The Mad Queen

The CJC Community was shocked today by the announcement that Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg had fired her First Assistant Tom Berg.  There were rumors that a few other employees in administrative positions had also been fired.

The move is surprising for a couple of reasons.

The first reason being that Tom Berg has a stellar reputation for being a man of integrity, dedication, and knowledge.  He is a combat veteran who has dedicated his life to the Criminal Justice Center and he is very highly respected amongst both the Defense Bar and the Prosecution.  Tom spent the vast majority of his legal career on the defense side of the aisle so I was somewhat surprised when he joined the D.A.'s Office.  I thought it was a great hire by Ogg and I said so at the time.

Tom had a learning curve at the D.A.'s Office -- largely due to the fact that his primary focus of criminal law had been on the Federal side of things, as opposed to State.  He made a few missteps at first and made a couple of statements that he would probably like to have taken back.  None of those missteps or misstatements, however, undercut that he was a fair-minded man who left private practice to help make the Criminal Justice System better.

His firing today by Ogg says a hell of a lot more about the Ogg Administration than it does about Tom Berg.

Ogg's Office has been under scrutiny lately because of the mass exodus of Harris County prosecutors who are leaving their jobs for . . .  any job but that one.  Morale is in the toilet and a job that was once the most coveted in the prosecutorial profession is now one that nobody wants anymore.  Tom Berg was not a contributing factor to that lack of morale.  He did his best to rally the troops that the Office still had left.

But Kim Ogg has always seemed to embrace the idea that it is better to be feared than loved.  There were multiple prosecutors and defense attorneys today who were comparing her method of ruling to Sunday night's episode of Game of Thrones (No spoilers here, but if you watched the show Sunday, you should understand what they are talking about).

While Ogg is running off good prosecutors in hordes and firing leaders like Tom Berg, she is busily making blatantly political hires like troubled former-HPD Chief Clarence Bradford.  More troubling is the rumor that Berg's firing has paved the way for wildly unpopular controversial Division Chief, JoAnne Musick to be promoted to the position of Trial Bureau Chief.

To my brethren and sistren in the Defense Bar, if you think your trial court prosecutors are currently hamstrung by micromanagement and stupid policies, get ready for Ogg giving JoAnne a blank check to run the whole bureau however she wants.

The firing of Tom Berg probably won't really change the day-to-day operations of prosecutors in a way that is noticeable to the general public, or even the rank and file prosecutors.  The message that is implied in his firing, however, is beyond troubling.  While Ogg has been able to waive off previous departures from the Office as people who weren't committed to her "progressive" ideas, she can't do the same with a man that she handpicked to be her second in command.  She can't do that with a man who has the integrity and reputation of Tom Berg.

Apparently, the First Assistant didn't learn the First Rule of dealing with Kim Ogg.

To disagree with the D.A. is to lose your job.

The 2018 Contested Republican Primaries

The contested primaries on the Republican side are fewer and farther between than on the Democratic side, due to the fact that many of the benches are held by incumbents. 

In total, there are two contested Criminal District Court benches (both where there is no incumbent) and two Criminal County Court at Law benches that are contested.

Before I get to those, I would like to bring to your attention that former prosecutor and longtime defense attorney Terry Yates is running for Justice of the 1st Court of Appeals - Place 7 against Katy Boatman.  I don't know Katy Boatman, but I've known Terry pretty much since I walked in the door of a Harris County Courthouse.  I'm a big fan of his, as I am his brother, Denny, and his wife, Judge Leslie Brock Yates.   Terry has viewed the Criminal Justice System from both the prosecution and defense sides.  He would make a great Justice.

Now onto the District Court benches.  I will start off by saying that I've dreaded writing about both of these races ever since the fields were finalized.  The reason being that in both races, I have friends running against friends.  I'm glad that the primary is only a few weeks away, because I look forward to this contest being over.

In the 185th District Court race, former Judge of the 176th District Court, Stacey Bond, is running against former Harris County Assistant District Attorney Maritza Antu.  Maritza left the Office at the end of 2016 as a Felony Chief prosecutor.  She was a talented prosecutor and she has carried on in the world of prosecution as an attorney pro tem on behalf of the State of Texas.  She was/is a tough prosecutor, but I always found her to be fair.  She, and her husband, Matt Peneguy, are family friends and our kids go to school together.

Stacey Bond was a phenomenal judge during her entirely-too-short tenure as Judge of the 176th.  She was a victim of the Democratic sweep of 2016 despite being highly regarded by both the State and the Defense.  Prior to becoming a judge, she was a former Harris County Assistant District Attorney and a longtime Defense Attorney.  I practiced in her Court regularly, and it was truly one of the best courts to work in (even with that mildly cantankerous court coordinator).  Stacey had compassion, knowledge, and the guts to make tough decisions.  I have nothing negative to say about Maritza, but Stacey was one of the best judges I have ever practiced in front of.

In the 263rd District Court race, former Harris County prosecutor Justin Keiter is running against longtime Defense Attorney Charles Johnson.  I've known Charles since I was a prosecutor and have always enjoyed working with him.  In my experience, he is professional, diligent and caring about his clients.  He is laid back and would exercise great judicial temperament. 

Justin (who is normally referred to just as Keiter) is a former prosecutor who is also currently practicing as a defense attorney.  Keiter's demeanor as a prosecutor was something that can probably best be described as "die hard."  He was very vocal about his job and his cases and that sometimes tended to rub the Defense Bar the wrong way.  I should know.  I was his Chief.

As Keiter's chief, I saw a side to him that most people who only saw him in court did not.  He was one of the hardest working and most dedicated people that I ever supervised during my tenure.  He wrapped himself up in his cases and fought hard for the victims on those cases.  He was passionate, almost to a fault.  Okay, sometimes to a fault.  But that was because he was so driven to see that Justice was done.  Those who bothered to get past the verbal sparring that came with dealing with Keiter in court were often surprised to find a compassionate and reasonable prosecutor.  He was also a talented trial attorney when it came down to it.

Keiter is also probably one of the most intensely loyal friends I've ever had.  I had a lot of preconceived notions about him when I first began supervising him, but those all changed the more I got to know him.  He has a perspective into the System that he isn't given enough credit for, as well as a tremendous amount of compassion.  Although I know some in the Defense Bar may disagree, I believe he would make a very good judge.

I've already written at length about the pros and cons of the candidates in the nasty battle for County Court at Law # 8, where defense attorney and former prosecutor Dan Simons is running against longtime incumbent Jay Karahan.  I'm not going to repeat what I already wrote over here.  I will just say (as I did in the other post) that Judge Karahan is a very good judge and he deserves to be re-elected.  I've got nothing whatsoever against Dan, but Judge Karahan is the clear choice in this race.

And finally, in the race for County Court at Law # 11, a longtime prosecutor, Aaron Burdette, is running against a longtime defense attorney, Lori Botello.  I have to admit bias on this one, because I know Burdette so much better than I know Lori.  He's actually my neighbor.  I consider him to be a very good friend and I think he would make a great judge.  That's not to say that Lori wouldn't.  I don't recall having too many dealings with her during my time as a prosecutor, but I know that she is an active member of the Defense Bar who has a good reputation as an attorney.

I'm sure if you have read over this, you may notice that I failed to make an actual recommendation in 75% of the races.  That wasn't an accident.  I have too many friends running in these races, and, as I noted in my write up on the Dems, this blog isn't worth losing a friend over. 

Feel free to share your insights.  Just keep them above the belt.

The 2018 Contested Democratic Primaries

With the Democratic sweep of 2016 in Harris County, it is not much of a surprise that candidates came out of the woodwork to run for the remaining judicial benches in 2018.  With one exception, all of the Dems running for Criminal District Court benches are uncontested.  One of the three Juvenile District Court benches is contested in a three-way race and seven of the Criminal County Court benches are contested.

In the vast majority of these races, I have nothing negative to say about the candidates, other than noting years of experience and dedication to criminal law.  In a few of the races, I have a friend running against another friend.  I'm not going to pick favorites in those races.  This blog is definitely not worth losing a friend over.

Before I dive into the contested criminal benches, I do want to point out that we have at least three attorneys with ties to our CJC world who are running for either Civil or Family Court benches.

In the 234th District Court, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Lauren Reeder is running in a contested primary against Jeff O'Dea.  I don't know anything about O'Dea but I'm a big fan of Lauren's.  Lauren got her start as a lawyer in the Civil arena, although she's been a prosecutor for awhile.  As a prosecutor, she is diligent, fair and kind.  Those are the qualities that would make her a great judge regardless of what type of bench she is running for.

In the 269th District Court, HCDA Alum Cory Sepolio is running in a contested primary against Shampa Mukerji.  Again, I don't know anything about Cory's opponent, but Cory was a good prosecutor who is doing great in the civil arena.  He's also a good friend and a great person.  He would also make a fantastic judge.

In the 280th Family District Court, Harris County ADA Beth Barron is running for the Democratic nomination against Barbara J. Stalder.   I could fill an entire blog post on how highly I think of Beth.  She has devoted almost her entire career as a prosecutor to handling family violence cases, and she started at that Office long before I did.  For years now, she has been handling Protective Orders exclusively, which means she's been working in the 280th on a daily basis, helping secure legal protection for women (and sometimes men) in abusive relationships.  I've dealt with Beth on a professional level and I am also proud to call her a friend. She is uniquely qualified for this position and if you are voting in the Democratic primary, I hope you vote for her.

Now, onto the District Court bench . . .

The 185th District Court appears to be the only contested bench on the felony criminal side, and that race pits HCDA alum and current defense attorney, Jason Luong against attorney Brennen Dunn.  I don't know that I've met Mr. Dunn, but his attorney profile on AVVO.com indicates that he practices several branches of law in addition to criminal law.  There's nothing wrong with that, but Jason has devoted the entirety of his career to criminal law.  He was a prosecutor and now a defense attorney.  Criminal law is what he deals with every day.  Additionally, Jason has been practicing for 17 years, compared to Brennen's 7. 
Jason Luong is unquestionably the more qualified candidate in this match up.

And the County Courts . . .

In the County Court at Law # 2, Defense Attorney Harold Landreneau is running against Ronnisha Bowman.  Here again, Harold devotes the vast majority of his practice to criminal law while Ronnisha only lists 20% of her practice as being devoted to criminal.  She includes personal injury and entertainment law as other practice areas.  Additionally, Harold has been a licensed attorney over twice as long as his opponent.
Harold Landreneau is the more qualified candidate in this race.

In the County Court at Law # 5, there is a three-way race between Defense Attorneys David Fleischer, Armen "Hammer" Merjanian, and Aaron Saldana.  I'm not familiar with Aaron Saldana, but that's not surprising.  He's only been licensed as an attorney for three years.  I do know Armen Merjanian, and he's a very very nice guy, but he's only been licensed for four years.  By contrasat, David Fleischer has been practicing exclusively criminal law for the past 13 years, and he was trained by some of the best defense lawyers in the business.  He spends the majority of his practice in the county courts and I've seen him in there, day in and day out, doing every thing he can to make the County Courts more fair for his clients.  His years of experience are almost twice that of his opponents' combined.,
David Fleischer is the clear choice for this race.

In the County Court at Law # 7, Defense Attorney Andrew Wright is running against Danval Scarbrough.  I've never heard of Danval Scarbrough, which isn't surprising considering the fact that (according to AVVO), he doesn't practice criminal law.  When it comes to elections, nothing is more infuriating to me than a lawyer who runs for a bench in a field he or she knows nothing about.  I suppose the desire to be called "Your Honor" supersedes the necessity for being qualified.  By contrast, Andrew Wright has been doing exclusively criminal defense during his ten years of practice.  Like David Fleischer, he is a staple of the misdemeanor courts who can be found, every morning and afternoon, trying to help his clients charged with crimes.
Andrew Wright (with his Rock Star hair) is unquestionably the best candidate for this race.

In the County Court at Law # 11, Defense Attorneys Gus Saper and Sedrick Walker are running against each other.  I know both Gus and Sedrick and I like them both immensely.  I dealt with Sedrick when he was a prosecutor and enjoyed working with him, and Gus has been practicing criminal law, literally, since I was two years old.  Both of these candidates are good men and would be good judges, but Gus has a significant advantage in the experience category.
Gus Saper is the best candidate for this race.

In the County Court at Law # 12, Defense Attorney Juan Aguirre is running against Cassandra Holleman.  Here, again, I don't know Cassandra, but the reason for that is that she does not appear to practice criminal law.  As noted above, that bothers me greatly.  Making decisions that affect human freedom is not something that should be handled by people who don't know criminal law.  By contrast, my friend, Juan, has done nothing but criminal law since being a lawyer.  In addition to being a former prosecutor and longtime defense attorney, Juan is also, quite literally, one of the best people I know.  He is the embodiment of the first person to volunteer to help whenever humanly possible.  He's a devoted husband, father and friend.  He would make an amazing judge.
Juan Aguirre is unquestionably the best candidate for this race.

In the County Court at Law # 13, Defense Attorneys Mike Renfro and Raul Rodriguez are running against each other for the Democratic nomination.  I'm proud to call both of these guys my friends and attorneys that I respect.  I won't be picking a candidate in this race because either candidate would do a great job.  Both have decades of experience with Mike having practiced for 39 years and Raul for 26.   Either choice would be great.

In the County Court at Law # 15, Defense Attorneys Kris Ougrah and Tonya Jones are running for the Democratic nomination.  Kris has seniority over Tonya with his 13 years of practice compared to her 6.  Honestly, I don't know either candidate well enough to give any personal insight to their qualifications.  I did read this morning that the Houston Chronicle had endorsed Kris after calling him "loquacious" (which I had to ask my wife to define for me), but they also said some very nice things about Tonya.  I spoke to Tonya by email a week or so ago, and she seems like a very nice person.  I hope to get to know both attorneys better in the future, because they both sound like great candidates.

And finally . . .

The 313th District Court has a three-way race with attorneys Tracy Good, John Stephen Liles, and Natalia Oakes running against each other.  The only candidate that I know personally in this race is John,  whom I dealt with during my brief stint assigned to the Juvenile Division back in 1999.  He seems like a nice guy, but I don't know much about him other than that.  Analyzing qualifications for a juvenile court is a challenge, because the Court handles matters other than just criminal.  It also handles CPS issues, and (I think) adoptions on occasion.  My understanding is that all of the candidates are routinely practicing in the juvenile courts.  I'll just have to leave it to the commenters here to discuss their individual qualifications.

So, that's a wrap for the Democratic side of things.  I will try to do a write up on Republicans in the next few days.

A Blizzard of Confusion

Okay, maybe calling the small ice storm a "blizzard" is a mild exaggeration, but it works well for the title. 

In all honesty, it probably doesn't even qualify as a "storm," but it is cold outside with precipitation and we all know that tends to confuse Houstonians.  It's kind of like having a successful pro sports team.  We hear that those exist in other parts of the country, but it's been so long since it happened here that we don't know what to do with ourselves.

Most governmental agencies in Harris County tend to err on the side of caution and just shut everything down.   With the weather forecasters predicting a freeze coupled with precipitation, the Houston Independent School District had announced school closures by mid-afternoon yesterday.  With that announcement, those of us with kids (who were now slated to stay home from school) turned our attention to what was going on with the criminal courts.

County Judge Ed Emmett was the first to speak on the topic by indicating that Harris County buildings would remain open.  By doing this, he basically punted to the different elected officials who resided within those buildings to determine whether or not they would be open.  I can understand why Judge Emmett would punt.  He didn't want to be the guy who singlehandedly gave the entire county a paid day off.

But by punting, he caused all of us who work within the Harris County Criminal Justice System to require 38 different answers from 38 different elected judges.  Complicating matters was the fact that Monday was Martin Luther King. Jr. Day, so none of those elected judges were at work to give definitive answers.

Fortunately, through the District Courts' website and Facebook page, the answers became available quickly for some of the felony courts. 

Additionally, Harris County District Clerk Chris Daniel was quick to announce that jury service for Tuesday was cancelled.

While this was certainly a substantial number of courts, it wasn't all of them.  There were several District Courts not on the list of closures, not to mention none of the sixteen County Courts had made a formal announcement.  Two of the County Court Judges (Judge Mike Fields and Judge Jay Karahan) took to their Facebook pages to announce that they would be closing their courts.  This morning, word was informally shared that ALL of the County Courts would be closed.

But there were still a couple of District Courts that had not spoken up yet, and there was total confusion as to whether or not the male and female Jail Dockets were being held.  One of the District Courts had a recorded voice message stating that the office was closed due to inclement weather, but the judge of that court had announced that he planned to have his afternoon docket as scheduled.  He ultimately relented and cancelled his 1 o'clock docket, but not until noon.

I'm sitting second chair on a case in that court with my good friend, Korey Huff, and the advice we gave to our client this morning went like this:

Call 1 -- "We haven't heard anything.  You probably need to come in."
Call 2 -- "The voicemail for the Court says they are closed, so you don't need to come in."
Call 3 -- "Nope.  Wait.  Sorry about that, they are now saying Court is open.  You need to come in."
Call 4 -- "Sorry again, now they are saying you don't need to come in."

It was embarrassing.  Nothing instills confidence in a client like decisiveness from his or her attorney.

Criminal Defense Attorneys on Facebook were blasting the lack of consistency and advance notice from the Judges.  That wasn't really fair to the judges who had made the effort to give quick notices of cancellations, but I understand the frustration. 

Believe me, I understand.  I was one of a handful of attorneys who drove in this morning for a jail docket, only to be told that they weren't able to bring over prisoners because the jailers were short-staffed.

It would seem to me that there should be a pretty simple solution to this confusion.  Both the District Court and County Court Judges have a presiding judge.  The individual judges should just vote to bestow power to those presiding judges to make the uniform decision of whether or not to shut down the courts.  They can make a decision the day before and they can publish that on a unified web page.

I get that the decision to shut down court is not one to be made lightly.  A missed day in court can lead to people being incarcerated longer than necessary.  But at the end of the day, sometimes public safety demands just that.

Fun with Securus

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, I sat down and wrote letters to every client that I was representing who was incarcerated in the Harris County Jail.  In my letter, I gave them a brief summary of the current situation with the courthouses, told them of their current court date setting, and I told them that those dates were highly likely to change in the days to come.  I told my clients that due to limited space, there was going to be little opportunity to talk to them during court settings.  It would be far more practical to discuss their cases outside of court, and if it did not appear that anything would be accomplished during an upcoming court setting, we should reset it.  There was no need for them to be inconvenienced by being brought to court, just to sign a reset and leave.

In the letter, I also reminded them of my policy of accepting collecting phone calls from my clients.  I gave them my phone number as a reminder and asked them all to call me prior to their next scheduled court date.

"Creepy" stock photo of me on the phone.  Published in tribute to my 

social media consultant who really really hates this picture.

And it worked.  My phone started ringing off the hook with collect phone calls, provided by Securus, from my clients.  Sure, it was expensive -- $14.99 for up to 20 minutes, but it was more convenient (not to mention cost effective) than driving to the jail, going through security, and waiting for an attorney booth to open.  I could talk to them about evidentiary issues, plea offers, and scheduling.  Pretty much all of my clients seemed very happy to be able to reach me by phone.

The pre-recorded message that began every call started with something along the lines of this:

You are receiving a collect call from [INMATE'S NAME], an inmate in the Harris County Jail . . . 

It then went on to state the price of the call and how long we could talk, and let me hit a button to bill the credit card that I already had on file. As soon as I was done hitting all the requisite buttons, I was connected to my client.  We could talk court settings and logistical issues, but I cautioned my clients to not discuss the facts of the case over the phone.  Securus doesn't have the best record for honoring that whole "attorney/client privilege" thingy that we all find to be so important.

For the first few weeks after Harvey, things were going pretty smoothly.  Almost all of the clients that I had on imminent dockets were calling.  Communication was good.  I had offers to convey from prosecutors.  If it looked like the case could work out, we put it on a plea docket.  If not, we took it off the docket.  The communication helped get some people out of jail and home.  

That's a good thing.

Two days ago, I got a call from the Harris County Jail, and I answered it.  This time, the message was different.

You are receiving a call from [INMATE'S NAME], an inmate in the Harris County Jail.  If you would like to set up a pre-paid account for this inmate, please press 1.

Well, um, paying for an inmate to talk to me, his or her attorney, is great.  Setting up an account for them to talk to whoever they want to . . . not so much.  Quite frankly, in many cases, enabling a client to talk to non-lawyers is very detrimental to that client's case.  Despite recorded messages warning inmates that calls are recorded and monitored, they still go right ahead and say things that screw up their cases on a regular basis.

But I digress.

Initially, I assumed that the inmate must be dialing out wrong, so I hung up the phone to see what the next call said.  The requirements to set up a pre-paid account persisted.  Eventually, I pressed 1 to see what setting up a pre-paid account actually entailed. I was connected to an actual real person to walk me through it.

I asked the lady on the phone why I could no longer accept collect calls.  I told her I didn't want to set individual slush funds for my clients to call whomever they pleased.  She told me that I had the option of setting up a fund for calls just to me, or I could set up a fund on a per inmate basis.  She said that I must have received "too many collect calls" for a time period and that was why I was being required to set up a fund.

Wait.  What?  I was receiving "too many collect calls"?  Says who?  I'm pretty sure they all went on my office credit card, and the good folks at Securus were being paid what was due.  If anyone had a right to complain about too many collect calls, surely that would be me, right?  She mumbled something about company policy and said that a pre-paid account for me "might" save me money.

Uh huh.   So, I told her that I would agree to set up a pre-paid account for calls to me.  And that's when things got fun.

When I gave her my office number, she told me that number was already on file with another account so I would be unable to set up a pre-paid account.  What's the name of the account that has that number? I asked.  She said she couldn't tell me because it was private.  I assured her that my office number had belonged to me and only me for eight years now.  She told me that I would need to provide proof of my phone number by faxing them a copy of my phone bill in my name.

I told her I would do that immediately and asked her how long that would take.  She told me at least 48 hours.  Securus would "investigate" why someone else would set up an account in my name.

"So for the next two days, my clients can't call me from the jail?"

"No."

"You can't switch back to letting them call me collect?"

"No."

"So, they're just screwed?"

"Until we can investigate and determine that you are the correct number and figure out what happens, we cannot set up an account, sir."

So, basically, I have a number of clients that can't reach me by phone, despite the fact that I sent them all letters instructing them to call me.   I have no doubt that the other account that Securus has linked my phone number to was a mistake made by them. I called Securus this afternoon to make sure that they had received my faxed telephone bill.  The question clearly annoyed the lady who answered the phone.  Faxes go to another department, she said.  The issue would be resolved in 48 hours at the earliest.  She couldn't provide me with any additional information.

In the time that it has taken me to write this post, my office phone has rung with calls from the Harris County Jail no fewer than twenty times -- all of them are calls that I requested, but can't accept. It is frustrating and it's embarrassing.

But Securus is the only game in town.  They have a contract with the jail as they do in many other counties and states across the country.  If you want to use the phone from jail, you gotta go through them.  In doing some background research on Securus, I stumbled across this article, published just two days ago.  Apparently Securus was recently purchased by the owner of the Detroit Pistons.  That's interesting.

What's more interesting were these two paragraphs:

The election of Donald Trump has already given an economic boost to those profiting from mass incarceration. The stock prices of the two biggest private prison builders -- CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) and GEO Group -- doubled after Trump took office.

Companies that charge for expensive phone calls from prisons and jails also won big after Trump's victory. One of the president's first appointments placed Ajit Pai at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who promptly rolled back the agency's 2015 decision to regulate the prison phone industry. The companies hailed it as a victory.

An incarcerated inmate's inability to reach his lawyer by phone may not seem like that big of a deal to those not directly affected by it.  Yes, I'm aware that they can still write me and I can go visit them.  But there is something so fundamentally flawed about a private company not only having the ability to charge exorbitant amounts of money for phone calls between an attorney and a client, but to stop those calls altogether.

It is a sad day when the 6th Amendment gets trampled on -- not by a judge, a prosecutor, or police officer -- but by a price-gouging private company handed a monopoly as part of the Prison Industrial Complex.

Jury Assembly Room, We Hardly Knew Ye

I was kind of surprised to read that the powers that be in Harris County have already decided that the (relatively new) Harris County Jury Assembly Room cannot be salvaged.

Don't get me wrong, I had no doubt that the building got severely damaged in the flooding from Hurricane Harvey.  The geniuses that decided to put a major facility underground in an area that flooded during Tropical Storm Allison basically drew up the plans for the State's largest in-ground jacuzzi. 

I'm not surprised at all to learn that the building is a total loss.  I'm just surprised that Harris County is acknowledging the building's lack of salvageability so quickly -- throwing away a 6-year-old structure that cost $13 million is a bitter pill to swallow. 

My hope is that while the County is in such an "admitting-we-screwed-up" mood, they might turn their attention to the embattled Harris County Criminal Justice Center.   Under optimal conditions, the building is terrible -- narrow hallways leading to elevators that sporadically work.  No escalators or public stairwells.  It was shut down for a year after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 after only being occupied since November 1999.  

But the damage to the building from Allison appears to be nothing compared to what happened in the CJC during Harvey.  Not only did it flood, apparently there was some mechanism in place that caused pipes to supercool quickly and subsequently burst, leaving raw sewage throughout the building across multiple floors.  

Now, I'm not an architect or builder.  Maybe there is some reason why buildings need mechanisms to supercool things.  I don't know what that reason might be, unless it is to freeze Rebel Scum in carbonite before having Boba Fett transport them to Jabba the Hutt.

Whatever the reason, the CJC is now, literally, a shit show.  And it's been a shit show since the day it was opened.

It's time to start over.  Harris County should take some notes from the Ft. Bend Criminal Justice Center and create a shorter and wider courthouse that is more conducive to having escalators and stairways for people to reach the courts.  The elevator system at Harris County CJC is grossly inefficient and dangerous.  Angry (and sometimes violent) people are scrambling into small places to make it to court on time.  It is truly astounding to me that no one has ever been beaten to death one morning.  

The CJC needs to be completely scrapped and started over.  Demolish the damn thing and spread the new construction across the site of 1201 Franklin and 1301 Franklin (the old jail).  Hell, if you hold a $100-a-ticket raffle for attorneys to see who gets to press the demolition button on the CJC, you might be able to pay for the whole thing outright.  There is nobody that comes into that building, from prosecutor to judge to defendant, that doesn't hate it.  

If Harris County can justify scrapping the Jury Assembly Room after six years, then there is no excuse for not razing that 18-year-old hell hole of the CJC.

A Quick Compliment

Last Friday, I was walking out of the stairwell at the Civil Courthouse, just in time to see my friend and fellow defense attorney, Bryan Savoy, attempting to assist a young woman, who was clearly beginning to have a grand mal seizure.  As the seizure began, someone ran down the hall and grabbed the first person in uniform that they could find.  That person ended up being Sgt. K. Rodriguez of the Harris County Constable Office-Precinct Four.

Sgt. Rodriguez rushed to the young woman's aid, and took charge as we lowered her off of the bench where she had been sitting onto the floor.   Sgt. Rodriguez positioned her body over the young woman until the seizure stopped and then stayed over her, as the poor lady was sobbing and clearly distraught.  Sgt. Rodriguez was extremely calm and soothing as she told the young lady about her own family members with seizures and how it was nothing to embarrassed about.  She held the young woman and patted her reassuringly and told her that the paramedics were on the way.

Sgt. Rodriguez asked her if she normally had multiple seizures in a row, and the woman said that she did.  So Sgt. Rodriguez positioned herself to be ready for the next one, and encouraged the woman not to struggle against it, if she felt it coming on.  It seemed like we waited forever for EMS to arrive, but Rodriguez stayed with her the whole time, despite offers from court bailiffs to take over.  Throughout it, the woman kept her hand on Sgt. Rodriguez's leg, and kept patting it.

Just as the paramedics were arriving, the second seizure began, and Sgt. Rodriguez was prepared for it.  Although EMS helped by holding the young woman's arms, it was, again, Sgt. Rodriguez managing the woman's seizure.   The second seizure stopped just long enough to place the poor woman on a stretcher, before the third seizure started.  It was violent.  Her feet were strapped down, but the rest of her body was violently lifting off the stretcher.  Once again, Sgt. Rodriguez held her down.

As EMS took the young lady away, Rodriguez went with her.  She had never lost her composure or her compassion.  I know that I'm not adequately describing what a chaotic and potentially dangerous situation it was.

But Sgt. K. Rodriguez managed the situation like a superhero.  She deserves to be commended.