On more than a few occasions, we would get knocks on our door from neighbors who had rounded Buddy up when we didn't even know he was gone.

Last year, Buddy got diagnosed with a heart murmur and the vet told us that there was no telling how long he would live.  He developed a cough that got progressively worse and worse, but he was still a happy dog.  He couldn't stand to be left alone, and good God, the dog never lost his appetite.  We moved to a new house last fall and unlike our other home, it was two stories.  We couldn't keep him from following us around up and down the stairs, even though it seemed to exhaust him each trip.

By our calculations, he was 17 years old, although a new vet that we took him to estimated him to be closer to 20.  He had more health issues and we had to keep him in a diaper.  He loved nothing more than wriggling out of it for a nice pee on the hardwoods, even though the doggie door was right next to him.  His bad habits never left.  But neither did his love for his family.

This morning, Buddy clearly let us know it was time to let him go.  I took him to the wonderful people at Veterinary Emergency Group (which coincidentally was only a few exits down I-10 from where I first found him) and held him as he peacefully said goodbye.

When I got home, we sat around and talked about him all afternoon.  My youngest speculated about what his life was like before he came into ours and who his previous owner was.

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that they missed out on the best worst dog a family could ever have.