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.

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!