The 2022 Primary Elections

It's hard to believe that we're already two weeks into February of 2022.  It seems like New Year's Day was last week.  I'm losing track of time, and the Early Voting is starting Monday, February 14th for the 2022 Primaries (with Election Day being Tuesday, March 1st).

The Republican Primary is a pretty easy write-up -- nothing is contested.  The GOP is in a rebuilding phase at the moment, and they consider it an accomplishment to have had a candidate running in all the positions.  As far as I can tell, most of them are pretty much running to see whether or not the tide has turned back to red in Harris County.  We'll see.  I think it will be closer this year than in years past, but I still think Harris County is firmly blue.  As always, I'll defer to my friend Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff for a more adept analysis of the big picture.  If you aren't reading him, you should be.

The Democratic Primary is a different story, with a great many contested races.  So, I ticked off a bunch of my prosecutor friends with this post back in December, where I suggested that the number of prosecutors running against incumbent judges was tied to a threat 1st Assistant David Mitcham made about there being "consequences for not following Kim's vision."  A couple of those candidates reached out to me to let me know that wasn't the reason they were running and they weren't really excited that I had said as such.

All I can tell you is that I stand by the information that I've received that Ogg and her upper admin did encourage prosecutors to run.  The sources I received that information from haven't backed off that story and neither will I.  If you are running for reasons other than the Administration asked you to, then good for you.  If you are running because the Administration asked you to, that doesn't mean you're a bad candidate.  Take deep breaths, people.

Speaking of taking deep breaths, this write-up is a difficult one because I have so many freaking friends running against each other.  I've been doing this blog for 14 damn years now.  When I first started, doing recommendations was pretty easy because primaries were rarely contested, and the general election was a foregone conclusion.  Times have changed.

As I've said in the past, as much as I enjoy this blog (when I find time to write on it), it's not worth losing a friend over and I'm not going to talk crap about a candidate just because I'm better friends with the opponent.  There is still one person running around out there who decided to unfriend me on Facebook, and give me (and my poor wife!) the silent treatment because I failed to adequately disparage her opponent a few elections ago.   My response to that is I hope that the door didn't hit her in the ass on the way out.

So, yeah, this rundown is pretty much going to be boring for the most part.  I'm just sayin'.  These are the contested races:

183rd District Court -- Judge Chuck Silverman (I) vs. Gemayel Haynes

Four years ago, when Judge Silverman was running against then-incumbent Judge Vanessa Velasquez, I was pretty harsh on the blog about the fact that Judge Silverman's experience was primarily civil, as opposed to criminal.  Shortly after he won the election, I had to go through that awkward first appearance in front of someone I hadn't been exactly kind about.  To his utmost credit, Judge Silverman gave me some good-natured grief and then treated both me (and my clients) very kindly.  In his time on the bench, he has been attentive, compassionate and fair in all of my appearances in front of him, and I don't have anything negative to say about him.

Gemayel Haynes is someone that I consider a dear friend who I've known since he was a baby prosecutor.  We also used to be neighbors back in the old days!  I've watched him grow from the new guy on the block to a very vocal and dynamic leader in the criminal defense world, where he is respected as both a voice of reason and experience in a field of dynamic personalities.  He has experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, which is a tremendous asset for a judicial candidate.  More importantly, he is a kind and compassionate man who lives and breathes criminal law and the justice that it demands.

184th District Court -- Judge Abigail Anastasio (I) vs. Katherine "Kat" Thomas

Judge Anastasio is another person who I've known since she was a baby prosecutor.  We even tried a case against each other years ago.  She is a personal friend and I've appeared before her in court on numerous occasions.  She takes her job very seriously and stays on top of her dockets while playing no favorites to either side.  In the cases where I have appeared before her, she holds the State to its burden of complying with Discovery in a quick and efficient manner, but she also expects the Defense to be ready and up to speed on the Discovery that they have already received.  She gives her full attention to the docket and I believe she has done a good job.

Katherine "Kat" Thomas is also a friend of mine and a prosecutor whom I've handled several cases against.  I also think the world of Kat.  She and I have handled extremely serious cases against each other with several of them involving fatalities.  She is smart, fair, and ethical on all fronts.  On multiple cases that I've handled with her, she has heard me out on all of my arguments and taken them seriously.  Even when we could not come to a resolution together on a case, I have always respected her integrity and ability to address my issues and concerns on some very emotional cases.  I think Kat would also make a fantastic judge.

185th District Court -- Judge Jason Luong (I) vs. Katie Ferrell vs. Andrea "Andy" Beall

Judge Jason Luong is (yet another) person that I've known since his time at the District Attorney's Office, and I've always liked him.  I was glad to see him elected to the 185th District Court four years ago, and I've enjoyed appearing before him during his first term in office.  Judge Luong has proven himself to be a compassionate and knowledgable judge during his time on the Bench.  I've had extremely serious cases in his court, and have been grateful that he was the judge that I was appearing in front of.  He takes his time with these cases and is open-minded to arguments from both sides.  He's done a great job on the bench.

Katie Ferrell is a former prosecutor and a highly respected defense attorney whom I've known for several years now.  I've tried cases with her, and I've sought her advice on issues surrounding DWI defense, where she has specialized training.  She's a veteran and single mom and a pretty damn impressive human being all around.  She's one of the bravest people I know when it comes to speaking her mind and standing up for what she believes in, and that makes her a great leader.  I have a lot of admiration for Katie and think she would also make a great judge.

Andy Beall is a current prosecutor and I have nothing negative to say about her or her ability to be a judge.  Although I'm closer to both Judge Luong and Katie Ferrell, I've never had a negative experience with Andy at all.  I haven't dealt with her on too many cases, but on those cases where I dealt with her, I found her to be pleasant and fair.  My only concerns regarding Andy are that I'm not entirely sure she's running in the right primary.  Her platform seems to be more Republican than Democrat (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).   Anyone who reads this blog or follows my posts on Twitter knows that I've got a big issue with the Republican Party scapegoating the judges on the "crime wave" that is happening all around the country, and Andy has jumped on that bandwagon.  

208th District Court -- Judge Greg Glass (I) vs. Kim McTorry vs. Beverly Armstrong

Judge Greg Glass has been around since I was a baby prosecutor, and nothing characterizes him more than the fact that he is a very nice man.  I never tried a case against him when I was a prosecutor and I've only had one or two cases in front of him since he's been on the bench, but it seems like I've known him since the day I started.  He is a friendly, kind man.  On those rare occasions where I did appear in front of him, he was polite, friendly, and attentive.  He took a lot of unwarranted negative press last year in the center of the Republican-led push to villify all of the sitting Democratic Judges, and he was treated ridiculously unfairly.  I felt bad for him, because I think Judge Glass has a good reputation as a fair, honest and considerate judge.  

I had one case against Kim McTorry when she was a prosecutor in child abuse.  If I recall correctly, neither of us stayed on the case very long -- she left the office for private practice and I got substituted out by a retained attorney.  For those few months where we were on the case, I enjoyed working with her.  She was on top of her case, complied with discovery quickly, and was very pleasant to work with.  Although we aren't super close, I consider Kim to be a friend and I think she would also make a good judge.

Beverly Armstrong is one of the few people in this entire post that I don't know at all.  That's partially my fault.  Polk County District Attorney Lee Hon reached out to me to make an introduction, and I failed to follow up with him.  Sorry about that Lee.  The schedule has just been crazy for the past several months, as evidenced by me writing this post at the last minute!  What Lee told me about Beverly is that she has been the First Assistant at the Polk County D.A.'s Office and before that was a Court Chief in Galveston County under Jack Roady.  Lee described her as funny, smart, even-tempered, and considerate.  He gives her the highest recommendation.  

228th District Court -- Judge Frank Aguilar (I) vs. Sam Milledge II

I've known Judge Frank Aguilar since he was a magistrate and I was the PC Chief at D.A. Intake around 2006-2007ish, and I've appeared before him on many occasions since he took the Bench after the 2018 election.  I've handled serious cases in front of him, and I've gone to trial on a very serious case in front of him.  I think he's a really great judge.  He's a very quiet man, and I've never socialized with him, but in my appearances in front of him, he is a neutral and fair man who carefully considers the evidence before him and makes decisive rulings without question.  He calls balls and strikes with impartiality and he gave me a fair trial.  He's worked with me on some unusually troublesome cases and I had enough confidence in his fairness to take a double fatality accident case to him on a Pre-Sentence Investigation Hearing (if you aren't a lawyer that's an example of having A LOT of faith in the judge to be fair to your client, just FYI).  He's a good man and a good judge and I'd try a case to him any day of the week.

Sam Milledge II is well-known and well-liked defense attorney who I have been friends with for several years now.  He is respected as a trial lawyer and someone who devotes his life to the Criminal Justice System.  I think highly of Sam, as well, and think he would make a good judge.  He would be fair minded and work toward making the Criminal Justice System a better place.

230th District Court -- Judge Chris Morton (I) vs. Joseph Sanchez

There is something about the 230th District Court that seems to draw my friends to run against each other for its bench.  Four years ago, it was my friend Judge Brad Hart running against my friend, (now) Judge Chris Morton.  This year, Judge Morton is defending his bench against my friend (and Assistant District Attorney) Joseph Sanchez.  The winner will face off against . . . . my friend, Brad Hart in November.

Judge Chris Morton is a good friend of mine, so saying a lot of nice things about him will probably make it weird the next time I see him.  But Judge Morton is a damn good judge.  He's an Army veteran, smart as a whip and he's brave enough to make a call that he deems to be the correct one -- even when he knows it may turn out to be an unpopular decision with the uninformed masses.  In my opinion, those two qualities, mixed in with a level of compassion, are what define a good judge.  During his time on the Bench, Judge Morton has exhibited all of these qualities and I admire him for that.  He deserves to be re-elected.

Joseph Sanchez is also a friend of mine, and I've dealt with him as a prosecutor on many cases over the past years.  I always enjoy working with Joseph on a case because he is candid, honest and has a great sense of humor.  If he were running in another race (like in 2024, hint hint), I'd gladly support him.  

248th District Court -- Judge Hilary Unger (I) vs. Linda Mazzagatti

Although some of these races are hard to make a call on, the race for the 248th District Court is pretty easy.

Judge Hilary Unger has spent her first term on the Bench defining herself as a problem solver who handles each case before her with the care and consideration that it deserves.  With her extensive experience in criminal law as a defense attorney, coupled with her experience in juvenile law and working in the family court, she has been uniquely qualified to be a judge.  Every time attorneys approach the Bench, Judge Unger takes the time to make sure she fully understands all aspects of the case before her.  She is thoughtful in her rulings and goes the extra mile to work on solutions to some of the trickier cases she presides over.  She has also established herself as a leader amongst the judges in tackling other issues facing the CJC world.  She is a hands-on leader who seeks input from both the Defense and the State in making the System better.

Linda Mazzagatti is a current prosecutor who used to be a defense attorney.  I never had a personal problem with Linda, and she's always been nice to me.  However, during her tenure as a defense attorney, she seemed pretty disorganized and I saw her flustering prosecutors with her needlessly abrasive approach.  I've never seen her in trial and she seems to be tucked away in the Office's General Litigation Division.  Her Facebook website seems to be touting the same anti-bond reform message that seems more appropriate for a Republican candidate than a Democratic one.  Personally, I think she lacks the experience to be a judge.

263rd District Court -- Judge Amy Martin (I) vs. Melissa Morris

I didn't know Judge Amy Martin before her run for the 263rd Bench in 2018, but over the course of her first year, I've had the opportunity to appear before her on many occasions on some very tough cases, and I'm a fan.  I think I actually was the first plea she took in her court, if my memory serves me correctly.  I've gone before her on some tough cases and she is definitely no pushover, but she has a tremendous amount of compassion for the people appearing before her as Defendants.  I've seen her take chances on some Defendants that others might not, and I've seen her lower the boom on others who didn't take those second chances seriously.  She cares about the cases before her and she takes her job extremely seriously.  She's also pretty damn smart, as it turns out. 

Melissa Morris is a respected defense attorney who I only know in passing.  She has always been nice to me, but I don't know much about her other than that, unfortunately.

482nd District Court -- Veronica Nelson vs. Alycia Harvey vs. Sherlene Cruz

The 482nd District Court is a newly established court and this is the first election held for its Bench, which is currently occupied by appointed Judge Maritza Antu.

Veronica Nelson is one of my very good friends (whether she will admit it or not).  I first met her years ago when we tried a case against each other in the 176th.  I only knew her in passing before that case, but I was impressed with the way she handled a tough set of facts and tried them skillfully.  She had a composure and knowledge that showed a confidence in her skills that not all prosecutors have at that level.  I respected the way she tried that case and we became friends (whether she will admit it or not) through that trial.  When she left the District Attorney's Office, she went on to become the Staff Attorney for the Harris County Criminal and Civil Courts at Law.

Alycia Harvey is also a friend of mine whom I like and admire.  Like Joseph Sanchez, if she were running in a different race, I'd be glad to support her (2024 is just around the corner . . . ).  She is a highly respected prosecutor who has been at the District Attorney's Office since my time there.  She's a chief in Major Offenders who is a pleasure to deal with and is reasonable on the toughest cases.  

I don't know Sherlene Cruz personally, but I do know that she is well respected by people whose opinions I value.  She works for the Harris County Public Defenders Office where she is regarded as a valued trial lawyer.  I wish I had more information about her to share, but unfortunately, I don't.

County Court at Law # 2 -- Judge Ronnisha Bowman (I) vs. Jannell Robles

Judge Ronnisha Bowman was elected in 2018 to the CCL # 2 bench.  I think I may have had one case in there at the very beginning of her tenure as judge, but I think it was dismissed and I never actually appeared in front of her.  I don't know much about her or how she runs her court to give an informed assessment of her as a judge.

Jannell Robles works for the Harris County Public Defenders Office.  When I wrote my original list of candidates, I mistakenly identified her as a prosecutor and ended up talking to her on the phone to apologize for my mistake.  I did not know her prior to my phone call, but she was very nice.  She has a definite vision for what she would like to do as a judge and I agreed with her ideas.  She is young and energetic.  In my opinion, she has the right ideas for someone running for judge.

County Court at Law # 3 -- Staci Biggar vs. Porscha Brown vs. Lorenzo Williams

There is no incumbent in the race for County Court at Law # 3, because Judge Erica Hughes (who won the Bench in 2018) went to work as a Federal Magistrate.  

Staci Biggar is an extremely highly respected former-prosecutor and defense attorney whom I've known since I first came to Harris County in 1999.  I am a tremendous fan of hers because during the entire time I've known her, Staci has always been the first person to volunteer when someone needs help.  She has devoted countless hours/days/weeks to helping out in Mental Health Court, Veterans' Court, and just regular Court.  She's a leader that other attorneys turn to when they need advice.  Years ago, when I was dealing with a mentally ill friend, I sought her advice, and she worked with me and my friend's family.  I will always be forever grateful for that.  She would be an amazing judge.  She is knowledgable, compassionate and kind.  I don't know why she hasn't run sooner.

Porscha Brown works for the Public Defenders' Office and I only met her fairly recently.  She seems extremely nice and I have no doubt that she would a qualified candidate.  I just don't know much about her.

I'm not sure if I've met Lorenzo Williams or not.  I apologize if I have and don't remember it.  I'm not entirely sure where he works, either.  His campaign website says that he worked at the District Attorney's Office but it isn't clear if that is where he presently works.  His State Bar profile seems to show that he's in private practice.  I'm not entirely sure what his credentials are.

County Court at Law # 5 -- Judge David Fleischer (I) vs. Carlos Aguayo

Judge David Fleischer is one of the nicest human beings in the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.  He and I have been friends for years and I was very supportive of his campaign four years ago.  After appearing in front of him numerous times over the past years, I am glad to see that support was well placed.  Judge Fleischer is a fantastic judge who brings a tremendous amount of compassion, kindness and intelligence to the cases that appear before him.  He's the embodiment of a person who is there to help and we need more people like him on the Bench.

I don't know prosecutor Carlos Aguayo on a personal level, but I've dealt with him on several different cases over the past year or so.  I don't have anything negative to say about him based on my own dealings.  There are some people, whose opinions I respect, however, that have let me know that they do have an issue with him and the way he has handled cases with them in trial.  Although those are not my personal experiences with him, I would probably vote for Judge Fleischer over any candidate that ran against him.  He's a great judge and deserves to be re-elected.

County Court at Law # 6 -- Judge Kelley Andrews (I) vs. Selena Alaniz

I've known Judge Kelley Andrews since she was a relatively new defense attorney and I've always been a big fan of her.  I knew she would make a great judge when she ran in 2018, and I'm glad to say that I was right about that.  It was no surprise to any of us who know Judge Andrews that she would run a good courtroom.  I haven't had any contested matters in front of her yet, but the reviews from others who have are positive.  Judge Andrews was always an unflappable defense attorney who cared about her clients, so it is no surprise to see that she has extended those traits to the Bench.  She's a good judge and deserves to be re-elected.

I also know Selena Alaniz and have nothing negative to say about her.  I worked with her through HCCLA when she did more work in Harris County, but her primary stomping grounds are in the Fort Bend Criminal Justice Center.  I like Selena a lot, and as I've said about several of the other candidates, I'd support her in a different race.  She's a very nice person and it's always nice to see her when I'm in Fort Bend.

County Court at Law # 7 -- Judge Andrew Wright (I) vs. Mauricio Vazquez

Judge Andrew Wright garnered a lot of attention early on in his judicial career when he took the highly unusual move of imposing sanctions on the Harris County District Attorney's Office for a failure to turn over exculpatory evidence.  It was deemed outrageous by the Office, who said that Judge Wright should have just granted a continuance rather than impose financial sanctions, but the message that the Judge was sending was a refreshing one.  Too often the failure to comply with the Michael Morton Act is just glossed over with a continuance rather than imposing a meaningful punishment.  It was refreshing to see a judge who took it for the egregious violation that it was and it signaled that Judge Wright was clearly marching to the beat of his own drum.  During his tenure, Judge Wright has been very clear that he has a direction he wants his court to follow and he intends to follow it, even if it makes others angry from time to time.  I admire that about him and think that's a good quality in a judge.  I wish more judges had the guts to truly hold the State accountable when they don't follow the law.

I don't know Mauricio Vazquez very well, although I had a case or two with him when he was still with the District Attorney's Office.  He's a very quiet guy, but he's nice.  I don't have anything negative to say about him, but my professional dealings with him were very limited.

County Court at Law # 8 -- Judge Franklin Bynum (I) vs. Erika Ramirez

I've often described my relationship with Judge Franklin Bynum as being akin to having a little brother.  I love him to death but we tended to bicker and fight a lot.  We've calmed down with the bickering as we've gotten older, and I find myself agreeing with him more often than not.  Like Judge Wright in Court # 7, Judge Bynum has no fear of ticking off the District Attorney's Office. . . or the police . . .  or me . . .  or anyone, for that matter.  He's an insanely intelligent student of the law who knows what he's talking about when he makes legal rulings.  During his first term in office, he correctly pointed out that the entire procedure that Harris County District Attorney's Office utilized in filing charges violated the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The D.A.'s Office was mildly nervous as Judge Bynum pointed out that perhaps literally all criminal charges should be thrown out for violating that procedure.  They've since painted a large target on his back as he continues to challenge the State and hold them accountable.  That's the job he's supposed to do and it's nice to see him having the courage to do it.

I'm also a huge fan of prosecutor Erika Ramirez.  I've dealt with her on many cases and she is always a pleasure to work with.  She takes her job seriously, but she is also compassionate on cases where compassion is called for.  She has always been very dilligent in turning over discovery and listening to anything the defense has to offer.  I think Erika would also make a fantastic judge.  This is another tough race for me to decide who I am voting for.

County Court at Law # 10 -- Thuy Le vs. Juanita Jackson

Like County Court at Law #3, there is no incumbent in this race.  Judge Lee Harper Wilson is not running for re-election after a tumultuous term on the bench.  Like several of these races, I'm friends with both candidates and I'm having a tough time deciding who I'm voting for.

I've known Juanita since I first started at the Office back in 1999 and she has always been very nice to me.  She is an Old School lawyer who isn't afraid to go to trial.  She definitely has the experience and knowledge to be a good judge.

I'm also a big fan of Thuy Le, who I've known since she was a baby prosecutor.  She is an extremely smart lawyer who has nerves of steel that I admire.  After leaving prosecution, she became a very prominent member of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association where she served as Vice President and also won the the Sharon Levine Unsung Hero Award (which is a tremendous honor).  She also pursued disciplinary action against Judge Wilson for the above mentioned tumultuous behavior and then challenged him by declaring she was running against him (prior to him announcing he wasn't going to run).  Thuy Le is somebody I admire a lot and think would make a great judge.

County Court at Law # 14 -- Judge David Singer (I) vs. Je'Rell Rogers

Judge David Singer is one of the few (if not the only) incumbent Judges on this list that I haven't appeared before since taking he took the Bench following the 2018 election, so I don't have any personal experience to share about him as a judge.   Prior to taking the Bench, he used to comment from time to time on the blog when he disagreed with something I wrote, and I recall in a previous assessment of him, thinking that he had a relatively short temper.  I haven't heard any complaints about his temper, or anything else for that matter, during his tenure on the Bench.  He seems to be doing his job without angering either the State or the Defense, to my knowledge.  That's a good thing.

His opponent is Assistant District Attorney Je'Rell Rogers.  Je'Rell and I are friends who will forever be professionally linked through the greatest case of our respective careers:  the alleged theft of an adult-sized polar bear costume.

Dubbed the "Trial of the Century" by nobody, it was a test of wills and brinksmanship reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis that ended with a dismissal on trial date, after a mental chess match that had stretched out over months.  As any trial lawyer will tell you, you pour your heart and soul into cases like these and Je'Rell's previous experience as a back up mascot for Notre Dame made this fight personal.  

I've worked with Je'Rell on a couple of other, lesser cases, too, and I've always appreciated the way he handles his job as a prosecutor.  He is open-minded, fair, honest, and willing to concede points when negotiating a case.  I think highly of him as both a prosecutor and a friend.  I think he would make a great judge.

District Clerk -- Marilyn Burgess (I) vs. Desiree Broadnax

Although not a judicial race, of equal importance to those of us who practice in CJC is the race for District Clerk.  The role of District Clerk is critical to everyone involved in the practice of law and with the centerpiece of that is the running of the District Clerk's website.  Everything from running a Defendant's record, to filling out plea paperwork requires an efficient and running website. 

District Clerk Marilyn Burgess came in with the Democratic sweep of 2018, replacing Chris Daniel in the position.  Under Daniel, the website had a couple of minor problems that Burgess has somehow managed to exponentially exacerbate.  During her tenure as District Clerk, she seems to be much more focused on making promotional videos (featuring herself) and redesigning her website (with more pictures of herself) than making sure that the website is actually running.  It is a ridiculously common occurence under the Burgess Administration for the website to crash completely in the middle of morning dockets, bringing court proceedings to a standstill.  I cannot stress enough what an absurdity this website has become.  It is a running joke in the legal community that nobody is laughing at.  She is simply not good at her job.

Her challenger, Desiree Broadnax, has been running the District Attorney's Office Intake Division as the Division Manager, since my time at the Office.  Having worked with Desiree, I am a firm believer in her efficiency and ability to take charge and organize the District Clerk's Office.  She understands the demanding and hectic nature of the justice system and she has the experience to manage it.  She isn't a politician -- she's simply someone who can get things done.  She would do a far better job than Burgess has done over the past years.

So, there you have it.  All comments, questions, and criticisms are welcome in the comments section.  

Dane Schiller: Kim Ogg's Minister of Misinformation

I have to admit that I don't remember Dane Schiller from the days before he took the job as Kim Ogg's Director of Communication at the D.A.'s Office.  Maybe our paths never crossed.  If they did, I don't recall it.  I hear from my friends in the journalism business that he was a pretty good reporter.

When he took the job for the incoming Ogg Administration back in the beginning, his was not a name that I was familiar with, and I certainly had no beef with him.  Then again, other than that small matter of her firing almost forty potential political enemies experienced prosecutors right off the bat, I didn't really have that big of an issue with Kim Ogg herself back then.  I was supportive of Ogg's platform when she ran for District Attorney the first time and I voted for her -- a mistake I've regretted since early on in her administration.

But, I digress.  The point I'm trying to make here is that I never had a personal beef with Dane.  As a matter of fact, we actually went through almost the entirety of Ogg's first term on pretty friendly terms.  I still have several e-mails in my archives of him sending me very nice messages for various and sundry things.  He appreciated when I supported Ogg's request for more prosecutors.  He forwarded me a copy of the paper when there was a picture of me and my kids.  I think I last heard from him when he sent me a nice note after I wrote this post at the beginning of the pandemic.

He used to call me "amigo"!  My, how times have changed.

As it turns out, old Dane has been working very hard behind the scene any time any media outlet quotes me with any critique of the Ogg Administration.  His method of response is usually an ad hominem attack on me, which highlights three points:  1) I'm a disgruntled former prosecutor who was fired from my job; 2) I'm a Republican; and 3) I've always hated Kim Ogg.  He lets the reporter and/or news agency know these things rather than argue against any of the substance of my critiques.  In at least one instance, he asked the news agency to print those three things.

So, let's run these things through the old fact-checker, real quick.

1.  The Disgruntled Fired Prosecutor --  to be fair, I bring a lot of this critique on myself, having gleefully pointed out my record for having been "fired twice" from the D.A.'s Office.  The reason that I've always pointed it out myself is because the reasons for my firing had nothing to do with my job performance, and it was laughable to think so.  In my nine and a half years as a prosecutor, I received only one negative evaluation (which was deserved -- I dropped the ball on a couple of things around the time my oldest was born).  I loved working with my co-workers. I was pretty reasonable to deal with and I wasn't half bad at trial.

I was fired (the first time) by Pat Lykos when she chose not to renew my contract when she took office.  It wasn't a surprise to anyone.  I had campaigned hard for Kelly Siegler and I took a lot of potshots at Lykos on this blog.  The moment Lykos won the election, I started making plans for a future in the defense bar.  It was common sense.  I got fired (the second time) when Ken Magidson decided that the contents of this blog were too disruptive for me to continue in my final week as a prosecutor.  Never mind that the contents of the blog were written in my off time and probably protected by the 1st Amendment at the time of my firing, but whatever.   My departure from the Office had nothing to do with me being a bad prosecutor.  It just had to do with my antagonism towards Pat Lykos.

Ironically, in retrospect, Lykos did a far better job as District Attorney than Kim Ogg ever has.  

2.  The Republican --  I guess this is a somewhat fair criticism if you go back in time to 2015.  Like most of my fellow former prosecutors, I did vote exclusively in Republican Primaries back in the day.  Although I was pretty liberal for a Republican, most Harris County elections were decided in the Republican Primary before 2008, and that's where I voted.  I wasn't ever a big GOP member.  Didn't go to meetings or try to be a Precinct Chair or anything like that.  If I had any remaining Republican ties, I can assure you that the Donald Trump Phenomenon stomped most of them out of me.  

3.  The Kim Ogg Hater --  Dane has to be pretty hard-pressed to argue that I was anti-Ogg from the beginning.  As noted above, I voted for her over Devon Anderson (who was a friend) because I believed in Ogg's platform and the direction Criminal Justice should follow in the future.  It isn't my fault that Ogg a) was no more of a progressive than Donald Trump, and b) is insane.   Although I have to admit that he's correct that I think very poorly of Ogg, that dislike has been earned by her actions in office.  It's not like she ran over my dog, or you know, fired me or anything.  

It's not personal.  Kim Ogg is just really terrible at being District Attorney and she embodies all of the negative traits of an intensely paranoid, vindictive, dumb, corrupt politician.  Other than that, I'm sure she's a swell person.

Dane Schiller knows all of these things are true, so it is rather disappointing to learn of my old "amigo" telling reporters all of these things about me.  

However, I'm far from being the only recipient of Dane's misinformation campaigns.  He's been very front and center in leading the charge on behalf of the D.A.'s Office in scapegoating Harris County District Court Judges for the rise in crime during the pandemic, as well.

In the above screenshots, Dane has taken to the Twitterverse to attack the judges and promote his employer's office, which is fine, even though it's just a tad outside of his job description and wholly inaccurate.  There's a fine line between Director of Communications for the District Attorney's Office and Propaganda Chief for Kim Ogg, I suppose, but there are some pretty stringent rules about taxpayer money going towards political campaigns.  Dane seems to operate in those blurred lines 24/7. 

One of the more amusing elements of Dane's "job description" is most certainly his use of social media.  My personal favorite has got to be this one, where he tries desperately to raise Kim Ogg's D.A.'s Office's Google Rating.

He also apparently went to the Don Hooper School of Media Relations, as illustrated by his comments in this Houston Chronicle story where he took issue with my criticism of the D.A.'s Office instituting an overtime program to evaluate misdemeanor cases rather than just giving prosecutors the authority to make offers in court (which is kind of the job they were hired to do, just FYI). (NOTE:  I actually thought that this response was Don Hooper at first, despite the good spelling.)

I guess if you can't make the reporters stop using me as a source of information, you can always take potshots in the comments.  And, no, I can't conclusively prove that"Dudegoggles" is Dane because I don't run the Chronicle website.  However, he writes just like Dane, shares the exact same messages that Dane is trying to communicate, has a lot of inside information about the District Attorney's Office and he shares the same favorite restaurant as Dane (see you around La Guadalupana, amigo).

On the Facebook comments to that same Chronicle story, a Facebook profile under the name of "Jake Mattius" took issue with my comments.

"Do better"?  That's your stunning comeback to my complaints?  That's really kicking some ass on the old debate stage there, buddy.

Draw your own conclusions about who Jake Mattius really is, but here's a shot of his Facebook profile.  Other than a deep love of Kim Ogg, there isn't really much to it.

All of this is pretty damn funny to me in the big scheme of things, but it really shouldn't be.  Dane Schiller has a job to do and that's to keep the general public informed about the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  Instead, he's become, well, just a shill for Kim Ogg.  Rather than address any of the points I've brought up when I've criticized the Office, he'd rather just take some rather chickenshit potshots behind the scenes.

C'mon, Dane.

Do better, Amigo.

Boss Ogg's Slate

 

In a meeting with the judges a year or so ago, Harris County District Attorney's Office First Assistant David Mitcham expressed his frustration with the judges and bond reform, giving them a warning that those who didn't share District Attorney Kim Ogg's "vision" would face "consequences."   Those who were present for the meeting (at least the ones that I spoke with) indicated that the implication was that the Office intended to field candidates to run against those judges who weren't bending to the District Attorney's will.  At least, that's how they interpreted Mitcham's words.

Now that the filing deadline has passed, it is abundantly clear that Mitcham's veiled threat was not an empty one as a significant number almost every of judicial races now has a prosecutorial candidate running as either a Democrat or Republican.  Some are great candidates.  Others . . . not so much.  A few are royal disasters, but we will talk about that more in-depth in a future post.

I thought it was interesting to see that the Republicans filled out an entire slate (as opposed to the past election or so).  Perhaps with Donald Trump out of the White House, they assume the Party will be more palatable.  The gubernatorial battle has never been one that generated tremendous turnout in Texas, and the battle of Abbott vs. O'Rourke probably won't be anywhere near as exciting as when O'Rourke ran against Ted Cruz four years ago.  They must have dug deep to find some of these candidates, however.  There are quite a few of them that I've never heard of (which is unusual).

Not to mention that Republican Candidates (with hefty donations from some big names affiliated with CrimeStoppers) have been doing a fantastic (and highly misleading) job of pointing out that this current crop of Democratic Judges are just a clear and present danger to world peace since they follow the Constitution and set bonds for criminals.   Ogg and her PR machine have been giving a lot of oxygen to those misleading allegations to the degree that one would be pretty hard-pressed to argue that Ogg is really anything other than a Democrat in Name Only.

So, without further ado, here are the candidates for the Criminal Judicial Races on the ballot in November 2022.  

(NOTE:  This list is based on looking at the Secretary of State website, the Harris County Democratic Party website, and the Harris County Republican Party website, as well as personal knowledge.  If there are any additions, deletions or modifications, please let me know.)

180th District Court

DEM:

    Judge DaSean Jones (Incumbent)

REP:

    Tami C. Pierce

182nd District Court

DEM:

    Judge Danny Lacayo (Incumbent)

REP:

    Robert H. Jackson (an Investigator for the District Attorney's Office)

183rd District Court

DEM:

    Judge Chuck Silverman (Incumbent)

    Gemayel Haynes

REP:

    Kristin Guiney (former Judge)

184th District Court

DEM:  

    Judge Abigail Anastasio (Incumbent)

    Katherine "Kat" Thomas (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Lori DeAngelo

185th District Court

DEM:

    Judge Jason Luong (Incumbent)

    Katie Ferrell 

    Andrea "Andy" Beall (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Chris Carmona

208th District Court

DEM:

    Judge Greg Glass (Incumbent)

    Beverly Armstrong

    Kim McTorry

REP:

    Heather Hudson (Prosecutor)

209th District Court

DEM:

    Judge Brian Warren (Incumbent)

REP:

    Kevin Fulton

228th District Court

DEM:

    Judge Frank Aguillar (Incumbent)

    Sam Milledge, II

REP:

    Andy Taylor

230th District Court

DEM:

    Judge Chris Morton (Incumbent)

    Joseph Sanchez (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Brad Hart (former Judge)

232nd District Court

DEM:

    Judge Josh Hill (Incumbent)

REP:

    Joshua Normand

248th District Court

DEM:

    Judge Hilary Unger (Incumbent)

    Linda Mazzagatti (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Julian Ramirez

262nd District Court

DEM:  

    Judge Lori Gray (Incumbent)

REP:

    Tonya McLaughlin

263rd District Court

DEM:

    Judge Amy Martin (Incumbent)

    Melissa Morris

REP:

    Amber Cox (Prosecutor)

482nd District Court

DEM:

    Veronica Nelson

    Alycia Harvey (Prosecutor)

    Sherlene Cruz

REP:

    Judge Maritza Antu (technically not an incumbent since she was appointed to the Bench)

County Court at Law # 1

DEM:

    Judge Alex Salgado (Incumbent)

REP:

    Nathan Moss (Prosecutor)

County Court at Law # 2

DEM:

    Judge Ronnisha Bowman (Incumbent)    

    Janell Robles 

REP:

    Paula Goodhart (former Judge)

County Court at Law # 3

DEM:  No Incumbent -- Judge Erika Hughes took a Federal appointment earlier this year

    Staci Biggar

    Porscha Brown

    Lorenzo Williams

REP:

    Leslie Johnson

County Court at Law # 4

DEM:

    Judge Shannon Baldwin (Incumbent)

REP:

    Zachary Gibson (Prosecutor)

County Court at Law # 5

DEM:

    Judge David Fleicher (Incumbent)

    Carlos Aguayo (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Elizabeth Buss (Prosecutor)

County Court at Law # 6

DEM:

    Judge Kelley Andrews (Incumbent)

    Selina Alaniz

REP:

    Mark Montgomery

County Court at Law # 7

DEM:

    Judge Andrew Wright (Incumbent)

    Mauricio Vazquez 

REP:

    Mike Monks

County Court at Law # 8

DEM:

    Judge Franklin Bynum (Incumbent)

    Erika Ramirez (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Mark Goldberg (Prosecutor.  Sort of.  Really more of Ogg's PR guy who sometimes moonlights as a prosecutor in an actual court)

County Court at Law # 9

DEM:

    Judge Toria Finch (Incumbent)

REP:

    Sartaj Bal

County Court at Law # 10

DEM:  No Incumbent --  Judge Lee Harper Wilson did not seek re-election.

    Juanita Jackson

    Thuy Le

REP:

    Dan Spjut (former Judge)

County Court at Law # 11

DEM:

    Judge Sedrick Walker (Incumbent)

REP:

    Dan Simons

County Court at Law # 12

DEM:

    Judge Genesis Draper (Incumbent)

REP:

    Matt Dexter

County Court at Law # 13

DEM:

    Judge Raul Rodriguez (Incumbent)

REP:

    Lance Long

County Court at Law # 14

DEM:

    Judge David Singer (Incumbent)

    Je'Rell Rogers (Prosecutor)

REP:

    Jessica Needham Padilla

County Court at Law # 15

DEM:

    Judge Tonya Jones (Incumbent)

REP:

    Xavier Alfaro

313th District Court (Juvenile)

DEM:

    Judge Natalia Oakes (Incumbent)

    Glenda Duru

REP:

    Julie A. Ketterman

    Rachel Leal-Hudson

314th District Court (Juvenile)

DEM:

    Judge Michelle Moore (Incumbent)

REP:

    Cindy Hide

315th District Court (Juvenile)

DEM:

    Judge Leah Shapiro (Incumbent)

    Iesha Champs

REP:

    Marie Valeria Brock

If Being a Football Coach was Like Being a Defense Attorney-Part 2: Talking to the Ref

REF:  Okay, so it is my understanding that one of your players wanted to talk to me, Coach?

COACH (Sighing Heavily):  Yes, Ref.   Against my advice.

REF:  Okay.  To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I've asked Chiefs' Coach Reid to join us.

PLAYER:  Good!  I want to talk to him, too.

COACH:  No, you don't.

PLAYER:  See what I'm dealing with here, Ref?

REF:  What seems to be the problem?

PLAYER:  So, basically, I want to win the game.

REF:  That's good.  Everyone should want to win their game.

PLAYER:  Yeah, but it's like Coach isn't even trying to help us.

REF:  What's going on?

PLAYER:  Well, he's saying that we're playing the Chiefs and that Chiefs are really good.

REF:  Well, obviously, as Referee, I don't know anything about how the game will turn out, but I do know that the Chiefs usually do play pretty well at home.

COACH:  That's what I was trying to tell him, Ref.

PLAYER:  I keep trying to tell him that I want to win and all he does is keep going on and on about "Patrick Mahomes is really good" and "You don't have a chance."

COACH:  I never said we didn't have a chance!

REF:  Sir, I've known your Coach for a very long time.  I've seen him win some tough games and I've seen him lose some tough games, but he does always try very hard to help his team win.

PLAYER:  I'm just not seeing it, Ref.  He didn't even ask Coach Reid if he would let us win.

REF:  Let you win?

COACH REID:  Yeah, I'm not going to do that.

PLAYER STARES AT COACH REID, INCREDULOUS.

PLAYER:  You let the Titans win.

COACH REID:  That was a tough game, but we did not just let them win.

PLAYER:  You let the Ravens win.

COACH REID:  We did not "let" the Ravens win.

PLAYER:  Look, I just to win for my family.  I've got a home that I need to make the mortgage on.  My mom is going to be watching the game.  My kids are coming.  I just need to win.

COACH:  We are going to try to win!  We have several things to work with.

PLAYER:  Can you guarantee me that we're going to win?

REF, COACH & COACH REID (in unison):  NO.

PLAYER:  Ref, can YOU make us win?  Maybe, tell Coach Reid that we have to win?

REF:  I'm not going to do that.  I'm the Referee.  I'm just here to make sure it is a fair game.

PLAYER:  I've been doing everything I can to make us win.  I've been working out.  I've been running . . .

REF:  That's good.

PLAYER: . . . I've been taking some performance-enhancing medicine . . . 

REF:  Wait, what?

COACH (hitting himself in the head with a clipboard repeatedly):  And THIS is why I told you that we should not be talking to the Ref.

PLAYER:  Why not? It will help.

COACH REID:  You've been using steroids?

PLAYER:  Why are you writing that down on your clipboard?

COACH REID: I'm meeting with the Commissioner later.

PLAYER:  I want to meet with the Commissioner too!

COACH REID:  Oh, I have a feeling you will be meeting with him soon enough.

PLAYER:  Anyways, Ref, my ankle is hurt and I'm not going to be able to keep up with Tyreek Hill.  I've asked my Coach to at least file a request with the League to suppress Tyreek.

COACH:  There are no grounds to suppress Tyreek Hill.

PLAYER:  Did you file a request with the League to allow us to win?

COACH:  There is no such thing.  

PLAYER:  Yeah right.

REF:  Your coach is right, sir.

PLAYER:  That's not what my friend D-Hop from the Cardinals told me and he won his game.

COACH:  DeAndre Hopkins is a much stronger player than you are.  It's a different set of circumstances.

PLAYER:  Do you see him being so disrespectful to me?

REF:  I have no comment.

PLAYER:  I have asked Coach to fire himself.

COACH:  I'm not going to fire myself.  I'm completely capable of coaching the team.

PLAYER:  Ref, can you make Bill Belichick my coach?  He's a good coach.

COACH:  I'M A GOOD COACH!

REF:  I cannot appoint Bill Belichick to be your coach.  Can you afford him on your own?

PLAYER:  My teammates are trying to get the money together . . . 

COACH:  Please let me know the second you have enough money for Coach Belichick.

PLAYER:  Can I just coach myself? I drew up some of my own plays that are going to help us win. 

REF:  You want to coach yourself?

PLAYER:  It's better than this Coach who thinks we already lost.

COACH:  I never said we already lost.

PLAYER:  So, look, I drew up the play on this piece of paper. (SHOWS PAPER TO REF, COACH, & COACH REID)

COACH REID:  Why do the Chiefs only have three defensive players in this drawing?

PLAYER:  Yeah, I'm going to need y'all to only play three players so we can score easier.

COACH REID:  We are not going to do that.

PLAYER:  Yeah, y'all are dirty.  I know.  No wonder y'all win so much.

COACH REID:  We aren't dirty.  Those are the rules.

PLAYER:  Not if you aren't trying to let us win.

COACH REID:  We are definitely NOT trying to let you win.

PLAYER:  That's not my only plan.  We know it is going to rain at Arrowhead Stadium on Sunday, so we were talking about deflating the balls a little bit to help us catch them better.

COACH REID:  Oh really?

COACH:  For the love of God, please stop talking.

PLAYER:  Let me talk to these men!

REF:  I think at this point, you should probably listen to your coach and stop talking.

PLAYER:  So, we're done here?

COACH:  I'm pretty sure you are done here.

If Being a Football Coach Was Like Being a Defense Attorney

COACH:  Alright team, this week, we are playing the Chiefs . . . 

PLAYER:  So, you're trying to tell us that we just need to give up.

COACH:  Um, no.  I'm just trying to start a conversation about what to expect as we head into this weekend.  So, anyway, their quarterback is obviously Patrick Mahomes and he's a very talented . . . 

PLAYER:  So, you're trying to say that we don't have a quarterback?!

COACH:  I, uh, don't believe I said that.  All I'm saying is that we all need to be aware that there are certain strengths to their team that need to be considered.  I know that we are the Houston Texans and we have a terrible record but . . .

PLAYER:  We have a terrible record because no one ever thought about letting us win.  

COACH:  Let you win?

PLAYER:  Man, we've had eight games and not one time did the other team offer to let us win.

COACH:  I mean, that's not really how it works . . . 

PLAYER:  The Ravens beat them.  I don't see why we don't get to beat them.

COACH:  Well, I would point out that the Ravens have a different set of players than we do and may have different strengths . . .

PLAYER:  So you are saying that we have no chance.

COACH:  I don't think that at any point I have said that we have no chance.  I'm just saying that when you are facing a team, whether they are good or bad, you have to prepare and be ready for what may happen . . . 

PLAYER:  You are NOT working for us.

COACH:  How am I not working for you?  All I've done is tell you who we are facing!

PLAYER:  Fine.  Go ahead.

COACH:  Okay. Thank you.  So, as I was saying, they have a very talented quarterback in Patrick Mahomes and he has two excellent targets in Travis Kelce and Tyreek Hill.  We're going to be running a lot more Dime formations on . . . 

PLAYER:  You sound like you are working for the Chiefs.

COACH:  I'm trying to talk to you about our defense!  How is that working for the Chiefs?!

PLAYER:  What is it, Coach?  Are you a Chief or are you a Texan?

COACH:  I'm a Texan!  Why is this even a question?

PLAYER:  Did you ask the Chiefs about letting us win?

COACH:  They aren't going to let us win.

PLAYER:  Did you ask them?

COACH:  I've been a coach for 22 years and never once has the other team just agreed to let us win.

PLAYER:  How many times did you ask?

COACH:  Um, well, I've never asked.

PLAYER:  Exactly.  You aren't even trying to work for us.

COACH:  I'm trying to work with you right now!  We need to talk about how to meet the challenge of facing off against the Chiefs.  The first thing we need to do is decide . . .

PLAYER:  I'm getting a free world coach.

COACH:  What does that even mean?

PLAYER:  My friend plays for the Titans.  They beat the Chiefs and people said they were going to lose.

COACH:  That's a great point, and I think that we can do the same!  We just need to . . .

PLAYER:  Get the Titans coach?

COACH:  Well, no, I was going to say rise to the occasions like the Titans did.  We can do this if you will just hear me out and we make a plan.

SILENCE

PLAYER:  Okay.  What's your plan?

COACH:  Thank you.  So, as I was saying Mahomes is really dangerous when he connects with Hill and . . .

PLAYER:  SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!  I'm calling Jerry Jones.

COACH:  Jerry Jones?  The Cowboys owner?  What does he have to do with this?

PLAYER:  We aren't going to play for you against the Chiefs.

COACH:  Well, our game date is set for Sunday, so you are going to have to.

PLAYER:  Nope.

COACH:  Then we will forfeit.

PLAYER:  No we won't.

COACH:  Then we're playing!

PLAYER:  Nope.

COACH:  We have to do one or the other.

PLAYER:  Nope.  I'm calling Jerry Jones.

COACH:  Jerry Jones is not going to help you.  He has nothing to do with either us or the Chiefs.

PLAYER:  I want to talk to the ref.

COACH:  You want to talk to the referee?

PLAYER:  Yeah.  

COACH:  Why do you want to talk to the referee?

PLAYER:  Because this is some bullshit.  You aren't even trying.

COACH:  The game hasn't even started yet!

PLAYER:  Yeah, but I want the ref to give me a new coach.

COACH:  The ref is not going to give you a new coach.

PLAYER:  Did you ask him?

COACH:  Well, no.

PLAYER:  Then how do you even know?

COACH:  The referee is just going to tell you that you are free to ask to be traded and find another team on your own, but he isn't just going to give you a new coach.

PLAYER:  We'll see.

Scapegoating the Judges

When I was growing up in Bryan (which was a far smaller town in the 1970s than it is now), I was brought up under the belief that judges were the closest thing to nobility that a small Texas town had to offer.  We only had one District Court Judge in Brazos County back then (compared to the whopping three, count 'em, THREE that Brazos has now), and he was a family friend.  When our families socialized, Judge McDonald was treated with a little more reverence by us kids because of the fact that he was a judge.

[On a personal side note, Judge W.T. "Tommy" McDonald passed away this past year.  He was a dear, sweet man who was always very kind to me growing up and he kept up with my legal career from law school on forward.  He meant a lot to our family and he is very missed.  He deserved all of the love and respect that he received.]

After 22 years of being a lawyer, I recognize that judges are a little more fallible than I was raised to believe.  As any practicing lawyer can tell you, some judges are amazing and worthy of having a courthouse named after them.  A good judge follows the law and the rules of evidence, regardless of how unpopular the results might be.  Intelligence, bravery, humility and selflessness are hallmarks of being a good judge -- even if the results get you unelected by a fickle electorate. 

Not all judges live up to that standard.  I don't know a lawyer alive that couldn't spend hours telling a story about a judge or two, or five, or ten, that he or she deemed to be crazy.  

Judges are fallible just like the rest of us.  They make right calls.  They make wrong calls.  Their very job description calls upon them to hear one case at a time and make rulings based on the law and evidence as it applies directly to that one case.  By definition of the adversarial system, when two sides appear before a judge, one is likely to walk away from the experience feeling more disappointed than the other.  Maybe that results in the judge being complained about, a ruling being appealed, or even a grievance being filed. 

But while judges are certainly not perfect and are often criticized,  I have never seen the level of animosity currently being leveled at the judiciary as a whole as I am seeing in Harris County right now.  If it weren't so incredibly misguided, it would be almost comical.  For the past year, everyone from the District Attorney to the media to the Legislature has decided that the current batch of Criminal Court judges are apparently the single biggest cause of violent crime in the City of Houston.  

These 22 District Court and 16 County Court Judges aren't public officials trying to navigate an unprecedented pandemic crisis.  They are obviously all crime bosses trying to cause chaos in the streets by steadfastly refusing to go to trial and just releasing bloodthirsty criminals into the street as an alternative, right?  At a minimum, they've all shut down their courts and have refused to come to work, leading all of these violent offenders to be released on PR bonds so they could go kill again, haven't they?  Haven't they stopped having trials because they are lazy or too scared to risk coronavirus?  At least, that part is true, isn't it?

That's what we keep hearing if you watch the local news.

But the reality is that the behavior of the Judges during the Pandemic is actually quite the opposite.  From the onset in the spring of 2020, the Judges had to step into the fray quickly and efficiently as they were called upon to balance public safety against the constitutional rights of people accused of crimes.  It was a task that they had some level of familiarity with, having navigated a courthouse shut down due to Hurricane Harvey, but Hurricane Harvey would ultimately prove to be only a light dress rehearsal for the full-fledged crisis that Covid-19 has proven to be.

While the majority of defense attorneys and prosecutors shifted to Zoom appearances as quickly as possible, the vast majority of the judges in Harris County were still going into their courtrooms in person.  They had the option of designating their home addresses as temporary "courthouses" so that they too could Zoom from home, too, but unlike prosecutors and defense attorneys, those home addresses would have become publicly available.   Not to mention, all of those defendants in custody were at the courthouse.

So, it's kind of funny to me when I see posts like this one on Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg's Facebook page:

But, what do you expect from somebody with a "Trump Won" avatar surrounded by a circle that says "I Stand for Medical Freedom" and "#StopTheMandate"?  I'm sure she probably wasn't really interested in the truth behind the job a bunch of Democratic judges have been doing.  Luckily, there are people down at the courthouse who know the truth of the matter and will stand up for the maligned judges, right?  Like perhaps, Dane Schiller, the spokesperson for fellow Democrat Kim Ogg, for instance.

Okay, never mind.

The sad thing is that the media is all over it, regardless of the truth of the matter.  Back in July, Judge Brian Warren held capital murder suspect Xavier Davis at No Bond on two out of his five cases pending in Judge Warren's court.  On the remaining cases, he set bail amounts that totaled well over half a million dollars -- no that it mattered, since the two No Bonds meant Mr. Davis wasn't going to be bonding at all.  That logic seemed to be lost on Channel 13's Jessica Willey who filed this article, arguing how offensive it was that Judge Warren had set a bond at all.

That's kind of like arguing that infinity plus half a million isn't a sufficiently high bond.  

The reality of the matter is that any "spike" in crime statistics coupled with a lack of cases being taken tp trial is the result of many factors -- the least of which, in fact, is the actions of the Harris County Judges.  If the media bothered to do a little investigation, instead of trying to push alarming headlines, one might inadvertently come to the conclusion that, for the most part, the judges are actually doing a pretty good damn job under the circumstances.

So, who or what is actually to blame?  Lots of things.  Let's look at (what should be) the obvious ones.

1.  Covid-19 -- It is absolutely astounding to me that critics of the judges act as if, for no particular reason, one day last spring, the judges all decided to stop trying cases and began letting people out on low bonds.  Attacks from critics seem to be ignoring the pandemic in the room.  If Covid-19 changed everything around the world, I don't know why anyone would think that the Harris County criminal justice system would be immune from having to change as well.  Judges, who have the power to order human beings (defendants, attorneys, witnesses, and jurors to name a few) into their courtroom, had to decide whether or not they should do so.  

On the misdemeanor side of things, this would seem to be a no brainer.  The most serious of all misdemeanor cases carries a maximum punishment of one year.  It's difficult to justify making a person come to court and risk a potentially fatal disease for a relatively minor case.  On the felony side, the judges recognized that although they dealt with serious cases, many of the settings they held were not important.   Cutting out personal appearances was something that wasn't common prior to the docket but they took the bold (and, in my opinion, smart) move of waiving appearances.

And as for jury trials?  If you don't feel much sympathy for a defendant who is called upon to show up for court (because, you know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" phrase is just a meaningless phrase to pay lip-service to when we're in grade school, right?) how about citizens called for jury duty?  That hits a little closer to home, doesn't it?  For all of those falsely claiming that judges haven't been holding court, how do you feel about coming down to NRG with a several hundred folks from all over the county who may or may not be vaccinated and/or infected?

2.  Jail Overcrowding --  For all of those screaming about judges releasing violent offenders on bond, I'd like you to offer your suggestion on where to put all of these individuals that you want off the street.  The Harris County Jail seems to have a capacity to house somewhere between 9,000 to 10,000 people (based on my amateur reading of the Harris County Sheriff's Office web page.  In this article written by Nicole Hensley, Sammantha Kettererer and other staff writers for the Houston Chronicle on July 9th, 2021, the authors noted that in 2020 alone, 89,600 people were charged with felony or misdemeanor cases.  I'm no mathematician, but if the judges were to keep them all in jail, we would need at least 8 more jails for starters.

Simple math dictates that not everyone charged with a crime will be staying in custody.  Considering the fact that keeping thousands of people incarcerated in close proximity is like pouring gasoline on a fire when it comes to the spread of Covid, one has to recognize that there was some level of urgency to reduce the population if possible.

The judges had to set bonds and in many cases give personal recognizance bonds to help alleviate the crowds.  With juries slowed down to a trickle (if not a complete stop), cases were coming in but they weren't moving out.  Something had to be done.

3.  The Bonding Industry --  Without getting too far out in the weeds here (hopefully), the settlement from the Federal lawsuit over misdemeanor bail bonds almost completely wiped out the need for a bail bonding company for people charged with misdemeanors.  If you were a bonding company, that's the erasure of probably at least half of your business.  Some adjustments are going to have to be made to the business model, and that means being more flexible on the felony bonds you hope to make.

It used to be the conventional wisdom that a bonding company required 10% of the overall bond from the defendant before posting.  Now, I'm hearing stories of bonding companies only requiring 5% or less.  They are also more flexible with payment plans and what they require down.  So, if you are reading a news article that talks about how some teenaged gang member made a six-figure bond, you should probably know that there's a bonding company bending over backwards to stay in business that probably helped facilitate that far more than a judge did.

Side Note:  In the case referenced in the above link, Judge Ana Martinez was criticized for setting a bond of $750,000 for Robert Soliz, who was charged with killing a police officer in a road rage incident (the officer was not on duty or in uniform based on my understanding). The criticism was completely unwarranted for several reasons.  First of all, Judge Martinez's predecessor, Randy Roll, set that bond prior to leaving the bench.  Second, $750,000 for a non-capital murder bond is incredibly high.  When I was a prosecutor, the standard bond for murder was $50,000 just to give you a frame of reference.

4.  The Prosecution --  One of the things that I've been genuinely surprised by during the pandemic has been Democratic District Attorney Kim Ogg's unabashed willingness to blame all of the problems in the Harris County Criminal Justice System on her fellow Democrats in the judiciary.  In addition to Dane Schiller's comments on Facebook (posted above), one of Ogg's representatives recently spoke at a local meeting of Democrats and literally uttered the words "Blame the judges!" when she was fielding questions about crimes being committed by offenders out on bond.  

I mean, Ogg has always been a solid pitcher when somebody needs to be thrown under a bus, but her war on the judiciary has been absolutely unabashed.  Given her prominence in the Democratic Party, I'm surprised by her utter lack of loyalty.  She doesn't even try to soft-sell the issue by pointing out the extraordinary conditions caused by Covid.

To make matters worse, Ogg is conveniently sidestepping her Office's own involvement in the problem.  For a great many months (maybe even a year, I'm not sure), the D.A.'s Office didn't send prosecutors to daily dockets.  I'm not faulting that.  She has a duty to look after her employees' safety, but the lack of prosecutors in court was most definitely a contributing factor to cases not being worked out (and thus contributing to the backlog).  

And a lot of the proseutors haven't been exactly stellar about being responsive to e-mails and discovery requests in the downtime, either.  Not all of them.  But a lot of them.  None who live in my neighborhood.  Just saying.   Let's move on.

Oh, and by the way, for those of you outraged that a judge would give a repeat offender yet another bond even on a violent offense, you may want to know that prosecutors have to file a motion in non-capital cases to hold a defendant at no bond.   If that motion gets filed, the defendant is entitled to a hearing on it.  The judge doesn't get to just hold someone at no bond without those steps being made.  

So the next time Kim Ogg or Dane Schiller (or some other surrogate of Ogg's campaign machine that she employs at the D.A.'s Office with taxpayer money) says "blame the judges" when a repeat offender gets a new bond, it might behoove the media to ask whether or not the D.A.'s Office filed a Motion to Deny Bond that the judge overruled.  It makes a difference and the truth matters.  At least it matters to people other than Kim Ogg.

5.  The Defense --  I would not be intellectually honest if I didn't acknowledge that the Defense Bar plays a role in some of the delay associated with the Criminal Justice System and the Pandemic. Of course, that's actually part of our job description and we wouldn't be effective lawyers if we weren't doing everything we legally could on behalf of our clients -- regardless of how unpopular it makes us with the general population.  

I'll fight tooth and nail to keep from picking a jury at NRG Stadium because I don't believe that it can be done effectively.  If that means my client stays out on bond while I continue to delay going to trial, I'm fine with that.  I love going to trial and I think anyone would be hard pressed to label me as a trial dodger in normal times, but I wouldn't be doing my job by agreeing to do something that I think keeps my client from receiving a fair trial.  I'll file every motion for continuance based on Covid that I can.  I'll file every written objection to NRG on every case. 

Some judges have granted my motions.  Others haven't.  All have considered them, which is what they are supposed to do, because they're judges.  If they agree that a fair trial can't happen during Covid, they are bound by duty not to proceed with one, no matter how much it pisses off the general public.

I'll do everything within my legal means to keep my clients out on bond.  If that makes you angry as a citizen, that's cool.  I understand.  It's part of my job.  But if you're charged with a crime, you're probably going to want to call me.

6.  The Police --  I was amused to see former Houston Police Department Chief Art Acevedo kissing up to Kim Ogg on Twitter the other day -- especially when a primary cause for delays in discovery (which subsequently delays the resolution of cases) is the police.  Although I'm told that the situataion has drastically improved in the past few weeks, under Acevedo's tenure, defense attorneys were told that we had to wait for six months before we could even ask for an officer's body-worn cameras from HPD.  Offense reports and evidence are slow in coming, and that contributes to the slowdown, as well.

Defense attorneys have a duty to review all the evidence and if it hasn't been turned over by the police, we can't do that.

There are more factors involved in the rise of crime during Covid and we could spend hours and hours discussing things like desperation and socio-economic status during times of crisis.  Crime rises during times like these, historically.  I've listed six factors other than the judiciary.

Here's the big difference between these factors and the judges:  the rest of us can defend ourselves when attacked by the media.  Judges are bound by judicial canons on what they can and can't say when responding to questions like, "Why did you set a bond on this case?"  They are literally forbidden from commenting on matters pending before them.  That makes them an easy target for the media, Republicans seeking to re-establish a foothold in Harris County, the police, anti-crime activists, and a shameless District Attorney.

As I said in the beginning, the judges are not infallible and none of them possess a crystal ball that will tell them whether or not a defendant will commit a violent offense while out on crime.  I've seen firsthand the reaction of several judges when they learned that someone out on bond committed a crime of violence -- and in some instances, killed someone -- while out on bond in that judge's court.   I've yet to see one of those judges take it lightly.  In the cases where a fatality was involved, they've been devastated.  Anyone who portrays them as throwing caution to the wind or not caring about the ramifications of their decisions simply hasn't been in the courtroom.

On this coming Monday, I'll hit my 22 year anniversary of practicing criminal law in Harris County, Texas.  The past year and a half under Covid conditions have been like nothing I've ever seen (and that includes two hurricanes and a tropical storm).   There have been many ideas and counter-ideas.  Some I've agreed with and some I haven't.  Throughout it all, the judges have done their best to manage all of the competing interests and keep the Constitution and the laws and procedures of the United States and Texas protected.  They've worked their asses off, only to be slammed at every turn.  

The reality is that the majority of the judges deserve to be commended, rather than condemned.

The Delta Walkback

 It's been a little over a month now since the CJC started to slowly move its way back to some level of normalcy in the wake of the Covid Crisis.  Lawyers are regularly appearing in court in person.  Defendants are showing up with increased frequency (although the vast majority of courts have mercifully reduced the requirement for in-person appearances).  Prosecutors are back in the courtroom and I'll even give Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg credit for sending senior prosecutors from specialized divisions into the trial courts to help work out the docket -- that is helping quite a bit, actually.  Cases set for trial come with an admonishment from the judge that the trial date is real, as opposed to the aspirational dates we've been getting for the past year or so.

Zoom started to fade out in many courts.  In some courts, it is still trickling out.  In others, it's already completely gone.  Apparently maintaining the hybrid of Zoom and in-person lawyer appearances is kind of a pain in the butt for coordinators.  This has resulted in a not-insignificant level of confusion amongst attorneys as they try to keep track of what courts are zooming, which ones allow it, and which ones forbid anything but zooming.  Last week, I walked into a misdemeanor court and was told to walk right on back out and zoom in.  The witness rooms were all taken so I went back to my car in the garage and zoomed in, only to be chastised by the judge for appearing late.   That wasn't frustrating at all.  

But unfortunately, the CJC's declaration of Victory Over Covid now appears to be premature as the Delta variant has emerged.  Obviously, the Delta Variant has NOT rendered the Covid vaccines useless by any stretch of the imagination.  However, as anyone who follows the actual news knows, Delta is infecting the vaccinated and using them as transmitters to continue the spread at a skyrocketing pace.  Fortunately, for those of us who have had the vaccine, the effects of the Delta variant are appearing to be significantly mitigated.  For those who are not vaccinated, however, Covid is just as deadly as it has ever been -- if not more so.

As per usual, Texas is slow to react.  Governor Greg Abbott seems to be in a thus-far-undeclared race for the Republican nomination for President in 2024 by trying to be a bigger lunatic than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis when it comes to refusing to allow mask mandates.  Since there is no mask mandate, the CJC apparently can't order people to put on masks prior to entering the building.  I was in court yesterday, and although there is definitely an increase in people wearing their masks, there was a solid 40% or so who were not.

Today, Bexar County announced that is was suspending jury trials (again) for the time being in response to the rapidly accelerating Delta variant.  It is my guess that other major counties will soon follow suit and/or the Texas Supreme Court will issue another emergency order, suspending jury trials across the State.

Just today, I've had two friends who are defense attorneys tell me that they have Covid (despite their vaccinations) and I've been told of a third friend who tested positive.  Yesterday, District Attorney Kim Ogg announced that she had tested positive despite being vaccinated, and there are rumors of several other people in the Office being positive as well.  The fire has most definitely jumped over the firewall, and the question now becomes how long it will take for the CJC to react accordingly.

I've had multiple two people reach out to me and ask me to blog something, imploring the judges to go back to Zoom dockets and go back ASAP.  So, here you have it.

The Delta variant is scary as hell in general, and deadly terrifying for the unvaccinated.  Sadly, we cannot rely on many dumb asses grown adults to get the vaccine or even wear masks, in some cases.  Continuing to require in-person appearances for anyone - prosecutor, defense attorney, defendant, or court staff, is subjecting people to exposure to a virus that we would inevitably take home and expose our children to.  For those of us with a child too young to be vaccinated, that's a very frightening likelihood.

I know how frustrating this is.  The past month back in the CJC has been fantastic, quite frankly.  I've loved being back.  I love working on cases with prosecutors in the same room.  It has truly been an example of not realizing how you enjoy something until it is taken away from you.  Don't get me wrong, I still stand by my completely awesome DISCO plan, but when all is said and done, I've actually been very happy to be back in that shitty old building for the past month or so.

I don't really want to go back to Zoom dockets, but I don't think there is any other choice under the circumstances.  Hopefully, with some of the new diversionary programs announced by Kim Ogg in June, cases will move with more ease now.  But as long as the Governor refuses to look out for our safety, our only hope at the CJC is that the judges will.

So, on behalf of myself and my multitude two of my blog readers, I hope the judges will consider returning to Zoom as soon as humanly possible.