Real Life Experience, Applied

I’ve written here many times about my opinion that the best judges
are people whose life experience is broader and deeper than
the ordinary high school-to-law school-to-DA’s office-to-bench career track.

I’ve also mentioned my friend Kevin Fine before: he’s the guy I called when one of my friends was in Deep East Texas trouble; Kevin didn’t even hesitate to get into a car with me and ride to the rescue of this person whom he didn’t know.

What I didn’t mention is that Kevin is a guy who is highly schooled in “the hopelessness and futility of addiction”, as he says, not because he’s met people with drug problems but because he is a recovering cocaine addict (Chronicle article).

There’s little as dishonest as an addict . . . unless he’s in recovery, in which case there’s little more brutally honest. How many other Harris County judges would admit (to Brian Rogers) acts constituting felonies?

Kevin has had his ass kicked by the world, which to my mind is better preparation for dispensing justice than kicking other people’s asses as a prosecutor would be. I expect that he’ll be one of the great judges in the Harris County criminal courthouse.

Texas: Still a Contender

A couple of months ago, when the Mississippi Supreme Court’s clerk refused to file a dissenting opinion in a nursing home wrongful death action, I thought, “thank you, Mississippi, for providing Texas with some solid competition in the ‘worst courts anywhere’ contest.”

This week Texas is coming back strong. We have reports (WSJ Law Blog [H/T SHG], Burnt Orange Report) that the clerk of Texas’s Third Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court in Austin) has refused, on orders of Republican Chief Justice Ken Law (Austin American-Statesman), to accept for filing Democratic Justice Jan Patterson’s dissent in the criminal money-laundering case of two of Tom DeLay’s associates. Patterson has asked the (all-Republican) Texas Supreme Court, which is Texas’s court of last resort for civil cases, to intervene; I wish her good luck with that.

Dissenting opinions are important because they are one half of the only public record of the decision-making in appellate courts. Publishing dissenting opinions is important because it reveals that dialogue to lawyers and judges in future cases. Suppressing dissenting opinions conceals the court’s deliberations needlessly from the public, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the judicial process and creating an appearance of impropriety.

More Special Prosecutors

I still have no authoritative info on the object of Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey’s appointment as special prosecutor. Along with Healey, his first assistant (Fred Felcman?) was appointed by Judge Belinda Hill of the 230th District Court of Harris County. Judge Hill maintains that the order appointing the duo is sealed. I haven’t yet researched whether Texas law allows sealing of such an order.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that George “Mac” Secrest was appointed special prosecutor yesterday by Judge Mary Lou Keel of the 232nd District Court.

If I were in the business of appointing special prosecutors, I wouldn’t appoint either a local criminal defense lawyer or a neighboring county’s DA to investigate a recently-retired District Attorney. I think it makes more sense to appoint someone who has never worked with or against the object of the investigation. My guess is that Chuck Rosenthal is not the target of either Healey’s or Secrest’s investigation.

Dialing for Defense Dollars

I just got a telephone call at the office from someone asking me for a campaign contribution for the judge of a Harris County district (felony) court, before whom I occasionally practice and before whom I have a case right now.

This has never happened to me before. I don’t know if it’s happening now because the Republican incumbent judges are running scared in Harris County (they should be), or because I’ve never appeared on this particular mailing list before (I contributed to the campaign of another incumbent, who actually deserves to keep her bench).

I’ve never had any problems with this judge, though I’ve heard horror stories from other defense lawyers. But his Democratic opponent is a defense lawyer who is highly qualified for the position. So the only reason I would contribute to this incumbent’s campaign would be if I thought he would give me a little quid for my quo.

It never occurred to me that my clients would benefit from my contributing to this judge’s campaign, so I never even considered contributing. But this direct solicitation call raises the spectre of my clients in this particular court suffering because I did not pay up when asked.

Corruption takes many forms, and the Texas Canons of Judicial Ethics require judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Directly soliciting lawyers who appear before you for contributions creates the appearance of impropriety. It damages public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Even if there will be no retaliation (and I hope there will be none, since there’s no way in Hell I’m going to contribute), it’s grossly inappropriate.