The 2026 Harris County Misdemeanor Court Races

The Harris County Court Benches are way down on the ballot, but hopefully voters will take the time to actually educate themselves and make informed decisions on these races, as well.  Just like with the District Court races, there are great candidates on both sides of the political divide.  

Harris County Court at Law # 1 - Incumbent Judge Alex Salgado (D) vs. Erin Swanson (R) - I have only appeared in front of Judge Alex Salgado on a handful of occasions, and I do not know him personally.  That being said, my experiences in front of him were extremely positive and he has an excellent reputation for being a great judge.  He is well liked and respected by both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

I've known Erin Swanson since before she even went to law school, although I don't know her very well.  She is very nice and I like her, but I am a little concerned with her campaign message of being "tough on crime," especially in a misdemeanor court that deals with less serious cases. I think the role of the judge is to be more focused on being fair rather than being tough.

Harris County Court at Law # 2 - Matt Alford (R) vs. Matthew Ruben Perez (D) - with the retirement of Judge Paula Goodhart, this is the only truly open criminal bench on the ballot in Harris County this year.

I've known Matt Alford since I started in Harris County in 1999.  I believe he was a prosecutor in his early career, but he's been a defense attorney as long as I have known him.  I like Matt a lot and he has an outstanding reputation as an excellent defense attorney.  I think his time as a defense attorney bodes well for him being a fair judge.  The Houston Chronicle pointed out that Matt supports overturning the O'Donnell decision, which I don't agree with, but I believe that issue has recently been shut down, so I don't know how much it would play into his time as a judge.

I don't really know Matthew Perez, so I don't have much insight into his qualifications.  He has less experience than Alford, but that can be said about most lawyers, including myself!  He did receive the Chronicle endorsement.

Harris County Court at Law # 3 - Incumbent Judge Leslie Johnson (R) vs. Carlos Aguayo (D) - I have had very limited experience with Judge Johnson during her time on the Bench, and I don't know her very well.  I can say that those times I have been in her court have been uneventful.  I read the Chronicle write up on her race and I have to say I was unaware that she once revoked a Defendant's General Order Bond without (EDIT) the Defendant having a lawyer the Defendant waiving his right to a hearing, which is hugely concerning. I can also say that those defense attorneys I know that have more familiarity with her court are not big fans.

I have known Carlos Aguayo since he was a young prosecutor and although I don't know him very well, I do like him.  I think what he said in his interview with the Chronicle was impressive and a good indicator that he would be a good judge.  

Harris County Court at Law # 4 - Incumbent Judge Shannon Baldwin (D) vs. Rebecca Philips Aceto (R) - here is a tough one, because I'm friends with both candidates.  I've appeared in front of Judge Baldwin on several occasions during her tenure on the Bench, and I think very highly of her.  She is a great judge who rules fairly and knows the law.

Rebecca Philips Aceto is an old friend who I met when we were both Baby Prosecutors in Juvenile back in 1999.  She is one of my favorite people to stop and talk to when I see her.  She has had an interesting career, having done some separate stints at the D.A.'s Office and doing some private practice in between.  She is certainly qualified to be a judge.

Harris County Court at Law # 5 - Incumbent Judge David Fleischer (D) vs. Stella Stevens (R) - here is another race where I have two friends running against each other.

I became friends with Judge Fleischer in the years before he first ran for the Bench, and I think extremely highly of him.  I think he is smart, compassionate, and fair.  I think he's a good judge.  He has courted some controversy over the past couple of years, however, because of issues arising over the airing of court proceedings on the internet, and specifically YouTube.  I have mixed feelings about airing court proceedings.  For the most part, I think it is important that people learn more about what court is really like.  I'm a big fan of making that information available to the public because 1) it is interesting; and 2) there is a real value to people having a better understanding of what we do every day.  But there are also obvious downsides to it, as well.  The internet is forever, unfortunately, and there is a lot of gray area when it comes to scrubbing a courtroom interaction off when a person accused might have gotten an expunction or a non-disclosure.  There has been an increase in judges who televise their courtroom proceedings, but some are putting them on YouTube channels - including Judge Fleischer.  That's where I start to become a little more concerned.  I think showing our court proceedings should be treated as educational, not as entertainment.  I also recognize that there is a strong argument to be made that it is a public forum with or without being livestreamed.  Like I said, I have very mixed emotions about it.

What I don't have mixed emotions about is Judge Fleischer, however.  I think he's a great judge and I believe he genuinely cares about the people in front of him.

Judge Fleischer's Republican challenger holds the distinction of being the person I have known longer than anyone else on this list (and the District Court list, as well!). Stella Stevens and I went to law school at UH together and we were in the same section (shout out to the notorious Section B!). After law school, Stella went on to become a prosecutor in Montgomery County, where she served for many years before leaving for private practice.  She also has been my oldest son's employer the past couple of years through her work with the Blue Marlins Swim Team.  I actually never had a professional interaction with her during her time in MoCo, but I have no doubt that she is more than qualified to be a judge.  She is a veteran of Section B, after all.

Harris County Court at Law # 6 - Incumbent Judge Kelley Andrews (D) vs. Josh Normand (R) - long before Judge Kelley Andrews became a judge, she was one of my favorite people.  She still is one of my favorite people.  She's just a judge now.  Judge Andrews is one of those people who is bitingly funny in a way that comes from being extremely smart and extremely down-to-earth.  She has a fantastic sense of humor that is not always common in the judiciary.  She is a very compassionate judge who works with the defendants suffering from mental health issues, and she can be counted on to do the right thing in all instances.  She is a very popular and well-respected judge.

Josh Normand is a prosecutor with HCDA that I have dealt with on a few occasions, but I don't know him particularly well.  He seems like a nice guy.  The Houston Chronicle noted that he didn't seem to have any direct issues with Judge Andrews, nor should he.  She's awesome.  

Harris County Court at Law # 7 - Incumbent Judge Andrew Wright (D) vs. Adam Brodrick (R) - there is probably no bigger personality difference between candidates than my two friends, Judge Andrew Wright and his challenger, prosecutor Adam Brodrick.  If they were part of the Seven Dwarves crew, Judge Wright would definitely be Grumpy and Adam would be Happy.  Adam is always happy.  

I have said before and I stand by it that Judge Wright is a good judge.  He is smart and he works hard.  He has compassion for the people before him.  He has no reservations about holding the State to its burden of proof.  One of the things that he did early on was hold the State in contempt for failing to turn over discovery in a timely manner, and I always admired him for taking that stand.  It was brave and you don't see that often.  The knock against Judge Wright is that he is not always just a Ray of Sunshine on the Bench.  He gets frustrated with foolishness and he wears it on his sleeve.  It has been a minute since I've had a case in his court, but he used to have some fairly rigid policies and deadlines that weren't common in other courts.  But all in all, I still think he is a great judge.  

On the flip side of that is Adam Brodrick.  I've known Adam for a long time now, and I can honestly say I am not sure that I know a more positive and outgoing human being.  He cracks me up and I truly enjoy talking to him.  Adam is a career prosecutor and I think he does a good job.  I will say that he has dug his heels in on some cases that didn't really seem to merit it, and he has been reluctant to dismiss some cases where I thought he should.  But he was always super friendly even when we were disagreeing!

Harris County Court at Law # 8 - Incumbent Judge Erika Ramirez (D) vs. Victor Flores (R) - I have known Judge Erika Ramirez since she was a new prosecutor, and I have always enjoyed dealing with her in that role and as a judge.  I think that she has done a good job on the Bench and I believe her to be passionate about improving the Criminal Justice System in Harris County.  She 100% has my vote.

I am not familiar with her challenger, Victor Flores, but I believe he is an Assistant District Attorney in the Appellate Divison.  I was somewhat confused/bemused to read in the Chronicle write up of their race that his criticism of Judge Ramirez centered around her accepting a plea bargain on a case that his own office had made.  It seems to me that if he was concerned about the plea offer made, he should have spoken to his co-workers rather than blame the judge that honored an agreement they had made. 

Harris County Court at Law # 9 - Incumbent Judge Toria Finch (D) vs. Xavier Alfaro (R) - the race for Court Nine has two very well-liked candidates running against each other.  Judge Toria Finch has done a great job on the Bench during her tenure as Judge.  I have had a few cases in her court, and have found her court to be well run, and I believe her to be a kind and compassionate judge.  She has a very positive and encouraging outlook towards the people that come before her, which I think is a very good thing in misdemeanor court.

I have known her opponent, Xavier "X-Man" Alfaro since his days as a prosecutor in Harris County many moons ago.  He left Harris County for a job as a Misdemeanor Division Chief in Fort Bend.  He's now a defense attorney and it is good to see him more regularly in Harris County again.  I dealt with Xavier in both Harris County and Fort Bend and I cannot say enough good things about him.  He is ethical, fair and compassionate.  He would also make a great judge.

Harris County Court at Law # 10 - Incumbent Judge Juanita Jackson (D) vs. Bao Hoang (R) - the perpetually youthful and vibrant Judge Juanita Jackson has been a great judge during her time on the Bench.  I have had several cases in front of her over the past few years and it is always a great court to work in.  Judge Jackson is an exceedingly kind judge whose years of experience as a defense attorney shine in the empathy she shows to people going through rough times in her court.  She has an extremely positive outlook towards people who are struggling and she genuinely wants them to succeed in the battles that they have with whatever demons they are facing.  I greatly admire her work with Veterans Court and think she should keep up the great work.

I literally have no idea who her opponent is.  I've never heard of him and I don't recognize his picture.  This seems strange to me.  Maybe he's a food poisoning lawyer or something.

Harris County Court at Law # 11 - Incumbent Judge Sedrick Walker (D) vs. Liz Buss (R) - I have had only a couple of cases in front of Judge Sedrick Walker since he first took the Bench.  I knew him when he was a prosecutor but I only had a case or two with him back in those days.  That being said, I think he's doing a great job as judge.  Although I have not gone to trial in front of him, I can say that I believe he runs a very efficient docket and he was actively involved in all of the cases on his docket.  He wanted routine updates on where older cases stood but had no issue with granting a reset on cases that needed more time for information gathering.   I also dealt with Judge Walker when I was President of HCCLA, and always found him to be engaged and open minded when we approached him on our issues.  

I have known Liz Buss for a long time.  She's a career prosecutor, and I have nothing negative to say about her.  I haven't dealt with her on too many cases, but I didn't have any complaints about her when I dealt with her.  She is doubtlessly qualified to be a judge as well.

Harris County Court at Law # 12 - Incumbent Judge Ashley Mayes Guice (D) vs. Anna Emmons (R) - I was very happy when I learned that Harris County Commissioners Court appointed Judge Ashley Guice to fill the unexpired term of Judge Genesis Draper, when Judge Draper was appointed Harris County Public Defender.  I was a big fan of Judge Guice during her previous term as Judge, and I had noted that I hoped to see her run for the Bench again.  I have not had an opportunity to appear before her during this go-round yet, but my opinion of her remains very high based on my experiences with her from her previous tenure as Judge.  Judge Guice is simply a very even-keeled, levelheaded, smart and kind judge to appear in front of.  I think she does a great job.

I have known Anna Emmons since she was a Baby Prosecutor in Harris County twenty-five years ago and consider her a personal friend and a very good prosecutor.  I have nothing negative to say about her at all, but I will say that it is hard to imagine her as anything other than a prosecutor since she's been doing it so long.  She is currently the 1st Assistant in Liberty County, where I visit from time to time, and it is always good to see her and catch up.  I think very highly of Anna and she is definitely a well-qualified candidate to be a judge.

Harris County Court at Law # 13 - Incumbent Judge Raul Rodriguez (D) vs. Amber Cox (R) - Judge Raul Rodriguez is arguably the most popular judge on a County Court Bench and with good reason.  He is a very kind man who runs a very efficient and pleasant court.  He knows the law and administers it fairly to all who come before him.  Although it has been a while since I have appeared in his court, I'm always happy to see him out and about.  He's a good man and an excellent judge.

I have nothing negative to say about his opponent, prosecutor Amber Cox.  I have dealt with Amber on a handful of occasions in her role as a prosecutor and have always found her to be ethical and good to work with.  She has been a prosecutor for a long time and I have no doubt that she would make a good judge, as well, but in this particular race, my vote has to go to Judge Rodriguez.

Harris County Court at Law # 14 - Incumbent Judge Jessica Padilla (R) vs. Yahaira Quezada (D) - in the interest of full disclosure, I have known Judge Jessica Padilla for decades and I was one of her first chiefs when she started with the Office way back when, and I consider her a friend who I always enjoy seeing.  I do not personally know her opponent, Associate Family Court Judge Yahaira Quezada.  

For the first few years of Judge Padilla's term, I never had any cases in her court.  Over the past year, I've had a few, and it was good to spend time in her court.  Both cases ended up getting dismissed without having to get Judge Padilla involved, although I did approach a few times to let her know what was going on with the case.  Judge Padilla is a well-liked judge who I believe is doing a great job as judge.  She is kind and compassionate and I believe she embodies the idea of being a true public servant.  Obviously, this is all attributable to her having a fantastic chief when she was a young prosecutor.

Judge Quezada seems like she is a well-qualified candidate who does have criminal law experience, although it seems that her primary area of practice is in Family Court, where she serves.  I am curious as to why she chose to run for a bench in the Criminal Courthouse rather than one that handles Family Law matters, but other than that, I don't have anything negative to say about her.

Harris County Court at Law # 15 - Incumbent Judge Tonya Jones (D) vs. Stephen St. Martin (R) - speaking of Chiefs, my former chief from the olden days, Stephen St. Martin is challenging incumbent Tonya Jones for County Court at Law # 15.  Again, in the interest of fairness, I have to disclose that Stephen is someone I consider to be a good friend, although we are politically VERY different.  He was my chief in the 174th District Court over twenty years ago, so I have known him for a very long time.  He is licensed in both Texas and Louisiana and I routinely send any client looking for a lawyer in Louisiana to him.  In addition to being a former prosecutor, he's also a former police officer.  He is doubtlessly well-qualified to be a judge.

I supported Judge Tonya Jones when she previously ran against Roger Bridgwater for election, but I have not had any dealings with her directly on the Bench.  She is always very friendly when I see her out and about, but I don't have a personal basis to tell you what she is like in her professional capacity.  I have not heard many (if any) complaints about her, so that is a good sign!

The 2026 Harris County District Court Races

Early Voting for the 2026 General Election starts tomorrow (Monday, October 19th), and continues through October 30th, with Election Day on November 3rd.  With the hotly contested Senate Race between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico, I think everyone expects a very large turnout in Harris County and Texas, in general.  Although straight-ticket voting hasn't been a thing for quite a while now, I anticipate that a majority of the voters will vote for only members of their party, which is always a shame.

My amateur prediction is that the large turnout, coupled with Ken Paxton's nasty reputation, will mean good things for the Democrats in Harris County.   Generally, that makes me happy, because there are a lot of excellent Democratic Judges on the Bench or running as candidates.  There are also some absolute disasters.  The same applies for the Republicans, who hold a significant number of Benches through appointments by the governor.  Most of them are doing fantastic jobs, regardless of your political perspectives.  Many of the Republican candidates are good ones, as well.

I know that there are people on both sides of the political aisle who have vowed never to vote for the other side.  I strongly urge you to get over that line of thinking.

Having two qualified candidates running for the same Bench is a gift to the general public, but it gives me ulcers.  Many races have two people I consider friends running against each other.  So, in those instances, I'm going to tell you what I think about both candidates but I'm probably not going to tell you who I'm voting for unless one candidate is actually a bad one.

So, with that, let's jump in.

180th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Tami Pierce (R) vs. Stephanie Morales (D) - Judge Tami Pierce was appointed to the 180th District Court after Judge Desean Jones stepped down to enter private practice.  Prior to Judge Jones' resignation, she was embroiled in a lawsuit contesting the earlier election against him.  I wasn't a fan of that lawsuit because I think it set a bad precedent, and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I don't have any personal experience in front of Judge Pierce, but I have heard things that concern me.  Defense attorneys have told me that Judge Pierce seems to have difficulty in hiding her preference for the prosecution and even made a sua sponte objection to a defense attorney's voir dire questions.  That's extremely concerning.

Judge Pierce's opponent is Stephanie Morales, who I am friends with, although I don't know her very well.  The main criticism against her is that she lacks felony experience.  That does not overly concern me because she has experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney who has done work in misdemeanor court, where the law and the rules of criminal procedure are the same as they are in felony court for all intents and purposes.  I would rather have a Judge who needs to build on her experience than one who is exhibiting a preference for the prosecution in front of the jury.

182nd District Court -- Incumbent Judge Danny Lacayo (D) vs. Brent Haynes (R)-so, this isn't even a real contest.  Judge Danny Lacayo is a favorite at the CJC for both prosecutors and defense attorneys.  He runs a great court, staffed with great people (even with a lovably surly court coordinator).  Judge Lacayo focuses his rulings on doing what is just, and he does an excellent job of it.  He is no pushover, either.  He has no reservations about dressing down a dangerous defendant with no regard for the law or public safety, and sentencing him to significant pen time.  But he also strives to reach young people who still have a chance of turning their lives around and give them opportunities to redeem themselves that not all Judges would. In all instances, he will hear every bit of evidence that both parties want to put forward before making his decision.  He is a Judge who will make tough calls without being afraid of the political fallout.  We need more Judges like him.

Brent Haynes is someone that I am completely unfamiliar with. He is a prosecutor in Galveston County, and I only practice there on occasion.  He did not meet with the Houston Chronicle's editorial board when they were doing their endorsements, which indicates to me that he either 1) isn't taking his run for Judge very seriously, or 2) doesn't want to go on the record with his judicial agenda.  Whatever his reasoning may be, the choice is clear in this particular race.  Judge Lacayo should keep on making a difference in the 182nd District Court.

183rd District Court -- Incumbent Judge Lance Long (R) vs. Julia Maldonado (D)-for over twenty years, I've considered Judge Lance Long to be one of the smartest, if not the smartest guy I know.  We worked together at the District Attorney's Office, and I sat second chair with him on the one and only death penalty case I ever prosecuted.  He knows the law and he has extremely high standards for those who appear before him.  He is a career prosecutor who has never been on the defense side of things, but he follows the law without an agenda.  He will call balls and strikes without bias and he expects the prosecution to live up to its duty to prove every case beyond a reasonable doubt.  He is highly respected by both sides of the Bar, and he is compassionate on cases and defendants that deserve it.  He deserves to continue on.

Julia Maldonado is a former Family Court Judge who lost her Bench a few years back.  She used to practice criminal law before going to Family Court, and I remember dealing with her when I was a younger prosecutor.  I never had any issues with her back in those days, and I haven't seen her since then.  However, her reputation is not a good one.  Every attorney that I know who practices Family Law has nothing kind to say about her time on the Bench, with specific criticisms toward her judicial temperament. I am not a fan of candidates for criminal Benches who don't devote their career or practice to criminal law, and Maldonado doesn't have the track record to be a District Court Judge on a criminal Bench.  

This is a race where Democratic-leaning voters should cross party lines and vote for the far better candidate:  Judge Lance Long.

184th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Katherine Thomas (D) vs. Heather Hudson (R)-as I posted when Judge Thomas first ran for Judge, I was a huge fan of her work as a prosecutor.  Four years ago, I pointed out that I thought she was a fair and intelligent prosecutor who would make a great Judge.  I'm happy to report that I was correct in that assessment.  Over the past four years, I've appeared in front of Judge Thomas on many occasions and she has been fair and thoughtful on all matters before her.  She runs a high trial court, which means she is working hard to get cases tried that need to be tried.  She also is extremely well-versed in the law and handles tricky legal issues with ease.  She is doing a great job and should keep on doing so.

I don't know Heather Hudson personally.  She is an appellate prosecutor for the Harris County District Attorney's Office and is doubtlessly qualified to be a Judge.  I have nothing negative to say about her.  In a different contest, I would consider voting for her.  But in this race, Judge Thomas has had an excellent first term and deserves to have many more.

185th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Andrea Beall (D) vs. Mark Goldberg (R) -- this one is easy.  Judge Andy Beall has done a tremendous job during her first term on the Bench.  She has garnered the highest approval rating of all the Judges, and managed an efficient and fair court.  She is no-nonsense on the Bench, and is considered to be extremely fair.  She has demonstrated a neutral and fair demeanor throughout, even when called upon to preside over the case of Attorney General Ken Paxton.  That's not always easy for long-term Judges, let alone those in their first term, but she has demonstrated that she is an outstanding Judge with great integrity in difficult situations.

Her opponent is the polar opposite.  Mark Goldberg is a former Kim Ogg loyalist whose reputation within the District Attorney's Office is largely comical.  He was a political hire by his old friend, Kimbra, and his career thus far has been notable for his ability to tell lies on her behalf.  Several years ago, I tried a case against Mark and he struck an African-American potential juror from jury service without reason.  When I called him out with a Batson challenge, he lied to the Judge misrepresented what the juror had said while on the record.  You can read more about that here.  It was disgraceful and unnecessary.  He also didn't understand the law and the evidence on the case long before we got to that point.  Mark Goldberg should never be a Judge.  Vote for Andy Beall.

208th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Beverly Armstrong (D) vs. Stephen Driver (R) --I did not know Judge Beverly Armstrong prior to her taking the Bench almost four years ago, but I've had several cases in front of her since then.  All of my interactions have been extremely positive.  I have found her to be friendly and professional, and she pays very close attention to the matters before her.  Although she is a former career prosecutor, I have found her to be very fair on all matters and she is not afraid to find No Probable Cause if the State doesn't have the evidence.  Her court is a very pleasant environment to work in, as well.

I don't have anything negative to say about Stephen Driver, who I have known since he was a Baby Prosecutor.  I like Stephen and I think he is a smart and qualified candidate.  I will say that I consider him to be a little inflexible on some of the cases I've handled with him, and that concerns me somewhat.

209th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Brian Warren (D) vs. Tony Coveny (R) -- From the files of "Wait.  What?", I have to say that having a self-proclaimed "food poisoning lawyer" running for a Felony District Court Bench is one of the stranger candidacies that I've ever seen.  It's almost as if the Harris County Republican Party decided that the only thing their candidate needed was a pulse and a law degree for this matchup.  The jokes about Tony Coveny's misguided run tend to write themselves, especially in light of the fact that he's running against one of the most highly regarded Judges in the courthouse.

While Coveny might have experience going after a dangerous sandwich, Judge Brian Warren has spent his years on the Bench presiding over Capital Murders and other serious crimes.  He has a background as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney that has served him well as a fair and neutral Judge who fully appreciates and respects the fact that his actions affect human lives.  He is respectful to all parties involved and he expects those who appear before him to perform to the best of their ability.  He knows the law and he applies it without favor toward either side.  He's done a great job on the Bench and should continue.

228th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Caroline Dozier (R) vs. Alyson Almaguer (D) -- this one is a tough one for me, because I think highly of both candidates running for the 228th.  Judge Caroline Dozier was my chief in the 228th when I was a prosecutor and Judge Ted Poe was on the Bench.  I truly enjoyed working with her and consider her to be a friend.  Although she's only been on the Bench for a relatively short amount of time, I have already had two trials in front of her and enjoyed the experiences.  

But I am also a big fan of Alyson Almaguer, who is a Chief Prosecutor in the 182nd that I work with frequently.  Alyson is a fantastic chief.  She has a great sense of humor and she is extremely reasonable to work with.  She will listen and consider everything that a defense attorney will bring her and will work diligently to make sure she is doing the right thing.  I think she would make a great Judge.

230th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Chris Morton (D) vs. Megan Long (R) -- this is a strange election because I had gotten so used to Judge Morton running against now-Court of Appeals Justice Brad Hart.  It is weird to see someone else running for the 230th.

I have to admit that I have some bias in this one, because Judge Morton is a family friend who I have known since he was a prosecutor.  Given his age, he is like an uncle to me.  Ever since I have known Judge Morton, he has been very passionate about the Criminal Justice System and diligent about making sure that it is a fair and balanced system.  He is extremely smart and is well-versed in case law and procedure.  He listens intently to all arguments made to him and he makes his rulings without any personal biases.  I was surprised to read that he has announced that this will be the last time he runs, because I didn't know he was that close to the mandatory retirement age for Judges.

Megan Long is a chief prosecutor in the Homicide Division.  I've known her for several years but I don't know her very well.  I currently have a Capital Murder case pending where she is the prosecutor, and she is great to work with.  She is certainly a qualified candidate, but I take issue with her criticizing Judge Morton for not setting bonds as high as the prosecution has requested.  The job of the Judge is not to be an arm of the prosecution.  I can also say that I've had Judge Morton set a bond at over $1 million on one of my cases in the past. 

232nd District Court -- Incumbent Judge Josh Hill (D) vs. Chuck Silverman (R) -- this one is a no-brainer.

Judge Josh Hill is easily one of the most popular and well-liked Judges in the CJC.  He is a wickedly smart Judge who is a self-described "nerd" when it comes to doing his own legal research, and I recently had the opportunity to try a murder case in front of him.  The experience was great.  He let us try our cases, and only interceded when we had legal issues that needed to be decided.  When those moments arose, he did an extremely thorough job of listening to our arguments and then doing his work to arrive at his rulings.  His daily docket is a relaxed atmosphere where he treats all those who come before him with compassion and respect.

I would cast my vote for Judge Hill regardless of who was running against him, because I believe him to be an excellent Judge.  However, his opponent in this race is Chuck Silverman, who is a particularly weak candidate that can't really decide what he stands for.  He just really, really wants to be Judge of something.  As I noted in this post a while back, Silverman was a civil attorney who couldn't win a civil Bench.  He ran as a Democrat in 2018 for the 183rd District Court and won, only to lose in his own primary in 2022.  He was extremely bitter about that, and decided to switch parties to run again this year.  He's expressed a desire to stop spending money on indigent defense and spend it on victims.  Not exactly sure that's a good position for a Judge who is supposed to give those accused the presumption of innocence.  He shouldn't be considered a serious candidate.

248th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Hilary Unger (D) vs. David Overhuls (R) -- this one is a tough one for me because I like both candidates very much.

I didn't know Judge Unger very well before she took the Bench, but I have had the opportunity to work with her on some projects during my time as President of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association, and I also had the opportunity to try a murder case in front of her earlier this year.  Before that, I tried a court trial to her on an Injury to a Child case.  I think that she is an outstanding Judge.  She cares very deeply about the Criminal Justice System and devotes a tremendous amount of time to working on policies and procedures to ensure fairness.  She has intense focus on every matter that comes before her, whether it's a bond condition or a decision on guilt/innocence.  She is sometimes criticized for taking too long on these matters, but I actually appreciate the attention to detail she provides.  I have the utmost respect for the job she has done on the Bench.

David Overhuls is a personal friend of mine who I have known since his time as a prosecutor.  I think David is a great guy and would make a great Judge.  He has experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and I think that he would have the right perspective for being a fair Judge. He was a good prosecutor and he is currently an excellent defense attorney. I can fully understand why the Chronicle gave David their endorsement, although I have to say that I thought some of their criticisms of Judge Unger were unfair.

As I noted above, having two good candidates in a race is a win for the voters, but it makes writing these recommendations tough for me.

262nd District Court -- Incumbent Judge Lori Chambers Gray (D) vs. Nathan Moss (R) -- I have not had much experience with Judge Gray during her time on the Bench.  She seems like a very nice lady, but I really don't know that much about her as far as being in trial or making routine appearances in her court.  I don't have anything negative to say about her, but I don't know enough about her to say anything particularly positive about her either.  She's just kind of there.

By contrast, I've known Nathan Moss since he was a Baby Prosecutor during my last year or so with the D.A.'s Office.  He's a Division Chief now, and an extremely experienced prosecutor.  We are family friends and were even on the same trivia team there for a while.  I don't always agree with Nathan, but I do like him and he is extremely smart.  I am not surprised that he received the Chronicle's endorsement, but I have some concerns about his ability to be a neutral jurist.  The last time he ran for Judge, his slogan was "Less Bail, More Jail" or something to that effect, and that is worrisome to those of us on the defense side of things.  I have no doubt that he has a plan for making the 262nd more efficient and would do a good job of implementing it if elected.

263rd District Court -- Incumbent Judge Melissa Morris (D) vs. Jason Campo (R) -- when Judge Morris first ran for the 263rd four years ago, I made the comment on the blog that I only knew her in passing.  Once she was elected, she jokingly told me she was going to correct that situation now that she was on the Bench, and I'm happy to say that she has honored that promise.  I have had the opportunity to work with Judge Morris on several projects during my time as President of HCCLA, and I've also tried a very serious case in front of her.  I can honestly say I've become a huge fan of hers.

Since taking the Bench, Judge Morris has demonstrated that she has high expectations for all of those who appear in front of her.  She was greatly dismayed by appointed attorneys that she felt were overbilling the system while taking on too many clients and not being effective advocates.  She has worked tirelessly to modify the appointment system in a way that ensured quality representation for those who take appointments, while also being very realistic about what would work and what would not.  She truly cares about the System as a whole and is doing everything in her power to make it reputable and fair.  When I was President of HCCLA, it was not unusual at all for me to receive calls from her after hours and on weekends, seeking input on what could be done to improve things, and I cannot express how much that was appreciated.

My experience in trying a case in front of her was also a positive one, despite the fact that the trial did not turn out as I would have hoped.  Judge Morris was thoughtful and considerate on all rulings.  Some went my way, but plenty of others did not.  She decided punishment on the case and her sentence was definitely higher than what I had asked/hoped for, but I cannot dispute that it was one based on her full evaluation of the facts before her.  In short, Judge Morris is a damn good Judge.

Her opponent, Jason Campo, is a felony District Court chief who I have gotten to know over the past year.  I think he's a great guy and an extremely reasonable prosecutor.  I have worked with him on several Capital Murder cases and am currently working with him on a very serious Aggravated Robbery.  He is ethical, diligent and knowledgeable on his cases.  I would gladly vote for him in any other race.

482nd District Court -- Incumbent Judge Veronica Nelson (D) vs. Bryan Honeycutt (R) - anyone who knows me at all or has a passing knowledge of what is going on at the CJC knows that I am a super fan of Judge Veronica Nelson.  We became friends when we tried an ultra exciting counterfeiting case against each other years ago, and I was very excited when she told me she was considering running for Judge four years ago.  I was honored to speak at her Investiture and I remain honored to call her my friend.  Last year, she presided over the Gerald Goines trial, which was the very definition of a media circus.  She handled it like a pro who had been on the Bench for decades.  This was not a surprise to any of us who know her.  

Judge Nelson has distinguished herself as a great Judge on the Bench, while also having high standards for fairness in the System.  She is an excellent Judge.

I have nothing negative to say about her opponent, Bryan Honeycutt.  He and I recently resolved a murder case together, and I give him high marks for being fair and compassionate on a complicated case.  We collaborated for many hours on it, and I sincerely appreciated the way he treated my client and the wishes of the victim's family.  He is a very smart guy and a good lawyer, but my vote will always go to Judge Nelson, regardless of who is running against her.

486th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Vanessa Velasquez (R) vs. Katie Wilson (D) -- Judge Vanessa Velasquez is one of my favorite people on Earth.  I have been friends with her since we were both prosecutors twenty-five years ago, and she is someone I will always have the utmost respect and admiration for as a Judge.  She was a fantastic Judge in the 183rd District Court for many years before losing the Bench in a Democratic sweep.  She was a tough but fair prosecutor with an excellent reputation that continued on during her time as a Judge.  When she was appointed to fill the 486th Bench earlier this year, prosecutors and defense attorneys were both very excited to have her back.  She is an excellent Judge who does not play favorites.  She's also one of the most impressive people I have ever met in my life.

I have nothing negative at all to say about Katie Wilson, but I don't know her very well.  I voted for her in the Democratic primary for the 183rd over Julia Maldonado, and I was glad to see her get the Democratic nomination for the 486th.  I think she has an impressive resume as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and I like the platform she expressed on the campaign trail.  If she were running for a different Bench, I would gladly vote for her.

495th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Lori Deangelo (R) vs. Tiffany Hill (D) - Judge Lori Deangelo and I have been friends since we worked together at the District Attorney's Office many moons ago.  I believe that she is a good Judge although I have had very limited interactions with her since she took the Bench.  She has experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and I believe she has received largely positive reviews during her time on the Bench.

I know Tiffany Hill but not very well.  She was an associate Judge for a time before the position was scrapped, and I have never heard anything negative about her.  I just don't have a tremendous amount of information about her to share, unfortunately.

496th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Dan Simons (R) vs. Ramona Franklin (D) - ever since I started this blog in 2008, I have made it a point to always own up to whatever I have written on the blog.  I don't delete things I've written, even when my opinion later changes.  I try to maintain some intellectual honesty in what I write here.  So, if you had told me in 2024 that I would be writing a post this year in support of Dan Simons for Judge, I would probably not have believed you.  Although I never had a personal problem with Judge Simons, I obviously was a big supporter of Sean Teare for District Attorney.  I was vocal in my support of Teare and vocal in my criticisms of then-D.A. candidate Simons.  

So, while acknowledging that I have previously written things that were negative, I have to say that Judge Dan Simons has been a very pleasant surprise as Judge of the 496th District Court.  And I don't just say that because he is running against the absolute worst candidate running for a Bench in the CJC.  Judge Simons has impressed both the prosecution and the defense bar in his management of the 496th.  He is a hard-working Judge who goes to trial frequently.  He treats everyone before him with kindness and respect (even mouthy bloggers who have previously written negative things about him).  He is willing to think outside the box on managing tricky cases, and he has generally won rave reviews for the job he is doing as a Judge.  Judge Simons has done such a good job on the Bench that there is a group calling itself "Democrats for Dan" supporting him.  I'm proud to say that I'm one of them.

His opponent, Ramona Franklin, is, quite simply, terrible.  She has been the subject of articles on this blog and in the Houston Chronicle for her absolutely bizarre behavior that was antithetical to everything a Judge should be.  From barring defense attorneys from standing with their clients in court to prohibiting the media's attendance in court to excusing a lawyer's failure to file a promised appeal on a client to randomly raising bonds on and taking people into custody without rhyme or reason, she was a terrible Judge during her time in the 338th and will doubtlessly be terrible were she to return.  For more information, please read this Houston Chronicle article by Nicole Hensley from earlier this year.  That doesn't even address a bizarre whisper campaign that falsely claimed she was up for a Federal Bench.

Judge Dan Simons would deserve your vote for the good job he has done during his time on the Bench, but given who his opponent is, this race is an easy choice.

497th District Court -- Incumbent Judge Peyton Peebles (R) vs. Breeana Schwartz (D) - earlier this month, I had a PSI hearing scheduled in front of Judge Peyton Peebles on a very serious case.  As I was headed out the door for court, my wife wished me good luck and said, "I hope the Judge does what you want."  I replied to her, "I don't know if he'll do what I want, but I do know he will do the right thing."

I've known Judge Peyton Peebles for closing in on thirty years, and I don't think I can say enough good things about him.  From our early years as prosecutors together, I always considered him the smartest guy in the room (with the possible exception of Judge Lance Long).  Even though we are roughly the same age, he always seemed to carry a maturity and wisdom that exceeded the norm for young prosecutors.  He was level-headed and smart.  He was funny and he was kind.  He worked largely in the Appellate Division during his time at the District Attorney's Office, and he was someone that would always help me with any question I ever had.  When he left the District Attorney's Office for private practice, there was no doubt that he would be great on the defense side of things and, of course, he was.  Judge Peebles is great at everything he does.  He has the perfect demeanor for being a Judge and he will always do what is right.

I don't know much about his opponent, Breeana Schwartz, because I only know her in passing.  I've heard very nice things about her and have no doubt that she is a qualified candidate.  But Judge Peebles was born to be exactly where he is, and he will get my vote.

315th Juvenile District Court -- Incumbent Judge Leah Shapiro (D) vs. Maria Brock (R) -- although I don't work in juvenile court except on the rarest of occasions, I would be remiss if I did not give an enthusiastic recommendation for Judge Leah Shapiro.  Judge Shapiro is one of my favorite people to sit back and discuss issues facing the Harris County Criminal Justice System for both adults and juveniles.  I don't know her opponent, but I know that Judge Shapiro is a great Judge who deserves to be reelected.

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.