Dudegoggles and the Guajuardo Hearing

As most CJC regulars know, there was an interesting hearing in the 263rd District Court on September 21st & 22nd regarding a Motion for Change of Venue in the State of Texas vs. Alex Guajardo.  Defense counsel Justin Keiter had filed the motion in response to pre-trial publicity given to the case by the Harris County District Attorney's Office's Communications Division and elected District Attorney Kim Ogg, herself.  The hearing was a highly watched event due to the fact that Keiter had subpoenaed Ogg to testify.

Although Ogg was definitely the anticipated main attraction of the hearing, the opening act was Dane Schiller, Ogg's Director of Communications.  In my opinion, Schiller's testimony would ultimately prove to be far more entertaining and enlightening than Ogg's.  Schiller unabashedly admitted to several jaw-dropping revelations that were reminiscent of Watergate-era "dirty tricks" that he and the Communications Division employed in an effort to make Kim Ogg more likable cast the Office in a positive light.

First, a little background on the evolution of the "Communications Division" of the Harris County District Attorney's Office . . .

Back in the olden days, there was no such division that I was aware of.  During my tenure there (1999-2008), reporters usually contacted the Office when they had a story they wanted to report on, and that was usually a direct reach out to the prosecutor or staff member involved.  If I tried a high publicity case, the reporters called and talked to me.  It was simple and straightforward.  There was no media "flak" involved.  If they wanted to ask about a policy, they called the District Attorney himself.

Towards the end of my time at the Office (bear with me, it may have been right after my departure), I believe that the Office designated an official spokesperson to help coordinate media inquiries.  If my memory serves, that person was Donna Hawkins, who was a prosecutor who was elevated to that role.  She was followed by former KHOU (and KBTX in Bryan!) reporter Jeff McShan.  I'm definitely fuzzy on the timeline here because I was no longer with the Office, but I'm confident in saying the "Communications Division" was just a tiny portion of the Office, housing only one (maybe two) employees.  I believe that would be the case through the end of the Devon Anderson term.

When Kim Ogg took Office on January 1, 2017, she revamped the idea of the Communication Division.  What had previously been handled by one or two employees has now swelled to far more as the Division filled with a combination of former-Ogg campaign workers, reporters, and aspiring politicians who had failed to get elected or re-elected.   The most recent Office organizational chart I have is from December of 2021, and it listed five employees in the Communications Division and an additional four in the "Community Engagement" Division.

 

The next time Kim Ogg shows up at Commissioners' Court claiming to be defunded and begging for more money for more prosecutors, I hope you will take note of the large number of employees she's paying with her current budget to get her re-elected "promote the Office."  And that's just a list of those actually in the division.  It doesn't account for folks like Mark Goldberg, former HPD chief Clarence Bradford and some others who seem to have some fairly fuzzy lines when trying to outline their job descriptions.

Curiously, the last job that "Community Engagement Supervisor" Anna Carpenter had before being hired by the District Attorney's Office was Campaign Manager for Kim Ogg. Here's a screenshot from her LinkedIn page.

That's a really great gig to get between political seasons!  Glad we taxpayers could help out.

But I digress.  Back to the hearing . . . 

As I was saying, my dear friend Dane Schiller (whom prior to the hearing, I had never actually met in person) was the first witness called to the stand by Keiter.  If you recall, I had written this post back in January about Dane and the fact that I believed him to be exceeding the parameters of his job description by trying to poison legitimate criticisms of the D.A.'s Office with often anonymous personal attacks.  

Keiter did a great job of asking Dane a line of questions to illustrate how the District Attorney's Office under Kim Ogg (and Schiller's Communications Division) go overboard in attempting to "inform the public" with their message.  Dane was clearly comfortable on the stand, grinning from ear to ear as he answered Keiter's questions.  He acknowledged that his job as the Director of Communications his duty was to inform the public about how the District Attorney's Office worked and what was going on at the Courthouse.  He disagreed that multiple press conferences and other media leaks about individual cases were poisoning the well of potential jurors that could ultimately be sitting on those cases.

Keiter then shifted to Dane's methodology for doing his leaks and asked if Schiller had ever utilized another person's identity online to spread his message.  Dane appeared confused and denied having ever done so, qualifying the answer that he had never stolen someone else's identity.  Keiter didn't follow up by asking him if he had created a false individual altogether, like say . . . .Jake Mattius, and the questioning continued.  A few questions later, Schiller apparently thought better of his earlier answer and noted that he does sometimes post online with a "handle" that isn't his real name.

And when Keiter asked, Dane admitted that his online handle was "Dudegoggles."

And that was when things got fun.

The Houston Chronicle's website makes it really easy to click on a person's online handle and have every single comment they've ever written on the Chronicle website show up in chronological order.  As soon as Dane confirmed his online handle under oath, that's exactly what reporters began doing.  None of this was a surprise to me, as noted above, I had accused Dane of being "Dudegoggles" way back in January.  But reporters, like Keri Blakinger and Nicole Hensley were soon publishing on Twitter and other locations some of Dudegoggles' greatest hits, including one where he called judges "clowns" and clearly blamed them for the "crime wave" that Kim Ogg and Crimestoppers have been trying to sell to the general public.

Keiter had the opportunity to ask him about all of these posts.  He also asked him if other members of the Communications Division had online handles where they attacked enemies of the office as well.  He specifically asked if Anna Carpenter was known for posting on Twitter under the handle of "ShePersisted."  Schiller indicated that he didn't know, but that's okay.  I know.  I know because when not being blasted by "Dudegoggles," I've been blasted by "ShePersisted."  ShePersisted and I have some mutual friends on Twitter, so it didn't take long to figure out who she was.  

So rude, Anna. So rude.

The childish antics of Dane Schiller and Anna Carpenter would be no different than those of thousands of other online trolls who bash each other with insults and dishonest statistics online each day, except for the fact that they are doing this as part of their taxpayer-funded jobs.  At some point one has to wonder what exactly smearing critics, bashing judges, and trying cases in the media has to do with the job of being a prosecutor.  The answer, quite simply, is absolutely nothing.  And while we are on the topic of things that aren't in a prosecutor's job description, neither are mandatory appearances to register voters in the name of the elected District Attorney.

Anyone who has half a brain realizes that neither the Communications Division nor the Community Outreach Division have a damn thing to do with criminal prosecution.  They are simply a taxfunded re-election committee that operates year-round for candidate Kim Ogg.  It gives a job to cronies who, in return, do everything they can to keep their boss employed.

So, what does Kim Ogg have to say about this?  As I mentioned above, she was supposed to be the main attraction in the Guajardo hearing, but she was far more polished than Schiller in her responses.  She spent all of about fifteen seconds pretending to be cordial towards Keiter before losing her patience with him. (NOTE:  I get it, Kim.  I was Keiter's chief once.  Trust me, I get it.).  But although she failed to keep her cool, often responding with smart-ass quips to Keiter's questions or pretending not to understand them, she didn't unabashedly admit to pulling childish tricks like Schiller.  Interestingly, she claimed to not know that Schiller was posting anything as "Dudegoggles" on the Chronicle website -- something that no one in the courtroom believed at all.

What Keiter did with Ogg's testimony was far more interesting, however, as he sought to get the elected District Attorney to acknowledge that she had a relationship with Houston Crimestoppers that she utilized to create a campaign against sitting criminal court judges.  Ogg refused to make such an acknowledgment and characterized her press conferences and involvement with Crimestoppers as nothing more than good old-fashioned crime fighting.

Keiter pointed out misleading information that Ogg had signed off on in an amicus brief opposing bail reform, where she had made untrue representations in a Federal case.  Keiter pointed out speaking engagements Ogg had tried to get for Crimestoppers to get her message of dangerous judges out.  Keiter showed Ogg at a press conference about his client.  He did a good job of illustrating that in Ogg's version of criminal justice, it is more about hype than results in a courtroom.  He also pointed out that her Office's success in the courtroom didn't exactly live up to the hype Ogg was promoting outside of it.  

Whether or not Keiter's Motion to Recuse will be granted won't be answered immediately.  Judge Martin said she would rule on it in November.  Win, lose or draw, I think Keiter did a good job of accomplishing what he sought to prove.  Kim Ogg's Communication and Community Outreach Divisions were shown to be spin machines that distanced Ogg from her own office's failures.   Losses in trial, missed deadlines to get people indicted, and motions to hold defendants at no bond were glossed over by a PR machine designed to shift the blame to someone else while scaring the public about how dangerous Houston had become.

And if in the process of doing all of that public blameshifting, a Defendant's rights to a neutral jury got compromised, so be it.

One of the best moments in the hearing was when Keiter read Kim Ogg's acceptance speech from 2016 back to her.  He noted that she promised the defense bar fairness and "evidence-based prosecutions" in her administration.  He asked her if she still agreed with that promise.  She said that she did.

No one in the courtroom believed her.

When you have true evidence-based prosecutions, you don't need hype.  

You don't need spin.

And you damn sure don't need Dudegoggles.

Kim Ogg blames the Judges . . . yet again

It's just so damn hard being a prosecutor these days.  

At least, it is in Harris County.

It was so much easier back when I was there.  Our judges were almost ALL former prosecutors.  The rulings all went our way.  We had people who trained us on how to try cases.  We went to trial a lot.  We won a lot.  It was crazy!  When I asked my old division chief researched what the win/loss ratio was during our tenure at the Office back in the day, she told me I learned that it was somewhere in the low to mid-90% win rate.

These days, those stats are a bit different.  My friend, Jeff Ross, at his Show Me the Justice blog keeps a running tab of the win/loss column.  Here are the current stats for 2022 as of this writing:

That translates into a little better than 67% win rate for the State.  If this was a report card, it would be a failing grade.

A quick glance at the wins and losses for last week over at Show Me the Justice profile five guilty verdicts for the State and seven not guilty verdicts for the Defense Bar.  Yikes!  That's a 41% win rate.  On Friday, the Defense Bar had three not guilties and one mid-trial dismissal.  I don't know what the final stats for the week are yet, but that was definitely a bad day for Kim Ogg's office.

There are a variety of reasons why a case tanks in a trial, but they tend to fall under two main branches in my experience:

1.  The case could have been tried better; or

2.  The case shouldn't have been tried in the first place.

Of the two choices, the latter is the usual culprit. 

In an ideal world (that does not exist), prosecutors should only be going to trial on cases that they know good and well they will have no problem proving to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  In that ideal world, a not guilty means the prosecutors got it wrong when they accused the Defendant to a jury.  All of those opportunities to have not filed charges, gotten the case no billed at Grand Jury, or to have just dismissed the damn case were not taken and the jury just did what the prosecutors should have done in the first place, right?

Of course, the ideal world isn't a fair comparison and any prosecutor who has never lost a case hasn't been doing the job long enough.  It happens.  If it hasn't happened yet, it will.  As one of my colleagues at the Office once remarked after a tough loss, "you aren't a real prosecutor until you've lost a murder case."  Statistics don't always tell a complete story.  A prosecutor who has lost a case or two isn't a bad prosecutor.

But when we start looking at some pretty overwhelming numbers like 67% or 41%, we are getting the message that the Great State of Texas (as represented in Harris County) is getting it wrong somewhere between one third to one half of the time, there may be a little bit of a cause for concern.

Could some of those cases have been tried better?  Possibly.  Given the fact that the District Attorney's Office under Kim Ogg started off by firing roughly 40 experienced prosecutors (and subsequently running off countless others over the past five years), there isn't exactly an abundance of teaching going on in the building.  Any good trial lawyer will tell you that we steal shamelessly from other lawyers when it comes to what we do in trial.  When I was there, I had the opportunity to learn from prosecutors who had been there for over thirty years.  These days, rookie prosecutors are being "trained" by lawyers that started at the Office last year.  

But the far bigger problem is that bad cases are going to trial when they should have been dismissed, no billed, or never filed in the first place.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the Defendant is factually innocent, but it does mean that the evidence wasn't there beyond a reasonable doubt when the jury was sworn in.  From an ethical standpoint, if that's the case, the prosecutor is duty bound to dismiss.   

Unfortunately, dismissing a case leads to having explain why the case got dismissed to a supervisor -- maybe even someone in Kim Ogg's command staff.  Maybe even to Kimbra, herself -- and that is a scary proposition.  When your boss has the power to fire you and your boss is mentally unstable when displeased, maybe it would be better to just take that case to trial.  

Who cares if you get your ass kicked in trial?  At least you still have your job.

Why were the stats better when I was a prosecutor?  It was because we knew that we could dismiss a shitty case that we couldn't prove and not have to worry that we would get in trouble or fired over it.  It was ALMOST like our supervisors (and the elected District Attorneys themselves) trusted us to do the job that they hired us to do.

So, what's the Ogg Administration's answer to why trials aren't going so hot for them?  Follow these simple steps:

Step 1 -- run a press release every time you secure a conviction (whether by trial or by plea bargain).

Step 2 -- hope nobody notices the losses

Step 3 -- blame the judges

As I've pointed out time and again, Kim Ogg's District Attorney's Office has been absolutely shameless in scapegoating the judges for all of its own problems.  From blaming the judges for setting bonds on cases where the State failed to ask for a hearing to hold them at no bond to just deciding that dammit, those big mean judges just aren't of the right attitude to give them a fair trial, Ogg and Company have passed the buck more times than Tom Brady has passed a football. 

In June, prosecutors failed to present the aggravated robbery cases of Antjuan Dixon to a Grand Jury within 90 days, as required under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  As a result, Dixon was entitled to a bond that he could make from Judge Danny Lacayo under the law.  Judge Lacayo had no discretion under this.  None.  Zero.  Ogg's office dropped the ball and Judge Lacayo had to follow the law.  This did not slow down Ogg's surrogate and old friend from CrimeStoppers, Andy Kahan, from going on air with Fox 26's Randy Wallace, to blame Lacayo.  Kim Ogg makes Bart Simpson looks like Harry S Truman when it comes to dodging responsibility.  (SIDE NOTE:  Randy Wallace should really consult with a legal expert before going on air with some of his stories.   He's really running the risk of making Fox News seem biased and untrustworthy.)

The Ogg Administration is at it again, according to today's Houston Chronicle.   The Office is trying to recuse 339th Judge Te'iva Bell from a case because she previously granted a mistrial based on Harris County District Clerk Marilyn Burgess' ridiculously unnecessary presentation to the jury panel.  Judge Bell was forced to make a ruling on a motion for mistrial made in a murder case because Burgess had let the panel know how important their job was to victims.   Although some prosecutorial-minded friends may disagree with me, I think she made the right call.  One has to wonder how the State would feel if the panel had heard from a group of speakers like Anthony Graves,Michael Morton or others who had been wrongfully charged and/or convicted before they came over to sit on a murder case.

The idea of trying to recuse a judge because you disagreed with a ruling is nothing short of absurd.  No trial lawyer has ever participated in a trial where they agreed with every ruling the judge made.  The answer to that problem is an objection and an appeal if the objection is overruled.  It is NOT getting rid of the judge, and Kim Ogg knows that.

This is all part of a disturbing trend within Ogg's office of trying to ax the judge when they don't like the rulings or attitude that they are getting.  They've done it to Judge Luong.  They are now doing it to Judge Bell.  They've gone so far as to run a slate of candidates against judges they don't like, and in the case of Judge Franklin Bynum, they've exerted a tremendous amount of effort into having him completely removed from the Bench entirely.

The message coming from Kim Ogg's District Attorney's Office is clear.  When the score of the game looks bad for your team, don't blame the coaches or players when you obviously need new referees.

SIDE NOTE:  I'm not exactly sure why Kim Ogg is still considered to be a Democrat.  At this point, she has proven herself more than willing to systematically attack every other local member of the Party to ingratiate herself with Republican voters.  She's been far more effective at damaging the Dems' chances in November than anyone from the official Republican Party has.  Hell, she's even brought in Rachel Palmer Hooper as a special prosecutor at $450 an hour even though Rachel is literally the General Counsel for the Texas GOP.  But that's a topic for another day . . . 

And, of course, if all else fails and steps 1 through 3 don't work, move on to Step 4 . . .

Step 4 -- point out that anyone who isn't satisfied by steps 1 through 3 is just biased.

In Kim Ogg's D.A.'s Office, nothing is her fault.  It's just the rest of the world . . . 

Judge Renee Magee

 As most of you know, Judge Renee Magee passed away last week.  It is my understanding that she had been sick for some time, but wished to keep that private.

Although I don't post here as much as I used to, Renee played a significant role in my life and career and I am very sad to hear of her passing.  She was a lovely and kind person and I would not be in Harris County if it weren't for her.

As I've mentioned here several times, my first introduction to working at the Harris County District Attorney's Office was in the Summer of 1998 when I had an academic internship in the 209th District Court.  Elsa Alcala was the chief and Renee was the Two in the court.   I did a lot of work for Renee that summer as she got ready on trial cases.  She was a very devoted and hardworking prosecutor and I learned a lot from her.  She was also incredibly kind and great to work for.

She and Elsa both wrote letters of recommendation for me when I applied to be a pre-commit with the office, and when that didn't happen, Renee was very encouraging to me to apply again once I received my bar results.  She was Deputy Dawg of Misdemeanor when the bar results called and (back in the day of dial-up internet) she looked to see that I had passed.  She called me soon after, encouraging me to apply.  Two weeks later, I was working in Harris County.

During my time at the Office, we were never assigned to the same court, but we chatted whenever we saw each other.  She was also sweet.  Always happy.  Always encouraging and supportive.  Always a friend.

We lost touch for a while when Lykos was elected and I left the Office, but she appointed me fairly frequently once she became the judge of the 337th District Court.  During her tenure, I would try three cases in front of her, and we butted heads during the course of those trials.  I thought she still had too much prosecutor in her, and I think she thought I had way too much defense attorney in me.

When she left the bench, we lost contact except through Facebook.  I had understood that she was spending most of her time in Galveston with her family.  I had heard that she had a health incident a few years ago, but I was under the impression that she had recovered from it.  

Despite our differences in trial, Renee Magee remained a sweet, wonderful person.  She had a strong morale compass and although we differed, I respected her.  I'm very sad to hear of her passing.  

Uvalde

Ten years ago, the day of the Sandy Hook shooting happened to coincide with the day of my oldest son's Christmas pageant at his elementary school.  He was in kindergarten.

As I recall, the early reports that came in that afternoon had reported a shooting at a school with two dead -- maybe one of them was the shooter.  Sadly, a shooting at a school was not an unusual report -- at least, not initially.  Shortly before my wife and I left our house to go to the pageant, there was an update.  Twenty-six people were killed -- the majority of them young children.

The pageant was filled with elementary school kids, filled with excitement to be doing a play but in all honesty, probably more excited about the impending break.  It was impossible not to compare their ages to the ages of the children of Sandy Hook.  The parents in the auditorium had forced smiles as their kids ran around, oblivious to the tragedies of the world.  

Before the program began, the principal spoke and asked for a moment of silence for the day's event -- her words carefully worded so as not to clue any of the children in on the unspeakable tragedy that had happened earlier.  Many of the kids chattered on through the moment of silence, unaware of what it was for or what it represented.  I assume that all parents were thinking the same type of thoughts that I was. 

What if that happened at my kid's school? 

A horrible thought that one immediately pushes out of his head -- only to have it return a few seconds later.  I don't know how parents who have lost children survive.  The mere thought of it wrecks me.

Tonight was my youngest son's closing ceremony for his Little League baseball season.  He made the All-Star Team!  He was so excited.  We were so excited.

And again, we filed into an auditorium filled with kids, oblivious to the day's events.  Again, a speaker held a moment of silence using words ambiguous enough to keep reality away from the hyper children in the room.  Again, the parents looked at each other with forced smiles.  Again, I assumed the parents in the room thought the same type of thoughts I was having.

Every day, I drive my kids to school.  My oldest still hasn't gotten his driver's license, which I'm secretly happy about.  I'm still trying to soak up even the smallest moments where he still needs me.  But every morning, when I drop them off at their respective schools, I tell them I love them.  

And I keep trying to push out those horrible thoughts.

What if that happened at my kid's school?  

It's at the back of my mind every time they get out of my car and go into the care of somebody else who isn't me.

Every. Damn. Time.

This is the world we live in and it is a very dark place.  Especially on days like today.  And that day in December ten years ago.  And the multitude of days in between.  And the days before Sandy Hook.  And without a doubt, the days that are bound to come.

Is gun control the answer?  I'm not here to debate that.  It certainly wouldn't hurt, but I doubt it would be a cure-all by any stretch of the imagination.  I will say that the politicians who speed to the podium to instantly absolve guns from any level of culpability make me want to vomit.

Offering thoughts and prayers has become so overused that it has become insulting.  

The reality is there are no answers in the face of tragedy.  Today, the pain is fresh.  Tomorrow, the pain may be just a slight bit less than the day before.  At some point, maybe it will settle into just a tolerable level of numbness.

I have no solutions.  I just have thoughts and prayers.  My thoughts are of those who lost their lives and their families and loved ones.

My prayers are that it never happens to my children.

I've said the same prayer every day since they were born.

It's all I know to do anymore.

Fun in Misdemeanor Court

E-Mail # 1 dated May 5th -- Me to Prosecutors, CLO and Court Coordinator:  Hello.  My client is on the docket for a (6 month) PTI completion on May 16th.  I believe she is in full compliance.  Would it be possible to dismiss her case prior to that date so that she does not have to miss work?  Thanks.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

E-Mail # 2 dated May 12th --  Me to Prosecutors, CLO, and Court Coordinator:  Hello.  Just following up here.  My client is on the docket for a (6 month) PTI completion on May 16th.  I believe she is in full compliance.  Would it be possible to dismiss her case prior to that date so that she does not have to miss work?  Thanks.

E-Mail Response from Chief on May 12th --  Reply to all -- Hello.  Not sure if you e-mailed certificates of completion (of required courses) to another chief, but I do not have them.  Could you forward them to me and I will dismiss?

E-Mail # 3 on May 12th --  Reply to all -- My client said she gave them to her supervision officer, but if you don't have them, I will get them and send them to you.

E-Mail Response from Probation Supervisor on May 12th -- Reply to all --  I received the certificates of completion and I will send them to the chief.

E-Mail # 4 on May 13th --  Reply to all -- Thank you.  Will my client need to appear in person on Monday or will the case be dismissed off docket?

E-Mail Response from Probation Supervisor on May 13th --  Reply to all -- I don't know if your client has to be there or not.  Chief, can you please advise?

CRICKETS CHIRPING

THIS MORNING IN COURT

ME:  Good morning, did you dismiss my client's case?

CHIEF (pulling up my client's case on computer):  Did you send me the paperwork?

ME:  No, the probation supervisor . . .

CHIEF:  You need to calm down!

ME:  Um, I am calm.

CHIEF:  You never sent me the contract.

ME:  Wait.  What?  The PTI contract?

CHIEF:  Calm down.

ME:  I am calm, but why would I have sent you the PTI contract?

CHIEF:  It is not in my e-mails.

ME:  Well, you weren't chief when we signed up six months ago, so it wouldn't be in your e-mails.

CHIEF:  I meant the certificates of completion of the courses.  Did you send those?

ME:  No, the . . .

CHIEF: If you didn't send them to me, how will I know if she did the courses.

ME:  Well, the super--

CHIEF:  You need to send me the certificates and I am not seeing any e-mail from you.

ME:  It wouldn't be from me, the supervisor . . .

CHIEF:  No e-mail from you.

ME:  Can I talk?

PAUSE

ME:  The e-mail would be from the probation supervisor.  He sent you an e-mail saying that he had them.  

CHIEF LOOKS AT E-MAIL:  Well, the standard procedure for a PTI is that you send me the certificate of completion.

ME:  That has never been my experience in the past.

CHIEF:  That's standard procedure.

MISDEMEANOR TWO:  Yeah, that's how we always do it.

CHIEF:  I'll dismiss it this time, but in the future you need to send the certificates to me.

ME:  Whatever.

MISDEMEANOR TWO:  And if you are done talking, I need my chair back.

Gil Schultz

Retired Houston Homicide Sergeant and Brazos County District Attorney Investigator Gil Schultz passed away this morning.  He had been in ill health for some time, and I had been dreading this day for a solid three years now, it seems.  It is strange how no matter how expected bad news may be, there is no adequate defense you can build against being heartbroken when it finally comes.

It is without any level of hyperbole that I can say that Gil Schultz changed my life to such a degree that I honestly would not be where I am today had it not been for him.  The influence he had on my life was leaps and bounds more profound than any other human being on earth outside of my biological family.  From my career path to where I live to very basic parts of my personality, the effect that he had on my life can not be overstated.  He was like a second father to me, and he, his wife Gay, and his sons Ron and Rick all treated me like family from the beginning.

I first met Gil in April of 1994.  I was a junior at A&M, engaged to my high school girlfriend, and working for my dad at Newman Printing Company in Bryan.  I wanted to be the District Attorney of Brazos County when I grew up and planned on going to law school in the vague and ambiguous way that kids have goals in life that they have yet to make an actual plan for achieving.  

Bill Turner, the elected District Attorney for Brazos County, came by the office to pick up some printing and my dad introduced me to him.  When Bill found out that I was at A&M and had an interest in law enforcement, he suggested that I do an academic internship with his office, working under the supervision of his investigator, Gil Schultz.  (Funny side note:  I thought Bill had said "Gail Schultz" and was surprised to find out Gil was a man when I met him.).  Bill might as well have offered me backstage passes to a Stones concert, I was so excited.

I dusted off a suit that I had worn my junior year of high school for a mock trial (it barely fit) and reported for work the next morning.  I was let into the D.A.'s Office and told where to find Gil.  When I arrived, he was sitting at his desk, reading the newspaper.

Gil in his natural habitat.

He didn't appear to notice when I walked in the door, so I knocked on the door frame.  After several additional seconds, he folded down his newspaper, looked me up and down from head to toe, and then snorted out a laugh.

He then went back to reading his newspaper.

Not knowing what to do, I just stood there like an idiot in the doorway.  Eventually, he said, "You know, you can sit down."  So I did.  He kept reading his newspaper.  I sat there, uncomfortably. 

His first words of actual conversation came to me when he said:  "This Tonya Harding lady seems like a real b*tch."  (I know I'm dating myself, but the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan Story was HUGE news at the time.)

Eventually, he put down the newspaper and he started talking to me about the job as an academic intern and what all it entailed.  It was supposed to be a semester-long program that I was going to do over the summer where I could get some college credits.  At the end of the summer, though, I didn't want to leave.  So I stayed and stayed.  Right up until the week when I moved to Houston to start law school.  I was there for over two years and they were some of the best days of my life, thanks to Gil.

Our primary job in those days was serving subpoenas.  We spent hours in the car together, hunting down witnesses for trials.  When it became apparent that I was going to be sticking around after my initial academic internship was over, Gil started treating me more or less like a junior investigator.  Because of his experience with HPD Homicide, local agencies would usually call him out to homicide scenes and autopsies (that were conducted in Bexar County back then).  When they called him, he would call me to come join him.  We spent countless hours together and I had the opportunity to learn so incredibly much about the insane amount of work that goes into even the simplest of murder cases.  I got to work alongside detectives in Brazos County who would become heroes to me -- Sgt. John Crenshaw, Harlan Pope, Chris Kirk, Kenny Elliott and Randy Glidewell, just to name a few.

Working alongside Gil felt like playing Robin to his Batman, and to be accepted as, I guess, "tolerable" by those guys was all I needed to know that I was on the career path that I wanted to be.  One day, Gil made an off-the-cuff remark where he referred to me as his "partner," and that's when I really felt like I had landed somewhere that I belonged.  

Gil told me about his life and times in the Houston Police Department, where he had spent 26 years, starting in 1960.  He'd spent ten years in patrol, where he had done everything from guarding the parade route for John F. Kennedy on November 21, 1963, to standing guard at the stage when the Beatles played at the Sam Houston Coliseum.  Years later, I found an old Houston Chronicle photograph where an annoyed Officer G.C. Schultz stood with his arms crossed and his back to the stage as John, Paul, George, and Ringo played in the background.  His favorite celebrity moment was guarding the Monkees, however.  He really loved those guys -- something I always thought was funny.

He told me of his days in Houston Homicide, working with the best detectives in business and trying cases with Legends of the Game like Johnny Holmes, Rusty Hardin, Lyn McClellan, and others who were prosecuting.  He was particularly close with Rusty, who by 1994 was a legend of the defense world.  He took great pride in telling me that he knew Rusty when he was a prosecutor.  He talked about him all the time.  I love Rusty Hardin for many reasons, but the main one is that he was so very kind to Gil and stayed in touch with him all the way to the end.  Rusty and Lyn had been the prosecutors on the Campbell murder case, which was later the subject of two books:  Daddy's Girl and Cold Kill.

As much as Gil taught me about investigations and the criminal justice system, he taught me far more about life.  In my early days, I tried to bond with him by discussing my impressive amount of knowledge of television procedural cop dramas like NYPD Blue.  He waved off that topic quickly, saying, "I don't watch shows like that.  I get enough sadness at work.  I like musicals."  And man, did he like musicals.  He was known to belt out show tunes in the office at random moments and the radio in our Crowne Vic never saw heard a song written past 1950 if he was driving.  He kept Disney collectibles and other souvenirs that had absolutely nothing to do with homicide and law enforcement.  His constant refrain was, "Do what makes you happy and if something stops making you happy, stop doing it."

Almost every interaction I watched him make, he led with a joke -- whether it be with a judge, a defense attorney, a witness or a suspect.  He operated under the philosophy that a joke was an icebreaker that was appropriate in any situation -- the cornier, the better.  I can't tell you how many times we went to a restaurant where he followed the waiter or waitress's greeting with, "I am Gil and this is Murray and we will be your customers today."  That's who he was.   As a police officer, he obviously had a gun, but I don't think I ever saw him carry it on more than a handful of occasions.  His happy demeanor got him so much further in life than a weapon ever would.

And the practical jokes.  Oh man.  If you learn nothing else from this post, learn to never engage with a Houston Police Officer in a practical joke war -- the more bathroom-oriented, the better.   I once tried to one-up Gil in a practical joke war and ended up riding in the passenger seat with the window locked in the down position during a monsoon.  The stories he told of the practical joke wars from his HPD Homicide days were nothing short of legendary.  Most of them not repeatable!

He became like a second father to me and we were inseparable.  I was never all that involved in college life at A&M because I had found the place where I wanted to be, working at the D.A.'s Office.  At one point, another academic intern made the comment, "You have to be the only senior at A&M whose best friend is retired."  I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Ed Ziegler, Gil and me at my A&M graduation

The strongest advice that Gil ever gave me would ultimately change my life plans completely.  He knew I wanted to be the Brazos County D.A. someday, but he was steadfast that, "first you have got to be a Harris County D.A."  That didn't mesh well with my plans to marry my high school sweetheart and settle down in B/CS, but he was adamant.  He loved Houston.  The restaurants.  The sports.  Memorial Park. He loved everything about Houston and the people in the criminal justice system.  The cops were the best.  The judges were the best.  The defense attorneys were the best.  But most importantly, the prosecutors were the best.  

"You can always come back to Bryan," he said.  "But first, you have to be a Harris County prosecutor."

So I did, and everything he said was 100% accurate.  I love this city like he did.  I love the criminal justice system like he did.  I loved being a prosecutor and I loved how proud he was of me for being one.  

My favorite moment of my prosecutorial career would bring things full circle with Gil's career.  Of all the people he spoke of from his days in Houston, he spoke of his old Homicide partner, Sgt. Paul Motard, the most.  He wanted to introduce me to him, and after all of the stories I had heard about Motard, I wanted to meet him, too.  But running into Motard during all of the trips that Gil and I made to Houston just never seemed to happen.  Every time we came to town, Motard was either busy at a scene, testifying, or on vacation.  I started to think he was a figment of Gil's imagination.

I joined the Harris County D.A.'s Office in 1999. In 2003 or 2004, I was assigned to the 185th District Court.  As I was familiarizing myself with the files, I realized that the first three murder cases that I had set for trial were with Motard and his partner C.P. "Abbey" Abbondandolo (which I still can't spell without double-checking 20 years later).  I felt as excited as a kid who just got his driver's license.  Gil was excited too, and those guys were freaking amazing to work with.  I was honored to get to work with them and I'm even more honored to call them my friends.  When Motard retired, Gil came to town for the celebration, and we took this picture together.  Words can't begin to describe how much I love this picture from that day.

When I was a prosecutor, I didn't travel to Bryan that often, but when I did, I would go see him, and we talked on the phone quite a bit.  He would come to visit Houston on occasion, and he was always intently interested in what was going on in my life.  Even years after I had left Brazos County, I still called and involved him in all of the milestones of my life.  He knew my family.  He knew all my wives.  He knew my kids.  He was my family.

And, God bless him, the man never changed.

A couple of years ago, I got a phone call from him one December.  I answered it and he immediately asked me if I was okay.

"Yeah," I said, surprised by his question.  "Why wouldn't I be?"

"I just got this Christmas card and some fat guy is standing in there with your family.  I was wondering what they did with you."

I could fill a book with stories about Gilbert and the lessons I learned from him.  From learning how NOT to become your job.  To loyalty to friends and co-workers.  To humility.  Every once in a while, I'll reflect on what an awkward and shy kid I was when I walked into his office in April of 1994.  I doubt anyone who knows me now would recognize who I was back then.  I'm not sure that I do.  

I'm still a few years away from being the age that Gil was when I first met him.  I've definitely had some adventures down the path he persistently urged me to take.  It is no exaggeration to say I wouldn't be where I am or who I am without him.  I wouldn't trade that for the world.

I've had many amazing friends and co-workers in my lifetime and I count my blessings for that.  

But there was only one Gil Schultz.

When his health began to fail him a few years ago, I told him countless times how much I loved him and what an unequaled and wonderful influence he was on my life.  I don't think I ever was able to express it adequately enough.  I'm glad he isn't suffering anymore.  

I will miss him with all of my heart.

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.