The Race for County Court at Law # 1 (Republican)

One of the major downsides to writing this blog comes around election time when I have multiple friends running for the same bench. I experienced it in 2008 in the 174th District Court race when we had Kevin Keating, John Jocher, Bill Moore, and Terrance Windham all running for the same bench, and all four of them were my friends. Not to mention that all four of them would have all made great judges.

So, the same phenomena is happening now with the Republican Primary election for County Court at Law # 1, which pits defense attorneys Peyton Peebles and Paula Goodhart and former-179th District Court Judge Mike Wilkinson against each other. All three candidates are people I like and respect, and all of them have the requisite intelligence and demeanor to be good judges.

The CCL # 1 bench is currently occupied by Judge Reagan Helm, who has decided not to seek re-election.

Former 179th Judge Mike Wilkinson spent many years on the bench before losing in November 2008 to Democrat Randy Roll. As I posted back then, I think Judge Wilkinson is one of those freakishly intelligent people who made a very good judge when he was on the bench. The problem with Judge Wilkinson was that he had erratic hours that left both defense attorneys and prosecutors complaining about his schedule. He is certainly capable of being the Judge of Court 1, but his hours are going to be his biggest drawback. Not too many prosecutors and defense attorneys are going to look too forward to returning to the days of backlogged dockets and the judge not arriving until after 10:30 every day.

Former-prosecutor and now defense attorney Paula Goodhart is also an extremely intelligent and capable candidate for CCL # 1. She was a prosecutor for many years, and finally left the office as a District Court Chief assigned to the Special Crimes Division. She has tried multiple serious and violent cases and she knows the law. She has been on the defense side now for about three or four years, and knows both perspectives.

Paula is a friend of mine, and her husband, Craig Goodhart, was my Division Chief at the Office. I consider them family friends, and I think that a lot of the criticism that she has gotten on the blog regarding her attempts to implement a flex time program at the D.A.'s Office are unfair and irrelevant to whether or not she would be a good judge. She tried to make more flexible hours for prosecutors that needed more time to accomodate their family schedules. Some people disagreed with it, and ultimately flex hours weren't implemented, but I hardly think she should be faulted for trying. It does NOT speak to her work ethic, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she would make a good judge.

Paula had initially set out to run for County Court at Law # 4 and she had my whole-hearted support. Prior to the filing deadline, she switched to the CCL # 1 race. Personally, I wish she hadn't done so, because it put her running against Peyton Peebles.

Peyton Peebles announced that he would run for the bench long before any of the other candidates did, and also before Helm announced that he wouldn't be running again. If you ask me, it takes guts to run against a long-time sitting Republican judge. But Peyton has guts, and he believed that he would be a more effective judge than Helm, when he announced his candidacy.

I've known Peyton since I came to Harris County back in 1999. He had started at the Office a little bit before I had and he spent some time in and out of the Trial Bureau before going full time into the Appellate Division. For those of you who don't know how the Office works, the Appellate Division not only handles responding to cases that are appealed -- they also spend a large amount of time answering frantic phone calls from prosecutors in trial who had a legal issue pop up that needs resolving. The folks of Appellate, like Peyton, Eric Kugler, and Kevin Keating (amongst many others) were like Godsends for us trial attorneys who suddenly had to do some legal research. I can't even begin to count how many times Peyton bailed me out of a crack during trial once he was in Appellate.

Peyton left the District Attorney's Office several years ago and has spent that time doing criminal defense. He still spends the majority of the time doing appellate work and he keeps up on all of the current case law. Peyton's temperment, work ethic and knowledge of the law make him the ideal candidate out of the three running, in my opinion. I promised him my support when he first announced he was running, and I stand by that promise.

Peyton is a good man and would make a great judge.

The 179th District Court Judicial Race

The race for the 179th District Court features 20 year veteran Judge Mike Wilkinson as the Republican Candidate against Democratic challenger Randy Roll. (NOTE: There were some technical difficulties when I tried to link to Judge Wilkinson's website, so I just linked to the District Courts page. I think that stat photo was taken in 1982).

I served as a Felony Two in the 179th District Court for several months, and I got to know both Judge Wilkinson and his court staff. It was a great court to work in.

Judge Wilkinson is one of those folks that has such a brilliant intellect that it is almost frightening. He is actually quite amazing in his knowledge of the law and when considering a legal ruling, it seems like you can actually see him going through the data banks in his head for the right answer.

Do you know the kind of smarts I'm talking about here? Like one of those types of guys that could play a chess match entirely in his head.

During trial, he keeps his own detailed notes of the testimony in "real time" as it is occurring. And I mean really detailed notes.

And Judge Wilkinson has a sense of humor. That may not seem like the most valuable asset that for a Judge on a Criminal Court bench, necessarily, but when a prosecutor is assigned to a court every day, it is certainly a bonus to have a pleasant work environment.

He's a great judge, not to mention a great person.

Unfortunately, Judge Wilkinson has suffered through some criticism over the years due to the time table he keeps on running his docket. It is true that he rarely gets to court before 10:00 a.m. or later.

And that has always been the single largest criticism about him.

The counter-point to that criticism is that Judge Wilkinson will also work late into the night and stays later than most judges. Around the Office, when a Judge is needed to sign a warrant or a dismissal in the late afternoon or early evening, the most likely person to be found will be Judge Wilkinson.

Was it annoying on occasion to deal with the Judge's time-table? Sure, it was.

Was it annoying enough to negate what a great judge he is otherwise? Not even close.

In addition to his regular duties on the 179th bench, Judge Wilkinson is also one of the 4 judges who volunteers his or her time with the STAR Court Program.

He is a compassionate man and an excellent judge.

His Democratic opposition in this race is Defense Attorney Randy Roll.

Randy has run for Judicial election in what seems like every election year since I've been working around the CJC (much like Lloyd Oliver). His own website mentions that he's "gained voters over the past 3 elections".

I suppose that is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at it is that he's been rejected for the possibility of judge now three times.

My dealings with Randy Roll as a defense attorney were quite some time ago, and were not impressive. There are a great many defense attorneys that have the respect and admiration of prosecutors in the D.A.'s Office.

Sadly, Randy does not enjoy that reputation.

Under the idea of "not saying anything when you have nothing nice to say", I will just leave it at that.

Just suffice it to say that if there is a voter out there who think that Judge Wilkinson's schedule is a problem, please believe me in saying that Randy Roll is not the solution.

Judge Wilkinson is an excellent judge and he's getting my vote. This one shouldn't even be close.

Of Babies and Bathwater

With the certainty of Barack Obama being the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States becoming clearer and clearer every day, the biggest underlying theme of political discussion around the CJC is "will there be a Democratic sweep in Harris County come November?".

I'm too young to have been around when the "Republican Sweep" of the 1980s occurred, but I've heard the stories of some (not all) good judges losing their benches in Reagan-era fervor.

To me, the idea of a sweep illustrates why I really and truly wish that the words "Republican" or "Democrat" didn't have to appear next to a candidate for a position involving criminal justice. Honestly, I think it is fundamentally inappropriate that it happens that way.

The statue of Lady Justice shows a lady with a blindfold, holding the Scales of Justice. If our judges are to be politically partisan, than how can we really claim that Justice is still truly blind to anything but the law? Leave it to your partisan legislators to write the law, but when it comes to enforcing criminal laws, a judge's position on taxes, abortion, and immigration don't have any relevance to their job description.

The reason I'm writing about this is that there are some damn good Republican Felony District Court Judges on the ballot this year that I don't think anyone who works in the CJC wants to see go. Now, I'm sure that my friend, Grits for Breakfast will speaketh from the Holy Temple in Mt. Austin that "Change is necessary. Change is good.", but I don't agree. Sometimes you do get people in elected positions that are so damn good at their jobs that you really don't need a change, and change would most definitely not be good. (As an aside, my analogy to counter Grits' argument is that if change is always so freaking good, why aren't we encouraging more skilled heart surgeons to go into podiatry?)

An example of why change is not always good could probably not be more clear in the case of Judge Caprice Cosper of the 339th District Court, who is on the ballot as the Republican candidate this November.

Judge Cosper is widely regarded as one of the best (if not the best) Felony District Court Judges in the CJC. She is one of the founding judges and heart and soul behind the STAR program, which focuses on rehabilitating defendants with drug addiction problems. She will argue with Defendants who opt to take the "easy" route of a quick 12.44(a) conviction for Harris County jail time, rather than try to get their lives together through a deferred adjudication with drug treatment. She is known for her compassion and willingness to take risks on people who need help.

She's also not afraid to be tough when toughness is called for, and has no problem with sentencing a violent offender to Life in prison if that is what the evidence demands.

She is a legal bookworm who remains constantly up-to-date on the latest court opinions, which she has memorized. She is friendly and pleasant to both members of the defense bar and the prosecution.

In short, she's a model judge.

Her opponent on the Democratic side is a City of Houston Municipal Court Judge. I've tried to find her name on the internet, but my Googling skills seem to be lacking this evening. To date, her most significant case may be a really big speeding case, or perhaps a huge "no seatbelt" case.

She specializes in traffic tickets, folks. The thought of her taking over the 339th bench due to a Democratic sweep is saddening.

Judge Cosper isn't the only Judge that I hope keeps his or her bench come November. As a matter of fact, I hope the vast, vast majority of them do. I know there will be some disagreement from the Defense Bar over how many of them should stay or go (and yes Mark, I'm rooting for Shawna in this one), but in my personal opinion, when you look at the Judges on the ballot (Judge Devon Anderson, Judge Roger Bridgewater, Judge Mike Wilkinson, Judge Brock Thomas, Judge Mark Ellis, and Judge Cosper), you have included 4 out of 4 of the Judges who spend their extra time in the STAR program, and a group of good men and women who are trying to make a positive change in the Justice System.

A sweep of them all simply because of partisan politics would be a miscarriage of justice, not to mention incredibly foolish of the voters.