San Antonio Defender

DEFENDER VOL. XX ISS. 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

2017 JUDICIAL SURVEY

SAN ANTONIO

PRE-ELECTION ISSUE PRE-ELECTION JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SURVEY

SACDLA

The San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association P.O. Box 831206 San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 Telephone: (210) 501-2916 Facsimile: (210) 885-7714

OFFICERS

Michael McCrum

Loraine Efron

Trisha Morales Padia

President

Secretary

Editor-in-Chief, DEFENDER

Don Flanary

Christine Del Prado

Jennifer Zarka

Vice President

Treasurer

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Executive Director

*NAME:

PAST PRESIDENTS Patricia Jay Warren Wolf Robert Featherston Jorge Aristotelidis Jay Norton Michael Gross Jeff Mulliner

John “Bud” Ritenour Adam Kobs George Taylor Stephanie Stevens Jim Greenfeld Michael S. Raign John A. Convery

Ernest Acevedo, III Ronald P. Guyer Mark Stevens George Scharmen Cynthia Hujar-Orr

Mr.

Mrs.

Dr.

Matthew Allen Robert Barrera Philip Bozzo Anne Burnham John Carroll Karen Corby Adam Crawshaw Andrew del Cueto Mario Del Prado

MAILING ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________________ Street Address/Suite Nbr./PO Box _________________________________________________________________________________________ City State ZIP County FAX: _________________________________________

*EMAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________________

Joseph Esparza Justin Fischer John Fox Ray Fuchs Roland J. Garcia Paul Goeke Juan Carlos Hernandez John Hunter Blakely Mohr

Angela Moore Kristen Mulliner Miguel Najera Trisha Morales Padia Joel Perez Christopher Simpkins Robin Teague Chad Van Brunt Michael Young

DIRECTORS EMERITUS Charles Butts (Deceased)

Other

_________________________________________________________________________________________ First Name Last Name MI

TELEPHONE: ___________________________

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Professor

*TEXAS BAR CARD NO.: ________________________ DATE OF BIRTH: _________________________ Certified Criminal Law Specialist?

YES

NO

Member of TCDLA?

NO

NACDL?

YES

Do you want a Membership Certificate?

YES

CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP: Contributing ($150 per year)

St. Mary’s Law Student / First Year Lawyer ($30)

Regular ($75 per year)

Anthony Nicholas (Deceased)

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, DEFENDER Trisha Morales Padia

YES

NO

NO

St. Mary’s Crim. Law Assn. ($0, Volunteer 5 hours)

(Attorneys:) I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of Texas. I am actively engaged in the defense of criminal cases in the State, County or Municipal Courts in Bexar County or the surrounding contiguous Counties, or in the Federal Courts of the Western District of Texas. I do not hold a full time or elected Judicial or Prosecutorial Position. *SIGNATURE: _____________________________________________ DATE: ________________

If you would like to submit an article to be considered for publication in The Defender, or see about how you can help or become involved with and contribute as an Associate Editor, please email Padia.Trisha@gmail.com.

PLEASE MAIL APPLICATION TO: SACDLA, P.O. Box 831206, San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 *Required Information (Bar Card No. not required for student membership application)

79

DEFENDER SAN ANTONIO

04 16

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT Michael McCrum

06

2017 JUDICIAL SURVEY

PRE-ELECTION JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SURVEY COUNTY COURTS:

County Court 9:

County Court 1:

38 - Judge Walden Sheldon County Court 11:

17 - Judge John D. Fleming II

39 - Judge Tommy Stolhandske

18 - Tony Jimenez, III

County Court 12:

19 - Jerry Kagan

40 - Judge Scott Roberts

21 - Helen Petry Stowe

County Court 13:

County Court 2:

42 - Judge Crystal Chandler

23 - Judge Jason Wolff

186th District Court: 57 - Judge Jefferson Moore 187th District Court: 59 - Stephanie Boyd 60 - Judge Joey Contreras 61 - Jan Ischy Prins 63 - Veronica Legaretta 65 - Virginia E. Maurer

County Court 14:

226th District Court:

24 - Judge Jason Garrahan

44 - Carlo Key

65 - David Martin

25 - Alfredo Ximenez

45 - Judge Susan Skinner

68 - Velia J. Meza

47 - Joseph Strickland

69 - Kristen Mulliner

County Court 4:

County Court 5:

County Court 15:

27 - Judge John A. Longoria

71 - Libby Wiedermann 290th District Court:

29 - Linda Molina

48 - Judge Robert ‘Bob’ Behrens

31 - Julie Bray Patterson

50 - Cesar Garcia

73 - Jennifer Pena

50 - Jessica Gonzalez

75 - Judge Melisa Skinner

County Court 6:

53- Melissa Vara

33 -Rochelle Acevedo County Court 7:

76 - Judge Lori I. Valenzuela

35 - Michael DeLeon

DISTRICT COURTS:

36 - Judge Eugenia ‘Genie’ Wright

144th District Court:

County Court 8:

437th District Court:

54 - Judge Lorina Rummel

37 - Judge Celeste Brown

78 - NO

RESPONSE RECEIVED BY DEADLINE

ASSOCIATE EDITORS, DEFENDER Matthew Allen Cathy Compton Adrian Flores John Fox Roland Garcia Arlene Gay

Steven Gilmore Sean Henricksen John Hunter Thomas Lane Linda Molina Angela Moore

RC Pate Charles Peters Jodi Soyars Robin Teague Chad Van Brunt

The San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association P.O. Box 831 206, San Antonio, Texas 78283 210.501.2916 | sacdla.com

Letter From the President Michael McCrum

A Newfound Challenge This edition of the Defender provides the results of SACDLA’s 2017 judicial poll and survey. An effort has been made in past years to conduct a judicial survey on an annual basis, with the stated purpose to measure how forty-four elected judges in Bexar County perform, to promote and maintain judicial accountability to the citizens of Bexar County, and to provide information to voters. Over 400 attorneys participated in the survey, leaving us with some interesting and thought-provoking results.

As the survey was being conducted, a question kept surfacing in my head—Why? Why are we doing this?

You should know that it’s not unusual for the question Why? to twist through the tendrils of my mind on any given subject. It seems to me to be a worthy exercise to not just blindly do something again and again just because it’s been done so many times before, but rather to question and challenge the premise—to evaluate whether it still stands strong against the strength of today’s winds. Even more so, as SACDLA’s President, the merit of such an exercise about anything we do as an organization seems to be a necessary and appropriate task. So, the fact of the question teasing my consciousness should not offend any hard-core adherent of these types of

4

surveys. I often ask Why? So again, in thinking about the survey, I asked myself, “Why are we doing this?”

Don’t get me wrong ... I understand fully the value of the stated reasons I reprinted above, and I certainly agree that these are laudable and worthy goals. But again, I wind up asking myself, “In today’s time, is this a worthy exercise?”

Here, I think, are several things that are generating this latest query in my mind: In 1953, President Eisenhower invited the American Bar Association to weigh in on all persons who the President was considering for nomination to our federal judiciary. Since then, the ABA has faithfully devoted time to conduct extensive peer reviews to evaluate the professional qualifications of prospective judge nominees and report its findings to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the President’s administration, and the public. Its criteria of measurement and evaluation mirror those of SACDLA’s judicial survey: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. For 64 years, this has been a valuable exercise received well by Presidents and Senators as to thousands of nominees.

This past March, however, the ABA received a letter from President Trump’s administration giving notice that it did not intend to follow the longstanding practice of requesting the ABA’s assessment of the President’s judicial nominees. Despite this historic rejection, the ABA decided to go forward anyway with its review of prospective judicial nominees. What then happened was quite interesting. Several Senators on the Judiciary Committee publically lashed out at the ABA as a biased and liberal organization, and rejected its assessments on pending judicial nominations. Whether one falls on the side of Republicans or Democrats is of no consequence to my thinking. Rather, what struck me was the crumbling of respect for the time-honored process of attorneys evaluating other attorneys in the context of judicial qualification. And, the sad thing is that I shouldn’t be surprised.

This leads me to another observation that I think spurred me to question Why? Apparent to everyone except maybe my golden retriever and my granddaughter Madilyn is the terrorizing fragmentation of respect for news of any kind. The term “Fake News” has found a place in Urban Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary and a host of others. Feeding on divisiveness, terror has struck at our willingness to read any news these days, much less to depend on it. If someone doesn’t like what he reads, it’s immediately labeled as “fake” and worthless of consideration.

So therein lies our newfound challenge. The 21st Century has brought our culture a new and monstrous challenge, where a lot of people don’t want to listen to other people. Where another’s opinion just doesn’t matter. Within this atmosphere of cynicism, divisiveness, polarization and distrust, I ask myself several questions: “Is any survey important anymore?” Do people even care? Will they trust the results? Who is the audience of this type of survey?

Is it the public, who is already worn down by beatings of “fake news” that leaves them with an unwillingness to rely upon anything they read—or at least anything not written by known aficionados? Or, is it us attorneys, who may wonder, “Am I the only one who this judge treats like crap?” Does a 1-to-5 voting structure adequately assess a judge’s qualifications?

Does a relatively narrow numbered score really have a chance of making a difference or convincing a judge that he/she should do better? Is there another type of survey method that we should consider to optimize our chances of making a difference with judges?

Well, despite these questions, I for one believe that our survey does make a difference. We all hear stories of mean judges and friendly ones; brilliant judges and jaded ones; objective judges and biased ones; insane judges and thoughtful ones; patient judges and ones that are on a mission that seems little to do with justice. In the midst of this judicial menagerie, it is critical to our system of justice that lawyers collectively have a voice. Whether a judge may read his/ her ratings and re-evaluate whether he/she should be doing things differently, or whether the survey becomes worthwhile for no other reason than that we don’t want to stop wanting justice—isn’t it important that we try? Isn’t it important that we don’t stop pushing to make our system better than it was last year, and better again next year than it is now?

Those reasons alone make this survey worthwhile.

Why? ... Why are we doing this? Because our world needs our criminal justice to work. And we who are in the trenches need to continue to do all we can to inspire change for the better. Our world needs us to keep fighting for a culture where listening to each other will once again become important. And that, to me, is reason enough for this issue.

5

2017 Judicial Survey

T

he San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association conducts the Judicial Survey on a regular basis, and the results of the 2017 Survey are contained in this report. In addition to appearing in this publication, the survey is sent out to all practicing attorneys in Bexar County who are in good standing with the State Bar of Texas and have valid addresses registered with that organization. The survey is intended to measure how each Judge performs, and to promote and maintain judicial accountability to the citizens of Bexar County, and with the election cycle approaching, this is invaluable information for voters. Readers can vote based on performance, not party affiliation. The scope of the survey is limited to elected judges.

The instructions in the cover letter ask that respondents only evaluate Judges of whom they have personal knowledge. The results from all 419 surveys received have been included. The questions are simple and are meant to avoid a popularity contest.

1. Does this Judge work hard?

2. Is this Judge punctual?

3. Does this Judge follow the law?

4. Does this Judge have good judicial temperament?

5. Does this Judge rule impartially?

6. Do you approve of this Judge’s performance?

6

All Judges Combined

All AllJudges JudgesCombined Combined Performance Performance

Judge Sid Harle Judge Sid Harle

3.81 3.81

Judge Ron Rangel Judge Ron Rangel

3.77 3.77

Judge Norma Gonzales Judge Norma Gonzales

3.76 3.76

Judge Jarre� g Lisa Judge K. Jarre� gK. Lisa

3.76 3.76

Judge Cathy Judge Stryker Cathy Stryker

3.72 3.72

Judge David Rodriguez Judge J.David J. Rodriguez

3.71 3.71

Judge Lori Valenzuela Judge Lori Valenzuela

3.68 3.68

Judge David Canales Judge A. David A. Canales

3.61 3.61

Judge Jason JudgeWolff Jason Wolff

3.60 3.60

Judge Peter JudgeSakai Peter Sakai

3.59 3.59

Judge Richard Price Price Judge Richard

3 58 3.58 3.58 3 58

Judge Kevin O'Connell JudgeM. Kevin M. O'Connell

3.52 3.52

Judge Sol Casseb III Judge Sol Casseb III

3.52 3.52

Judge Sco� JudgeRoberts Sco� Roberts

3.48 3.48

Judge Catherine Torres-Stahl Judge Catherine Torres-Stahl

3.47 3.47

ll Judges Combined Judge Jefferson MooreMoore Judge Jefferson

3.47 3.47

Judge Michael Mery Mery Judge Michael

3.43 3.43

Judge Rosie JudgeAlvarado Rosie Alvarado

3 43 3.43 3.43 3 43

Judge Laura JudgeSalinas Laura Salinas

3.41 3.41

Judge Tommy Stolhandske Judge Tommy Stolhandske

3.39 3.39

Judge Angelica Jimenez Judge Angelica Jimenez

3.37 3.37

Judge Celeste BrownBrown Judge Celeste

3.35 3.35

Judge Walden SheltonShelton Judge Walden

Performance

Judge Daphne Previ� Previ� Aus�n Aus�n Judge Daphne

3.32 3.32

J d Karen Judge KJudge Karen J d H K PPozzaH PPozza

3.32 3.32

Judge John Fleming JudgeD.John D. Fleming

3.29 3.29

3.81

Judge Lorina Rummel Judge Lorina Rummel

3.29 3.29

Judge Jason JudgeGarrahan Jason Garrahan

3.77

3.27 3.27

Judge Crystal Chandler Judge Crystal Chandler

3.76

3.26 3.26

Judge John Longoria JudgeA.John A. Longoria

3.24 3.24

3.76

Judge Robert Behrens Judge Robert Behrens

3.72

Judge Stephani Walsh Walsh Judge Stephani

3.13 3.13

3.71 3.03 3.03

Judge Tom JudgeRickhoff Tom Rickhoff

3.68

Judge Eugenia 'Genie''Genie' WrightWright Judge Eugenia

3.61

Judge Frank JudgeCastro Frank Castro

3.60

Judge Karen Judge Crouch Karen Crouch

3.59

Judge Melisa SkinnerSkinner Judge Melisa

3.02 3.02 3.00 3.00

2.91 2.91

2.90 2.90

2.74 2.74

3 58 3.58

Judge Arcelia TreviñoTreviño Judge Arcelia

2.71 2.71

3.52

Judge Susan Judge Skinner Susan Skinner

2.63 2.63

Judge Renee Yanta Yanta Judge Renee

2.63 2.63

3.52

Judge Steve JudgeHilbig Steve Hilbig

3.48 2.51 2.51

Judge Wayne Chris�an Judge Wayne Chris�an

2.46 2.463.47

Judge Kelly Cross JudgeM. Kelly M. Cross

2.29 2.29

Judge Antonia ArteagaArteaga Judge Antonia

2.29 2.29

0.00 0.00

Performance Performance

3.32 3.32

0.50 0.50

1.00 1.00

1.50 1.50

2.00 2.00

3.47 3.43

3 43 3.43 2.50 2.50

3.00 3.00

3.50 3.50

4.00 4.00

4.50 4.50

3.41 3.39 3.37 3.35

Performance

3.32 3.32 3.32 3.29 3.29 3.27 3.26 3.24

7

Overall Results by Court

Overall Results by Court Works Hard

3.500

Punctual

4.000

4.000 3.478

3.461 3.295

3.500

3.282 2.942

3.000

3.459

3.368

3.278

3.227 2.933

3.000

2.741

2.711 2.500

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

0.000

Criminal District

Civil District

Juvenile District

County Courts

JP Courts

Probate

Civil District

Criminal District

County Courts

JP Courts

Probate

4.000

4.000

3.500

Juvenile District

Temperament

Follows the law 3.391

3.343

3.500

3.305

3.361

3.355

3.211 2.896

3.000

2.807

3.237 2.925 2.682 2 682

2.500

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

3.302

3.000

0.000

Criminal District

Civil District

Juvenile District

County Courts

JP Courts

Probate

Juvenile District

Civil District

Criminal District

County Courts

JP Courts

Probate

Performance

Impar�al 4.000

3.400 3.311

3.311 3 2 0 3.270

3.300

3.500 3.185

3.200

3.335

3.318

3.262

3.202 2.893

3.000

2.654

3.100

2.500

3.000 2.000

2.891

2.900

2.781

2.800

0.500

2.600 2.500

0.000

Criminal District

8

1.500 1.000

2.700

Civil District

Juvenile District

County Courts

JP Courts

Probate

Civil District

Criminal District

Juvenile District

County Courts

JP Courts

Probate

County Courts at Law

County Courts at Law Works Hard

4.000

Punctual

4.000

3.698

3.658

3.569

3.549

3.500

3.667 3.435

3.400

3.351

3.318

3.160

3.067

3.051

2.992

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

d Sco� Judge Roberts

d Crystall Judge Chandler

d Jason Judge Garrahan

d Tommy Judge d John h D. Judge d Robert b d Walden ld d Celeste l d John h A. Judge d Eugenia Judge Judge Judge Judge Stolhandske Longoria Shelton Brown 'Genie' Wright Fleming Behrens

d Susan Judge Skinner

d Karen Judge Crouch

3.435

3.428

3.359

3.351

3.000

2.500

d Jason Judge Wolff

3.511

3.116

2.972 2.814

d David d J. Judge Rodriguez

3.623

3.500 3.190

3.000

0.000

3.662

d Wayne Judge Chris�an

0.000

Judge d Jason Wolff

Judge d David d J. Rodriguez

Judge d Sco� Roberts

3.648

3.602

Judge d Crystall Chandler

Judge d Jason Garrahan

Judge d Walden ld Shelton

Follow the law

Judge d Tommy Stolhandske

d John h A. Judge Longoria

d Eugenia Judge 'Genie' Wright

2.966

d Robert b Judge Behrens

2.959

d Susan Judge Skinner

2.879

2.870

2.832

Judge d Karen Crouch

d Celeste l Judge Brown

d John h D. Judge Fleming

3.629

Temperament 3.719

3.560

3.500

3.435

3.401

3.377

3.340

3.288

3.250

3.500 3.239

3.227

3.507

3.424

3.420

3.370

3.340

3.336

3.186

3.303 3.162

2.937

3.000

2.930

2.937

3.000

2.782

2.796 2.589

2.578 2.500

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

Judge David J. Rodriguez

Judge Jason Wolff

Judge Sco� Roberts

Judge Tommy Judge Walden Judge John A. Judge Celeste Longoria Brown Stolhandske Shelton

Judge Jason Garrahan

Judge Crystal Judge John D. Judge Robert Judge Eugenia Judge Karen Chandler Fleming Behrens 'Genie' Wright Crouch

Judge Susan Skinner

Judge Wayne Chris�an

0.000

2.398

Judge David J. Rodriguez

Judge Jason Wolff

Judge Sco� Roberts

Judge Celeste Brown

Judge John D. Fleming

Judge Jason Garrahan

Impar�al 4.000 3.640

3.553

3.500

3.423

3.411

3.374

3.329

3.303

3.294

3.179

3.105

2.968

2.887

Judge Walden Shelton

Judge Crystal Chandler

Judge John A. Longoria

Judge Robert Behrens

3.604

2.500

2.482

Judge Eugenia 'Genie' Wright

Judge Karen Crouch

Judge Susan Skinner

3.350

3.323

3.292

3.267

3.261

3.237

3.127

2.000 1 500 1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

Judge Susan Skinner

Judge Wayne Chris�an

3.000

Judge Wayne Chris�an

2.901 2.634

2.000

Judge Robert Judge Crystal Judge Eugenia Judge Karen Chandler 'Genie' Wright Crouch Behrens

3.390

2.500

1 500 1.500

Judge Tommy Judge Celeste Judge John A. Judge John D. Judge Walden Judge Jason Stolhandske Brown Longoria Fleming Shelton Garrahan

3.480 3 480

3.000 2.648

Judge Sco� Roberts

3.705

3.500 3.183

3.000

Judge David J. Judge Jason Rodriguez Wolff

Judge Tommy Stolhandske

Performance

4.000

0.000

d Wayne Judge Chris�an

4.000

4.000

0.000

2.747

0.000

Judge David J. Rodriguez

Judge Jason Wolff

Judge Sco� Roberts

Judge Tommy Stolhandske

Judge Celeste Brown

Judge Walden Shelton

Judge John D. Fleming

Judge Jason Garrahan

Judge Crystal Chandler

Judge John A. Longoria

Judge Robert Behrens

Judge Eugenia 'Genie' Wright

Judge Karen Crouch

Judge Susan Skinner

2.458

Judge Wayne Chris�an

9

Civil District Courts

Civil District Courts Works Hard

4.000

3.776

3.772

3.702

Punctual

4.000

3.611

3.500

3.600

3.595

3.558

3.468

3.465

3.449

3.396

3.789

3.766

3.700

3.639

3.617

3.610

3.584

3.500

3.311

3.453

3.452

3.407

3.360

3.103 3.000

2.642

2.500

2 000 2.000

2 000 2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

Judge Norma Gonzales

Judge Cathy Stryker

3.742

3.723

Judge Judge Judge David A. Peter Sakai Richard Canales Price

Judge Michael Mery

Judge Sol Casseb III

Judge Angelica Jimenez

Judge Karen H Pozza

Judge Rosie Alvarado

Judge Laura Salinas

Judge Stephani Walsh

Judge Renee Yanta

Judge Antonia Arteaga

0.000

Judge Cathy Stryker

Judge Judge David Norma A. Canales Gonzales

Judge Richard Price

Judge Sol Judge Peter Sakai Casseb III

4.000 3.566

3.551

3.500

3.541

3.524

3.398

3.373

3.367

3.366

3.262

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500 0 500

0 500 0.500

3.707

3.689

Judge Michael Mery

Judge Rosie Alvarado

Judge Laura Salinas

Judge Karen H Pozza

Judge Angelica Jimenez

3.643

3.590

Judge Stephani Walsh

Judge Renee Yanta

Judge Antonia Arteaga

0.000

3.566

3.557

3.553

3 463 3.463

3.389

3.377

3.373

3.354

Judge Judge Cathy Norma Stryker Gonzales

Judge Richard Price

3.041

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

10

Judge Sol Casseb III

Judge Laura Salinas

Judge Michael Mery

3.388 3.015

Judge Judge Karen Judge Michael H Pozza Stephani Mery Walsh

Judge Renee Yanta

Judge Rosie Alvarado

Judge Angelica Jimenez

Judge Karen H Pozza

3.720

3.611

3.592

3.581

Judge Stephani Walsh

Judge Renee Yanta

3.519

3.434 3 434

3.432 3 432

3.406

3.373

2.388

Judge Antonia Arteaga

3.317 3.031

2.500

2.000

Judge Richard Price

3.466

2.627 2.287

Judge Judge Judge Norma Peter Sakai David A. Gonzales Canales

3.761

3.000

2.709

Judge Cathy Stryker

3.480

Judge Peter Judge David Judge Sol Judge Laura Judge Judge Rosie Sakai A. Canales Casseb III Salinas Angelica Alvarado Jimenez

3.500

3.285

3.000

0.000

Judge Antonia Arteaga

Performance 4.000

3.500

Judge Renee Yanta

2 546 2.546

Impar�al 4.000

3.490

2.500

2.000

Judge Richard Price

3.647

3.000 2.354

Judge Judge Judge Sol David A. Peter Sakai Casseb III Canales

3.695

3.105

2.500

Judge Norma Gonzales

3.728

3.500 2.894

Judge Cathy Stryker

3.784

3.138

3.000

0.000

Judge Judge Karen Judge Judge Rosie Judge Laura Judge H Pozza Alvarado Salinas Michael Angelica Stephani Mery Jimenez Walsh

Temperament

Follows the law 4.000

3.161 2.617

2.500

0.000

3.276

3.000

Judge Antonia Arteaga

0.000

2.289

Judge Judge Cathy Judge David Judge Peter Norma Stryker A. Canales Sakai Gonzales

Judge Richard Price

Judge Sol Casseb III

Judge Michael Mery

Judge Rosie Judge Laura Judge Judge Karen Judge Alvarado Salinas Angelica H Pozza Stephani Jimenez Walsh

Judge Renee Yanta

Judge Antonia Arteaga

Criminal District Courts

Criminal District Courts Works Hard

4.000

3.783

3.692

3.671

Punctual

4.000

3.669

3.527

3.500

3.433

3.380

3.329

3.225

3.646

3.632

3.500

3.436

3.000

2.500

2.500

2 000 2.000

3.177 2.972

0.500 Judge Sid Harle

Judge Ron Rangel

Judge Lori Valenzuela

Judge Jefferson Judge Lorina Judge Kevin M. Judge Melisa Moore Rummel O'Connell Skinner

Judge Catherine Torres-Stahl

Judge Steve Hilbig

Judge Frank Castro

0.000

Judge Sid Harle Judge Jefferson Moore

Judge Ron Rangel

Judge Lori Valenzuela

Follows The Law

Judge Kevin M. O'Connell

Judge Lorina Rummel

Judge Steve Hilbig

Judge Melisa Skinner

Judge Catherine Torres-Stahl

Judge Frank Castro

Temperament 4.500

4.500 3.822

3.658

3.650

3.500

4.000 3.530

3.490

3.403

3.336

3.833

3.789

3.764

3.571

3.570

3.552

3.500 3.013

3.000

3.007

3.215

3.000

3.057

3.000

2.500

2.447

2.500

2.000

2.225

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500 Judge Sid Harle

Judge Ron Rangel

Judge Lori Valenzuela

Judge Kevin M. O'Connell

Judge Judge Jefferson Judge Lorina Catherine Moore Rummel Torres-Stahl

Judge Melisa Skinner

Judge Steve Hilbig

Judge Frank Castro

0.000

Judge Ron Rangel

Judge Sid Harle

Judge Lori Valenzuela

Judge Catherine Judge Jefferson Judge Kevin M. Torres-Stahl Moore O'Connell

Judge Lorina Rummel

Judge Frank Castro

Judge Melisa Skinner

Judge Steve Hilbig

Performance

Impar�al 4.500

4.500 3 832 3.832

3.675

3.634

3.500

4.000 3.519

3.445

3.324

3.811

3.771

3.683

3.500

3.208 2.962

3.000

2.796

2.714

2.500

3.522

3.473

3.470

3.289 2.907

3.000

2.743 2.514

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500 0.000

3.188

1.000

0.500

4.000 4 000

3.237

1.500

1.000

0.000

3.322

2.000

1.500

4.000

3.341

3.075

3.000

0.000

3.725

0.500 Judge Sid Harle

Judge Ron Rangel

Judge Lori Valenzuela

Judge Kevin M. O'Connell

Judge Judge Jefferson Judge Lorina Catherine Moore Rummel Torres-Stahl

Judge Frank Castro

Judge Melisa Skinner

Judge Steve Hilbig

0.000

Judge Sid Harle

Judge Ron Rangel

Judge Lori Valenzuela

Judge Kevin M. Judge Catherine Judge Jefferson O'Connell Torres-Stahl Moore

Judge Lorina Rummel

Judge Frank Castro

Judge Melisa Skinner

Judge Steve Hilbig

11

District Juvenile Courts

District Juvenile Courts Works Hard

4.000

Punctual

4.000

3.747

3.450

3.500

3.725

3.443

3.500

3.000

3.000

2.686

2.667

2.500

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

0.000

Judge Lisa K. Jarrett

Judge Daphne Previ� Aus�n

Judge Arcelia Treviño

Judge Lisa K. Jarrett

Follow The Law 4.000

Judge Arcelia Treviño

Temperament 4.500

3.769

4.000

3.387

3.500

Judge Daphne Previ� Austin

3.813

3.500

3.000

3.290

2.760

2.980 2 980

3.000 2.500 2.500 2.000 2.000 1.500 1.500 1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

0.000

Judge Lisa K. Jarrett

Judge Daphne Previ� Aus�n

Judge Arcelia Treviño

Judge Lisa K. Jarrett

4.000

4.000

3.703

3.500

2.800

2.500

2.000

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

3.323

3.000

2.500

2.706

0.000

Judge Lisa K. Jarre�

12

Judge Arcelia Treviño

3.758

3.500

3.306

3.000

Judge Daphne Previ� Austin

Performance

Impar�al

Judge Daphne Previ� Aus�n

Judge Arcelia Treviño

Judge Lisa K. Jarrett

Judge Daphne Previ� Aus�n

Judge Arcelia Treviño

Justices of the Peace

Justices of the Peace Works Hard

3.500

Punctual

4.000

4.000 3.478

3.338

3.500

3.333 3.000

3.000

2.789

3.340

3.283

3.227 3.000

3.000

2.725

2.500

2.500 1 929 1.929

2.000

2.036 2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

0.000

Judge Roberto A. Vazquez

Judge William Donovan

Judge Rogelio Lopez Judge Robert Tejeda Judge Ciro Rodriguez

Judge Jeff Wentworth

Judge Yolanda Ures�

Judge Roberto A. Vazquez

Judge Rogelio Lopez

Judge William Donovan

4.000

3.391

3.343

3.500

3.245 2.974

3.000

2.783

3.462

3.391

3.302 2.974

3.000

2.744

2 641 2.641

2.500

2.638 2 638

2.500

1.893

2.000

1.500

1.964

2.000

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

0.000

Judge Roberto A. Vazquez

Judge William Donovan

Judge Rogelio Lopez Judge Robert Tejeda

Judge Jeff Wentworth

Judge Ciro RodriguezJudge Yolanda Ures�

Judge William Donovan

Judge Roberto A. Vazquez

Judge Rogelio Lopez

Judge Robert Tejeda Judge Ciro Rodriguez Judge Jeff Wentworth Judge Yolanda Ures�

Performance

Impar�al 4.000

4.000 3.500

Judge Robert Tejeda Judge Ciro Rodriguez Judge Jeff Wentworth Judge Yolanda Ures�

Temperament

Follows the law 4.000

3.500

2.923

2.725

3.391

3.379

3.500

3.264 3.000

3.000

2.692

3 391 3.391

3.348

2.691

3.308 3.000

3.000

2.681

2.667

2.500

2.500 2.000

1.821

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

1.857

0.000

Judge Roberto A. Vazquez

Judge William Donovan

Judge Rogelio Lopez

Judge Robert Tejeda

Judge Ciro Rodriguez

Judge Jeff Wentworth

Judge Yolanda Ures�

Judge Roberto A. Vazquez

Judge William Donovan

Judge Rogelio Lopez Judge Robert Tejeda

Judge Jeff Wentworth

Judge Ciro Rodriguez

Judge Yolanda Ures�

13

Probate Courts Works Hard

Probate Courts Punctual

2.750

2.800

2.777

2.750

2.745

2.700

2.740

2.645

2.650

2.600

2.749

2.735

2.733

2.730

2.550

2.725

Judge Kelly M. Cross

Judge Tom Rickhoff

Judge Tom Rickhoff

3.100

3.000

Judge Kelly M. Cross

Temperament

Follows the law 3.500

2.978

3.266

3.000

2.900

2.500

2.800

2.000

2.098

2.700

1.500

2.635 2.600

1.000

2.500

0.500

2.400

0.000

Judge Tom Rickhoff

Judge Kelly M. Cross

Judge Tom Rickhoff

3.500

3.500

3.071 3.000

3.000

2.492

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.500

1.000

1.000

0.500

0.500

0.000

3 016 3.016

2.500

2.000

2.291

0.000

Judge Tom Rickhoff

14

Judge Kelly M. Cross

Performance

Impar�al

Judge Kelly M. Cross

Judge Tom Rickhoff

Judge Kelly M. Cross

LIFE IS

BETTE R

IN COLOR

let us take care of all your printing needs

MAGAZINES | CATALOGS | POSTCARDS CALENDARS & BROCHURES

4954 Space Center Dr., San Antonio, TX 78218 210.804.0390 | www.shweiki.com

DEFENDER SAN ANTONIO

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS The San Antonio Defender is always looking for content that serves to inspire, educate, and excite our membership.

If you would like to contribute, please contact a member of the Defender staff.

15

PRE-ELECTION JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SURVEY T

6.

1.

7.

8.

2.

9.

he following are answers to a questionnaire sent to all criminal court judicial candidates in the Bexar County 2018 elections. We appreciate the participation of those who responded. The questions are listed below; their answers follow afterward.

How do you balance uniformity in sentencing with individual sentencing? Which takes priority?

What Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (past or present) has been the most influential to the development of your judicial philosophy? Please explain why.

3.

4.

Why are you seeking this office?

What are your qualifications and experience in dealing with criminal law matters? Please describe why you believe that you are the most qualified candidate for the particular judicial office that you are seeking.

5.

What do you consider to be the most significant issues facing the Criminal Courts in Bexar County, as well as, the specific Court that you seek office? What measures or changes (if any) do you believe could help improve the administration of justice within the criminal courts in Bexar County, and your Court?

16

Would you vote for a change to add hourly rate and/or increased flat rate, for misdemeanor court pay schedule? If so, how much?

Do you/will you issue scheduling orders?

Only on Request?

Do you think there should be a standing scheduling order? Or a standard scheduling order?

If so, why?

If you have never been a county or district court judge in Bexar County, why should the voters entrust you with this official position, and what changes would you make to this Court if you were elected?

Alternatively, for those with past judicial experience as an elected judge in Bexar County’s criminal courts, who no longer serve in that capacity, why should you be given another chance to be a criminal court judge by voters? What, if anything will you do differently this time should you be elected?

Lastly, for those who are presently serving as judges in the Bexar County Criminal Courts, what are you most proud of over the course of the last four (4) years, and why are you deserving of another four (4) year term? What changes do you plan to make if reelected?

10.

11.

Do you think there should be a standing Discovery Order? Why?

Do you/will you rule on dispositive motions (e.g. motions to suppress) only after the jury has been selected and sworn? How will your Court

handle motions to suppress (special motions docket, during trial, etc.)?

12.

13.

14.

15.

Please explain how your view of recidivism affects your sentencing decisions.

What time limits do you/will you impose during voir dire?

During voir dire do you permit “looping?”

What do you think about ordering the State to produce all discovery at least 20 days before trial starts?

COUNTY COURTS: County Court 1:

Judge John D. Fleming II 1. Individual sentencing should take priority over uniformity in sentencing. There, of course, needs to be a balance with uniformity in sentencing to some degree though. The way that I approach this is to take each individual’s circumstances and past into account when assessing a sentence and uniformity of sentencing plays a minor role in my decisions.

2. Justice Antonin Scalia is the most influential to me. His decisions were always well thought through and very well written. Additionally, I respect his view of interpreting laws as they are written and not reading more into it than is there.

3. I am seeking re-election as Judge of County Court At Law No. 1 because it has been a great honor to serve in the position for the past 2 terms. In that

time, I feel that I have grown as a Jurist and want to continue serving Bexar County in this position for another term.

4. My entire career has been spent in the criminal justice system. I spent a brief time as a criminal defense attorney when I was initially licensed and 11 years with the Bexar County District Attorney’s office before being elected Judge in 2010. I have now served in that role for 2 terms. I believe that I am the best candidate for this position because of my experience prior to becoming a judge and my time and experience as a judge. Over the past several years, I have grown as a judge and will use that experience to grow further during the coming years.

5. I believe that the biggest issue that all of the criminal county courts in Bexar county face is the sheer volume of cases that we have to handle. This can sometimes make things very difficult to juggle. I am always trying to find ways to alleviate this issue in my court and will continue to do so.

6. I would certainly be amenable to either adding an hourly rate or increasing the flat rate paid to court appointed counsel. I cannot give an answer as to specific amounts at this time as budgeting must be taken into account as well.

7. I have not issued scheduling orders in the past but would be willing to entertain the idea if it could help in getting cases resolved in a more timely and efficient manner.

8. A standing scheduling order could be helpful in a lot of cases. However, there would need to be an option for a more tailored scheduling order if needed on a case by case basis.

9. What I am most proud of over the last 4 years are the lives that have changed for the better due to

17

my handling of cases. It came as a surprise when I was at a store and a former defendant approached me and thanked me and told me that I saved his life, job, marriage and his family. These are the things that make me the most proud. In addition to that. I am proud of my staff and the job we do getting cases moved on the docket. I believe that these things are also why I am deserving of another term in my position.

state having to produce evidence at least 20 days prior to trial. In the event that there is additional evidence found by the state within the 20 days prior to trial, I believe that the state should turn over that evidence as soon as possible.

10. I do believe that standing discovery orders can be useful, as they are with standard blood and breath discovery, but there always needs to be leeway to customize discovery orders if a particular case calls for it.

1. The Trial Court Judge should review the individual Defendant’s personal data sheet and inquire from either the Defendant or his / her Counsel the existence of any particular circumstance that would assist the Court in determining a proper and appropriate punishment. Hopefully, this will assist the individual Defendant in successfully completing their term of probation without the necessity of filing a Motion to Revoke Probation. At the same time, it should be made clear to the Defendant that having taken into consideration their individual circumstance, that the Court would expect compliance.

11. In general, I prefer to rule on dispositive motions prior to a jury being selected and sworn but I can, and have, rule on dispositive motions after a jury is selected and sworn as well. The presence of a jury does not prevent me from ruling on any motion appropriately.

12. Recidivism generally plays little role in my sentencing decisions. Sentencing should be done on an individual, case by case, basis. The way that recidivism can play a role in my sentencing decisions is the individuals criminal record and personal recidivism.

13. In general, I impose a 30 minute time limit on the parties for voir dire but am willing to adjust that as needed.

14. My view is that the attorneys have their time for voir dire and its their time to use. As long as the parties stay within the bounds of procedure, I allow them to conduct their voir dire as they see fit with little interference from the bench.

15. Generally speaking, I am in agreement with the

18

Tony Jimenez, III

2. Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall was a practicing attorney who took his experience and knowledge of the law to the bench. He believed that in unclear situations a Judge’s responsibility was to protect individual rights and do justice.

3. So that I may apply my experience and knowledge in providing for the effective and fair administration of justice.

4. I have been a practicing trial attorney for over 30 years. I have extensive trial court experience. I am a former City Magistrate and former County Court at Law Judge for nine years. I was a former adjunct professor/Trial advocacy at St. Mary’s Law School.

I had been appointed a special prosecutor in both State District Court and at the County Court level.

5. Docket control, adequate payment for representation of indigent Defendants, bond and bond conditions should be reasonable so as not to unreasonably detain individual defendants pending a hearing or trial on the merits. If a motion for revocation is filed and entered by the Court, bond should immediately be set and not simply Order a remand. This will facilitate the process and allow for an immediate hearing itself without delay. If a Jury Trial is in progress, the Court will resolve all cases in the morning without requiring defendants and defense counsel to report at a later time on the same date.

6. Yes, I would vote for a change in the hourly rate and/or increase flat rate. It should be based on recommendations previously made/commensurate with other counties in the State.

7. Only on a case by case basis. If it assists in resolving the case.

8. Yes, to each if they assist in resolving cases; and both the State and Defense are in agreement.

9. The problem is that the voters do not know who their Judges are. In all candor, Judicial elections are based on party affiliation, race, and gender. I am putting forth my qualifications again in hopes that this measurement will be used by the voters in electing Judges. We must all make a concerted effort as practitioners to ensure the election of a qualified judiciary. This means that you, members of the San Antonio Criminal Defense Association, offer your positions/opinions to the State legislature for change or make a decision to fully engage in the process - maybe becoming a candidate yourself.

Since last being on the bench in 1994, my continued experience as a trial attorney and special prosecutor provides me with the patience necessary in dealing with all matters administrative and procedural in

the Court.

10. Yes, if it assists the Court and the parties in resolving legal issues relevant to their case.

11. No. Will set a special motions docket.

12. Will inquire as to the cause of recidivism i.e., drug addiction, mental health issues, etc. in individual cases and then make a decision as to appropriate sentencing.

13. May impose time limits. However, this will depend on the nature and complexity of the case. It will not be my first choice to impose time limits.

14. Yes. 15. Not a bad standard, however each case is different and may require additional time to ensure a fair trial on each side.

Jerry Kagan 1. Defendant’s criminal history, age and severity of offense are factors a judge should consider in each sentencing. The legislature has wisely determined a range of punishment for each level of offense. If each defendant is given the same exact sentence, we would not need experienced, knowledgeable judges; a computer software program or rubber stamp could pass sentence. My office represented a 69 year old with no priors whose breath specimen was barely above the legal limit. Contrast this with someone in their mid-twenties with a three page criminal history, whose blood alcohol was three times the legal limit who hit cars before passing out. Those two individuals should not have the same uniform sentence. My experience has been that too often, when

19

prosecutors become judges, they focus on files, not facts because some former prosecutors become set in their ways and only see papers, not people.

2. Although the obvious choice is Elena Kagan because we are both originally from Chicago, both are passionate about the law, are the same religion, and share other similarities, my choice is Justice Louis Brandeis. Justice Brandeis was a progressive who helped develop the “Right to Privacy” concept in 1890. His decisions in Whitney v. California (Freedom of Speech) and Olmstead v. United States (Right to Privacy) are instrumental in my opinion.

He was also known for doing no fee cases and has been called the Robin Hood of law. I believe that people have given up their right to privacy both by their own actions and by corporations. Individuals give up privacy rights by putting their lives on social media. Further, credit card and internet providers collect data about buying, location and viewing habits without consumers having a choice. The legislature and courts should take action to protect our privacy.

3. Although I have a successful practice, the current climate in County Court 1 is such that I am willing to close my doors to rectify the situation. The things I have seen in County Court 1, are such that I cannot sit back and allow them to continue unchallenged. Specifically: 1) I believe that a court and its staff should interact and communicate with defense attorneys in a professional manner and with respect and dignity, 2) I will not condone hatred or bigotry towards any group or class and 3) I will not allow prosecutors who lie about factual issues or hide evidence from the court to go unchallenged. In short, I am willing to “take the hit” and close my practice for the good of justice.

4. I am licensed in three states, currently practicing in Bexar County for 19 years. The Illinois Bar, was

20

passed in the early 1990’s. Three years later, a business opportunity led me to Michigan where I passed that Bar. About 31/2 years after that, I married San Antonio native, Angela Garcia, and passed the Texas Bar. All three Bar exams were passed on the first attempt. Besides having several appearances per day in Bexar, I’ve handled cases in Comal, Wilson, Bell, Guadalupe, Travis, Medina, Hays, Gillespie, Gonzales, Zavala and other counties. This exposure to different courts in different counties teaches me that there are different ways to do things. Contrast that with a life-long prosecutor who has only worked in one county doing the same thing over and over, much of that time behind a desk, and I believe that at this time, in this race, I am more qualified.

5. It has been my experience that some Bexar County Courts are run inefficiently. Other courts seem to only take care of their “favorites”. By this, I mean, attorneys friendly with a particular court are dealt with one way, while disfavored attorneys have their files ignored. What would improve the administration of justice is to elect judges who value and respect the time that each attorney spends in that courtroom and not let selected attorneys linger while judges talk over last night’s basketball game for 20 minutes with their attorney friend standing before the bench. Similarly, attorneys should not be blackballed because they have different political opinions than those in power.

6. Although I do not take appointed cases, I would raise the hourly rate to $45/hour if that time was legitimately spent defending clients. I once saw an appointed attorney submit a large voucher on a defendant who had enough jail time to satisfy the case and desired to. The court appointed attorney reset and reset, filed frivolous motions but never did hearings, only to eventually close the case, timeserved, after building up her voucher. What could have been accomplished in 30 minutes, took months

and months. The court’s time and the county’s resources were wasted. Bexar County’s flat fee should be raised to be in line with surrounding counties to $280-325. Some skilled attorneys I know from Bexar, take cases from surrounding counties, but decline Bexar County cases. This leaves cases to new, inexperienced attorneys. These, so-called “starving attorneys” do not produce the same quality of services.

7. Scheduling Orders: Only on request.

8. Most attorneys that I know do not like scheduling orders because they are followed when the court wants and not followed when the court has other business. Therefore, the Order really has no meaning because in reality, it only gets followed when the court wants to put one side’s feet to the fire.

9. Refer to items 3 & 4.

10. There should be a standing Discovery Order for the purpose of uniformity. If violated, the remedy should be giving the non-offending side more time.

11. Dispositive motions should be heard prior to seating the jury for efficient use of the attorneys and court’s time. Special Motions should also be heard long before trial so neither side needs to prepare for trial issues that may never become an issue at trial.

12. As a general rule, recidivists should be dealt with more harshly. A person convicted of, say, DWI, Burglary of a Vehicle or Shoplifting, who re-offends shortly after his/her sentence is served or probation expires has not been sufficiently punished or reformed.

13. 13. Time limits on voir dire should be flexible depending on complexity of the case. Typically, 30 minutes per side for a misdemeanor is more than

sufficient. However, if either side has cause for needing more time because of the complexity of a particular case, it should be requested by that side and considered by the court, rather than adhering to a rigid, predetermined schedule that was arbitrarily set years prior.

14. Looping during voir dire is an attorney’s individual strategy and the court should not interfere with how an attorney conducts his/her voir dire. The court should not interfere with the State or defense attorney’s choice.

15. Ordering the State to produce all IMPORTANT discovery 20 days before most trials is very reasonable in most standard misdemeanors. However, if the State produces discovery held in its possession since day one, moments before trial (without just cause), the State should be 1) admonished, and 2) charged with the reset. Other times, the new discovery can be unimportant, like dash cam video from a police car that the defendant is not seated in, which shows the dashboard and windshield wipers, but nothing else. Each case is different and each set of facts is different. Again, the judge should determine what needs to be done to preserve fairness and promote justice in that particular case, not have a rigid, inflexible policy.

Helen Petry Stowe 1. While I do believe that individual sentencing should take priority, it is important for a sitting judge to be very self-aware and make sure that there is a sense of uniformity as well. Judges often have a great deal of information about the individuals that come before their bench, and are in a position to carefully tailor a sentence that is in the best interest of our community.

21

2. Hard to pick one. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is delightful, but Chief Justice Earl Warren is perhaps the most inspirational influence. Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Loving v.

Virginia are just three of the landmark opinions penned by Warren that helped to shape our nation for the better. If elected, I would strive to preside over a court that honors these hard fought battles, and always promote a sense of fairness and equality and treat everyone who steps into my court with dignity.

6. As a prosecutor, I have long heard from my colleagues on the defense side that the misdemeanor pay scale needs improvement, and that many of them choose not be appointed on those cases.

While I would agree that the flat fee should be increased, and that an hourly rate should be reinstated, I would need to spend more time talking to some folks to get a feel for what would be an appropriate increase. My instincts are that a $200 flat rate and a $40 hourly rate would be appropriate, but that is very much an assumption at this time.

3. Because I know I will be a very good judge.

7. My only experience with scheduling orders has been on murder cases and family law cases. I am not opposed to considering issuing a scheduling order; however, I believe that they would rarely be necessary in a misdemeanor court.

4. My ten year legal career has been devoted to practicing criminal law. I became a prosecutor in February 2008. I have been in appeals, mental health, juvenile, DWI taskforce, family violence, intake, trial division, and the conviction integrity unit. I have handled more than 30 jury trials, more than 20 appellate briefs, and a large number of bench trials and post-conviction writs. I have presented oral argument to the 4th Court. I have spent years in some of the busiest courts in this county, including the 290th, 379th and 175th, where I handled countless pleas and motions. I have personally indicted hundreds of cases, and have a great breadth of criminal law experience. I am not running for this bench because of a grudge match, and if I win, it will not be something I stumbled into.

5. The jail population is always a significant issue, especially for the county courts. There is a distinct misfortune for those who are arrested and unable to afford a bond that leads to higher conviction rates for those individuals. I am in favor of cite and release in misdemeanor marihuana cases, and for PR bonds when appropriate. Specifically for County Court One, I think that the court can be run more much more efficiently, with a judge and a court coordinator that show up and are ready to work.

22

8. See my previous response.

9. Having never run for judge before, I want voters to know I bring a lot to the table in terms of both trial and appellate experience. I also bring a great deal of life experience. I started college at 17, with a one year old daughter, and worked very hard in school, with part time jobs in retail, in restaurants, even as a boat captain on the Riverwalk. I was a teacher for three years in a tough public school, before attending St. Mary’s. I have also experienced significant grief that gives me a great deal of wisdom and compassion. When you put my professional and life experience together, what you have before you is someone with the potential to change lives in our community for the better. A hard-working judge with the best interest of the court in mind would be the greatest change to CC1.

10. Yes. I believe that the Michael Morton Act created a standing discovery order, which requires full discovery disclosure in every criminal case, with a few statutory exceptions.

11. I would not “only” rule on dispositive motions after jury selection, although I might sometimes run those motions with the trial. Ideally, I would like to have a weekly motions docket.

12. Lengthy criminal history might lend itself to a jail sentence on certain cases, but I do not have any bright line rules. I understand that a lot of people are committing crimes to feed a drug habit or for mental health reasons and in appropriate cases I would want to help address the root of those problems. Each person would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

13. I would impose time limits on voir dire. I think a standard of thirty minutes per side is more than enough for a misdemeanor panel. But I am reasonable. If necessary, I would allow for more time.

14. Sure. Most of us have engaged in our fair share of looping. But, I would not allow the jury to be given a false impression about the law.

15. I think that would be appropriate in many cases.

Would I allow the State to use newly discovered evidence that it turned over less than 20 days before a trial? Depends on the case. Yes, if I felt that the defense had enough time to prepare. If the defense is telling me that they need more time and were blindsided, I would be amenable to giving them more time.

County Court 2:

Judge Jason Wolff 1. The overwhelming majority of cases are resolved via a plea bargain entered into between the State and the Defense, which are predominantly followed

by the Court. When given discretion on particular parameters, I try to adjust my sentencing based on the individual facts of the case in conjunction with the life circumstances of the defendant, and criminal history if any.

2. My judicial philosophy has not been influenced by a Supreme Court Justice, but by the many judges I practiced before throughout my career as a prosecutor, and by the judges I currently serve alongside.

I learned that patience, understanding, civility, respect for participants, and temperament are all critical to running an efficient and fair tribunal.

3. When I first took the bench in 2011, County Court 2 had the biggest/oldest backlog of criminal cases among all of the County Courts. The active docket had almost 3500 cases, of which, approximately 1600 of those cases were set for trial. The average “age” of a case was four years old, with some cases having languished for almost 10 years. The current docket has just over 800 cases including a trial docket of less than 100 cases. Along with an outstanding staff, hard work, and dedication, justice is no longer delayed, nor denied! During that time, Court 2 has also heard countless civil matters and presided over civil trials. I respectfully ask for your vote so that I can continue serving Bexar County citizens.

4. After graduating from The University of Texas School of Law with honors in 2004, I began my career at the Bexar County D.A.’s Office. During my 6 years as a prosecutor, I tried almost 100 jury trials and prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony cases. Since taking the bench, in addition to what is noted above, I presided in over 40 jury trials alone the first year on the bench. I was elected Administrative Judge by my peers in the second year of my first term, and have yet to be overturned on appeal. The past 7 years have only added to my ex-

23

perience and I remain open to learning and growing in the field of criminal law.

State and Defense. The motions are generally set on a special Thursday or Friday docket.

5. Bexar County has a high number of indigent defendants, many of whom who may have mental health issues. We have worked hard with Commissioner’s Court, the District Attorney, local law enforcement, and mental health providers to identify these individuals at the earliest opportunity and adjust bond conditions to provide treatment options in addition to releasing them from jail with little to no financial impact.

12. Defendants with a criminal past are often, but not always, viewed in a different sentencing light than those with no criminal history. Certainly the nature of the offense is an impacting factor, but as important, are the causes of the recidivism. If drug or alcohol addiction is identified as the source, I do my best to address the addiction as a first approach, rather than using punishment or retribution tools.

6. I am 100% committed to increasing the pay scale.

The amount of increase is yet to be determined, but will be influenced by all relevant parties.

7. Court 2 does not generally issue scheduling orders, other than the Standing Discovery Orders on blood/breath test cases with included timelines. Attorneys are always free to approach and make specific requests.

8. I am satisfied with the Court’s current practices.

9. As the sitting Judge of Court 2, in addition to the items mentioned above, I am most proud of the defendants I have helped in some way to turn their lives of addiction and desperation around, and head down a new path filled with hope and goals for the future.

10. There are currently Standing Discovery Orders in the misdemeanor courts and I have signed them without hesitation.

11. I will often hear motions to suppress before a jury is empaneled. While I prefer they be dispositive, that is not an absolute requirement. Each case is unique and I will entertain setting the motion prior to trial after simultaneously conferring with the

24

13. The time frame is typically 30 minutes a side for general voir dire, with each side given the freedom to conduct specific voir dire on those individuals who may have indicated a bias during general. I have given additional time on numerous occasions when the case involves more complicated issues.

14. I see no basis for an objection to such a technique.

15. I think that is a reasonable request.

County Court 4:

Judge Jason Garrahan 1. Each sentence is on a case-by-case basis, no two cases are the same. Specific facts and individuals are used to evaluate each sentence.

2. I don’t have a SCOTUS Justice that I could name that was the most influential to my development of my judicial philosophy. However, two local judges, Sid Harle and Sarah Garrahan, I feel have influenced my judicial philosophy immensely. Particularly, their temperament and knowledge of the law.

3. The justice system in the United States is the best system in the world. This justice system is based on impartiality and fairness, and I have throughout my life followed those same principles and consider them a cornerstone of my beliefs.

manage civil docket.

4. Born and raised in Bexar County, Texas. I have owned and operated my own businesses in Bexar County for the last 20 years, restaurant and land management. I have tried over 125+ jury trials either as an attorney or a judge. I have resolved cases that range from traffic tickets to capital murders in my career. I have the experience, knowledge and temperament in law and business to apply to the bench.

11. No. Case-by-case basis.

5. One significant issue is discoverable evidence/ material being disclosed in a timely matter; this is required for fair justice and for defense being properly prepared to defend their client. Require that all discoverable evidence/material be turned before trial date and if evidence/material is not disclosed have a hearing on the admissibility of that material and possible exclusion. Fairness is a cornerstone of the justice system and is the one the most important issues that any justice system faces and having judges that seek fairness and justice with an eye on mercy is paramount to our legal system.

6. Yes, the amount needs to be increased to reflect Bexar County size and comparable counties in Texas.

7. If requested, scheduling orders can be done.

8. Scheduling orders are useful tools and standard/ standing would benefit in expediting cases.

9. The reduction in caseload and backlog of pending active and fugitive cases. I have expanded County Court #4 to be available to the civil docket to help

10. Yes, having standing discovery order makes the State accountable and gives notice, even though State should already be on notice, that it is required.

12. I believe the key is to rehabilitate and to use programs to help in that rehabilitation. Incarceration at the misdemeanor level should be used after all other avenues have been explored/exhausted in most cases.

13. Based on complexity of case. Up to one hour to twenty minutes.

14. If it is legal it is allowed in voir dire 15. Yes, the State should be ordered to turn over all discovery 20 days before trial or sooner.

Alfredo Ximenez 1. I believe individual sentencing is very important because not all situations are the same. While application of the law is important, as a judge, we must take into account the ramifications of a sentence on the offender as well as the victim. We must take into account, bad things happen to good people everyday. We must consider all aspects of our sentences when handed down.

2. Thurgood Marshall would be the Justice who shaped my view of what “justice” is and how “justice” should be applied. Justice Marshall always fought for the underdog. Throughout his career, Justice Marshall stepped in to prevent injustice throughout the United States. As a lawyer, I dedicated all my time

25

to criminal defense. When I started Law School, I knew criminal defense is what I wanted to do. I always knew I had to speak for those who couldn’t speak for themselves, just as Justice Marshall did.

I knew my job would entail me defending people’s rights against unfair intrusion and unfair application of the law. I was ready and eagerly accepted the challenge.

3. I am seeking this office because of what my practice has taught me as a “real world lawyer.” When a person takes the bench as a judge, we are forced to make decisions that impact peoples’ lives. Not just the victims, but he accused as well. I am a product of San Antonio having been born, raised, and fully educated in San Antonio. San Antonio has gone though many changes in my life. I have continually witnessed the poor and uneducated overlooked from the fairness component in our system. As a judge, I will insure everyone who comes before me is treated the way I would want a member of my family treated. Anyone who comes before me as a judge will be treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Accused defendants who come before me will be treated like a human being because “not everyone arrested is guilty!”

4. Since May 2003, I have dedicated 99% of my practice to Criminal Defense. I have experience as a “real world lawyer.” I know what it’s like to prepare a case from beginning to end, without the help of supervisors, advocates, investigators, liasons, etc. When a person goes from Law School to the DA’s Office, to the bench … they have NEVER been a real world lawyer. They have never prepared a case for trial from beginning to end, without the help of staff and supervisors to assist them in trial prep. As private practice lawyers we prepare for EVERYTHING on our own! Plus, we don’t get to pick and choose what we take to trial.

26

5. The disparity in sentencing is what criminal courts lack most in Bexar County, Judges lacking defense experience in representing defendants. We need individuals who have experienced representing people and seen the effects sentencing has on peoples’ lives. Life-long prosecutors have no idea what their actions have on people.

6. UNDOUBTEDLY!!!!! The wages paid are insulting and only serve to diminish the quality or representation the indigent community in Bexar County receives. It is a slap in the face to Attorneys as well as defendants. I would support an increase to $200 per misdemeanor case, at MINIMUM!!

7. Scheduling orders in my court would be available on request. It’s important all parties know what and when deadlines are and what’s expected of them.

8. No, I do not believe there should be a standard scheduling order in place unless it becomes an issue brought to the court’s attention. Then the court will step in and resolve issues immediately.

9. I have never been a judge in this or any other court. I believe the citizens of Bexar County should entrust me in this position because I am a true representative of who they are. I have represented defendants for approximately 14 years and know what they are going though. I have not simply sat in a county office collecting a paycheck while others instruct me on what I should feel is appropriate and what I should prosecute. I will immediately make access to my court available not just for the defense bar but the public as well. It’s our job to streamline the court system and not make it difficult to get work done because we are not used to making decisions on our own without the guidance of supervisors we are so used to guiding us.

10. Yes, I believe all discovery should be made avail-

able to the defense without reservation. In my court, bluffing and hiding the ball on discovery WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!!

11. I will handle Motions to Suppress on an Individual basis. Each motion deserves individual review and attention. I will not run motion with the trial and they will have a special setting. This will allow both sides ample time to prepare for trial based on the finding of the Motion.

12. I believe in graduated sentencing. I do not believe someone has no hope of rehabilitation.

13. I feel 30 minutes is ample time for voir dire.

Should counsel feel additional time is necessary for accurate representation of their case it will be taken into consideration 14. I believe looping is important discovery tool and should be permitted. However the looping question should be relevant to the case at hand.

15. I believe the State should immediately turn over any and all discovery the defense is entitled to upon discovery of said evidence, regardless of time constraints. As previously stated, hiding the ball on evidentiary matter will not be dealt with lightly in my court!!

County Court 5:

Judge John A. Longoria 1. As a sitting judge, I operate my court under two basic principles: first of all, recognition of and respect for the dignity of every person who appears in court. Second, uphold the oath of office—the constitution and laws of the United States and of the State

of Texas. It is important to keep a balance between the need to protect the community and protect the rights of each individual accused of crime. The Court must show competence, concern for all and willingness to listen and insure fairness.

2. I can’t say that I have a particular judicial philosophy, nor can I truthfully say that I have particular knowledge of any Justice of the Supreme Court. My attitude mentioned above in # 1 is based on a simple upbringing by parents who were hard-working and made tremendous sacrifices to see that my brothers and I received a good education. They raised us with a strong dedication to families and community along with a strong respect for God and Church. I grew up with a great regard for the poor and underprivileged. Thus, service to God, Country, family and Community has been and is my personal philosophy.

3. I have been licensed to practice law for over 44 years. I have a very extensive history of service to Church (teaching religion classes to children over 30 years-Church Council many years-varied services), family (my wife and I have raised and educated 5 children and always assisted other family members), and community (I have a 3 page resume of involvement in community service). I have served in various public offices for over 28 years (including County Commissioner, County Judge, State Representative, and Judge). My life has been dedicated to service. I feel I have the age, wisdom and experience to be an excellent Judge. I believe I have earned the respect of my fellow lawyers and my fellow Judges.

Although I am the only Democratic County Criminal Courts Judge of 13, I was unanimously selected by my peers as Administrative Judge for 2016 and 2017 and 2018.

4. I have practiced law since February 9th 1974. At least 60% of my practice has been in criminal law. I

27

have served on many community service boards as well as significant public offices where careful, contemplative decision making was required that often required the balancing of the needs of diverse, if not opposing constituents. I have much more experience at every level than my opponent. I have earned the respect of the criminal law bar and associations.

I have served as a board member of the San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers association. I have been very active and practiced law and am grateful for the opportunity to serve as a Judge.

dispositive; I hear pre-trial motions on Thursdays and Fridays until 5 pm.

5. County Courts have a current backlog of thousands of cases wherein 17,000 are fugitives. I have requested that the Commissioners Court consider adding “special deputies” to assist in getting fugitives into court. Part of the problem is the reality that at most the courts can hear 1 or 2 jury trials per week. Figure 50 jury weeks per year per court. Part of the problem is the common practice of insisting that motions must be “dispositive,” or run with the trial. In CC 5 anyone who seeks a motion to suppress does not have to commit to a “dispositive motion.” With appropriate exceptions, very court should be in the office until 5 PM every day. Judges should also make every effort to educate those in court.

8. Encourage the judges to call dockets promptly and get away from the practice of requiring pre-trial motions to be “dispositive” or “run with the trial.” Pretrial motions should be just that- pre-trial. Judges should be willing to work 8 to 5 and be available to the community. Judges should meet regularly and share “best practices.” I believe Judges should meet with members of the bar and seek out recommendations for change and improvement. This should include the defense bar as well as prosecutors.

6. We have an epidemic of DWI, Marijuana and theft (shoplifting) cases. I require defense attorneys to review with defendants the difference between intoxication and “drunk.” Too many young people commit shoplifting without realizing the impact of a “moral turpitude.” I insist that all who qualify for Pre-trial Diversion are considered. Most probationers believe probation is “reporting and paying money.” I also provide/review with them an informational sheet to make clear the essence of probation-commitment to live up to 100% of conditions in exchange for no jail time. In CC 5 all pre-trial motions are just that. No motion is required to be

28

7. This question has been answered above. I believe I have much greater experience in every category.

I have practiced law over 44 years. I have served Church, family, Country and community. I believe my history is much more varied and exceeds that of my opponent. In the area of practicing law I have done so as a defense attorney for over 41 years and now have 3 + years as Judge in Court 5.

Judges should ensure that lawyers and defendants are fully informed regarding the law and requirements including the need for lawyers to be prompt and to fully inform clients of areas of the law that are vital.

Impediments are simply the will to make changes.

I would address these issues by example and by encouraging other judges to implement changes.

9. I have been Judge of CC 5 for 3 + years. I am prompt in calling dockets. I try to provide needed educational information to lawyers and defendants alike. I work 8am to 5pm+ and hold pre-trial hearings for anyone who requests them. I believe I have been helpful in requiring that those who are eligible for Pre-trial diversion are considered. I treat everyone with dignity and consideration.

10. My parents (George and Carrie Longoria) who raised me to care about family, church and community, inspired me by example to acknowledge the dignity of every person. President Jimmy Carter who has shown regard for “the least of our brothers,” including working for Habitat for Humanity and for world peace.

11. Helping thousands of people over the course of 44+ years along with having a positive impact on many, many people who sometimes could not and did not pay for my services are my proudest legal accomplishments.

My most significant personal achievement is raising a family and serving church and community in a wide variety of capacities.

I may have a hard time remembering names but I am plagued with the memory of recalling jokes all the way back to childhood. I don’t forget a good joke.

12. I preside over misdemeanor cases. Recidivism mainly involves DWI, thefts, assaults and possession of drugs. I believe criminal behavior is rooted in lack of quality education and opportunity. I am doing what I can to educate defendants who are convicted by submitting an “informational acknowledgement of probation,” document, and an “informational document on intoxication.” I carefully educate probationers on their requirements.

I supervise carefully those under probation. I am strict; but, I am not tyrannical. I am particularly concerned in regard to repeat DWI offenders. I listen carefully to attorneys and those convicted.

13. Judges are the ultimate “gatekeepers” in regard to evidence. The new statute goes as far as judges are willing to take it. The basic skeleton is there for judges to require fair treatment of the accused. If

defendants believe they are being denied sufficient discovery they have to raise the issues. The current statute has certainly received the attention of prosecutors.

14. No Response 15. No Response

Linda Molina 1. Working as a prosecutor for 12 years in Bexar County, I know that county court prosecutors tend to follow pre-determined guidelines for sentencing.

Working as a defense attorney, I know that there is always more to the story and, most importantly, more to the person. Each situation must be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Balance can be found by taking the time to get all the information, from both sides. Individual sentencing should take priority.

2. In Marbury v. Madison, then Chief Justice John Marshall did something outstanding; he laid the groundwork to make the U.S. Supreme Court what it is today. In so doing, he changed the course of our history. He stated “it is emphatically the duty and province of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision, crafted by Marshall, established the Constitution as a set of laws that the Court may interpret, and allowed the Court to declare unconstitutional any new law if it was in conflict with the Constitution. First learning about this case, and Marshall’s clever approach, in high school, as a twotime participant on The Constitution Team, set me on a path to seek the study of law. It gave me an appreciation for the responsibility of judges to say what the law is.

3. I have dedicated my career to public service by be-

29

ing an assistant attorney general, a prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney over my 17-year career.

I have handled every type of criminal case, in juvenile court and adult criminal court, on both sides. I have also received specialized training in trial advocacy. This new role will enhance my ability to continue to serve the community.

•

•

4. I have consistently worked in criminal law for 18 years. I am a criminal defense attorney, in both state and federal courts, in adult and juvenile courts.

I take court-appointed cases, up to 2nd chair on death penalty cases in Bexar County. I also take court-appointed cases up to 3G felony offenses in Guadalupe and Comal counties. I am in court every day on criminal matters.

•

I worked as a prosecutor for 12 years. I handled hundreds of cases, from magistration to grand jury to jury trial. I also supervised and trained junior prosecutors.

6. Yes. As the Judge of County Court #5, and based on my experience as a defense attorney in the Bexar County county courts, I would always be open to discussions for increasing court-appointed attorney’s fees in misdemeanor courts.

As an Assistant Attorney General, I defended state felony convictions against Constitutional challenges. I submitted briefs to federal courts. I also litigated evidentiary hearings. Presently, I am on the CJA panel in the Western District of San Antonio for Habeas Corpus.

I have the perspective and balance needed to be the Judge of this court.

5. One of the most significant issues facing the Criminal Courts in Bexar County, and one that I believe is important to address at the County Court level, is recidivism. In County Court at Law No. 5, I will work on slowing down the revolving door of crime by: •

30

Sentencing convicted individuals to programs with a high success rate in rehabilitation

Monitoring community supervision programs to ensure effectiveness Monitoring the progress of offenders

The most significant issue in County Court #5 is efficiency. As the Judge of County Court at Law No. 5, I will work on improving efficiency by: Developing a consistent order for the court so all parties will know what to expect o Establishing scheduling orders for pre-trial matters and trials with specific deadlines • Working to process cases quickly o Providing speedy resolutions and trials • Treating everyone equally • Being available at all times

7. Only on request.

8. No to both. Each case is unique. The state can miss deadlines just as easily as the defense. I would be open to a discovery motion hearing, if discovery is not being provided, upon request.

9. An effective Judge, who will apply the law as it is written, can slow down the revolving door of repeat offenders. County Court 5 is a misdemeanor court.

It is at this level that a judge can stop the revolving door of crime before it escalates, by rehabilitating the ones we can, and putting the ones that need tough discipline in jail.

10. I believe all discovery should be turned over to the defense as soon as it is received by the State or their agents. I would not be opposed to a general

standing discovery order.

challenges for cause.

11. No.

15. The discovery process is vital to ensuring that a defendant’s rights are protected. An effective judge can help by ordering the State to produce all discovery at least 20 days before trial. If ordered, and not produced, the consequences of the failure to produce will be made clear, whether by continuance or exclusion of the evidence. Further, a judge should require that all parties, including the Defendant, sign the Discovery Acknowledgement. Also, the judge should make general inquiries regarding discovery on the record, at every setting, leading up to trial.

The Court will hear motions to suppress, separate from, and prior to, trial.

12. An effective Judge, can help slow down the revolving door of repeat offenders. County Court 5 is a misdemeanor court. It hears mostly cases involving alcohol, drugs, DWI’s, assaults, and thefts, with sentences ranging from community supervision to one year in jail. County Court 5 is the first step and opportunity for a judge to impress on the offender the importance of staying out of trouble or face a harsh consequence for the offense they commit. It is at this level that a judge can stop the revolving door of crime before it escalates, by rehabilitating the ones we can, and putting the ones that need tough discipline in jail.

13. Voir dire is a very important part of the jury trial process. It is crucial to get as much information from potential jurors as possible, so as to ensure that a defendant gets a fair trial. It is hard, in a short amount of time, to get the information needed in order to select (or de-select) a jury. I would ask both sides how much time they think they need and, based on the complexity of the case, set time limits accordingly.

14. As the Judge of County Court #5, I would permit looping during voir dire. Looping is an effective way to get jurors to open up about their feelings on a particular subject and it can help identify several individuals who share the same viewpoint. Many jurors are not enthusiastic about speaking in public, especially about their personal lives. Looping helps people feel more comfortable with the question and answer process—and helps encourage them to participate. It can be particularly helpful to expose

Julie Bray Patterson 1. If I am given the opportunity to serve as Judge in County Court at Law #5, I will try to balance uniformity in sentencing with individual sentencing as best as I can. Certainly, the more I know about the defendant’s past and present, good or bad, would factor into sentencing.

2. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s approach to constitutional questions is appealing to me. It is an important first step to determine and understand the original intent of a law, rather than to have judges create new law, which is the role of the legislative branch.

3. I am running for County Court at Law #5 to make positive change. I have been encouraged by attorneys, courthouse staff, friends, and family to run for this specific bench, and I have the skills and the temperament to make this court one of the best in the courthouse. I am from San Antonio and it is time for me to give back to the community that has given much to me.

31

4. I graduated from the University of Texas School of Law and have been licensed for over 21 years.

My career in criminal law began in the Dallas District Attorney’s Office, where I was in trial often.

It was in this job that I learned how satisfying it is to practice criminal law. I have been involved in small trials as well as murders. I currently operate as a solo practitioner, focusing on criminal and juvenile law, and I am in the courthouse most days. Not only am I entrusted by 436th District Court Judge Lisa Jarrett to be the staff attorney for Family Enrichment Court, a specialty court focusing on domestic violence, but I am also the alternate prosecutor for the City of Olmos Park. For more information about my background, please see www.julieforjudge5.com.

5. One of the more significant issues in the Bexar County criminal courts is how to address the volume of cases in a timely manner, including the speed, or lack thereof, in which drug and blood tests are returned. If I am given the opportunity to serve, I would have a better idea of how to help effect change within all criminal courts after a year or so in office. As to County Court at Law #5, I hope to address morning business in a timely and purposeful manner.

6. If elected I would vote for an increase to the misdemeanor appointed pay schedule. It is my understanding that Commissioners Court allocates $185,000 per County Court for court appointed attorneys cost, and that this amount would not cover a pay increase. I know that SACDLA members, as well as current judges, have researched the issue and I am willing to join the conversation.

7. I do not intend on issuing scheduling orders.

8. I am open to discussion on how scheduling orders will help move cases to a resolution, but as of now, I

32

do not see the need in misdemeanor courts.

9. First of all, I want voters to know I am from San Antonio and am now in a position to give back to my community. Second, I have already been entrusted to serve the 436th District Court as the Family Enrichment Court’s staff attorney as well as the City of Olmos Park’s alternate prosecutor. Additionally, I serve on the Board of Directors of Morningside Ministries and oversee a substantial budget. I am blessed to have already been entrusted to these important positions.

10. If elected, one of my main priorities will be to operate all morning business in an efficient and timely manner. I will treat all staff, defense attorneys, state’s attorneys, defendants, and bailiffs with dignity and respect.

11. CCP art. 39.14 regulates discovery in Texas, and I am open to hearing both sides of the issue as to a standing Discovery Order. As judge, I will expect the State “not to convict, but seek that justice is done” (CCP art. 2.01) and the defense to argue passionately for their client (appointed or retained).

12. I am open to hearing dispositive motions before a jury is sworn. Motions that are not dispositive, I lean toward hearing them during trial. My goal is to make County Court at Law #5 run smoothly and efficiently while respecting everyone’s time, including that of the jury and witnesses.

13. When sentencing someone to probation, I hope to provide meaningful tools that will help that person make better decisions in the future. DOEP, CATS and AA/NA will be some of the classes those on probation in my court would be ordered to participate in. I am open to brainstorm other classes or programs that would be beneficial to probationers.

I want probationers to succeed, while making Bexar

County a safer place to live.

14. If elected, I would allow each side 30 minutes for voir dire, with some flexibility.

During voir dire I would permit looping.

15. CCP art. 39.14 regulates discovery in Texas, and I would not force the defense to trial without adequate time to review discovery. I am willing to discuss the issue further if elected.

County Court 6:

Rochelle Acevedo 1. The uniformity in misdemeanor offers, tends to come from the District Attorney’s office. In primarily misdemeanor offers, there is the standard offer given to any customary offense. I believe the court should take into consideration any mitigating and/ or aggravating factors offered by the state or defense. Both factors take priority and in the end the individual factors taken into consideration by the court and given discretion should have uniformity across the board to reach the most consistent punishment. A first time offender who may have made an isolated mistake should not be treated the same as the multi-offender criminal defendant with a long history of offenses.

2. Justice Sotomayor. She has been my role model as the first Hispanic federal judge in New York State, the first justice of Hispanic Heritage and the third female Supreme Court Justice. She has been a lifelong activist and her judicial philosophy is much aligned with my convictions and principles. Throughout her career there has not been any clear cut allegiance to any party or affiliation. She has remained

committed to the law and its application, despite political opinion or facts that come before her. She has been known as a meticulous judge, faithfully following the law. I am committed to following her lead in these regards.

3. I am seeking County Court at Law #6 because this is a misdemeanor criminal court. I have been a practicing attorney for over 14 years focusing on criminal law. My experience, background and character would provide for a Judge who is hardworking, fair and committed. I have the experience necessary to listen to the evidence, follow the law and be fair and impartial and dispense justice equitably. I am a wife, mother of four girls, a business owner and solo practitioner. As such I have a unique perspective on efficiency, hard work, perseverance and commitment.

This bench deserves a judge who will listen to the evidence and who knows and will follow the law.

Our Veterans deserve a judge who is open-minded, compassionate and dedicated. My commitment is to have our Veterans Court thrive with the help and commitment of county involvement.

4. I have been a practicing attorney for over 14 years, obtaining my license in 2003. My practice has been devoted to criminal defense in Bexar County. I have my own full time law practice which consists of primarily criminal law matters ranging from juvenile and adult Class c tickets, misdemeanors, felonies, MTR’s, federal cases and appeals. I also handle family law matters including divorces, SAPCR’s, modifications, child support, terminations and adoptions.

I believe my wide range of knowledge in several practice areas further aids me in this position with a unique understanding and perspective of the complexities and effects when outside factors correlate to the case before the bench.

5. The issues facing our courts are jail population,

33

large dockets and speedy trials. Each judge has discretion to set trial dates, prioritize and maintain dockets. I will be respectful and mindful of the attorneys that come before me while maintaining efficiency for all parties involved. The issues facing this court are a commitment to following the law, judicial temperament and prioritizing numbers in pleas and collections rather than individualizing each case. This court has one of the highest numbers of revocations which furthers our jail population.

I am committed to restoring the respect and integrity of this court. My objective is to restore the honor of the court as well as devoting much effort to our Veterans Court. My judicial temperament will focus on being fair and impartial to all, a commitment to following the law, respect for all involved and providing the patience and time to each individual case.

6. Yes. As far as rate, I believe Bexar County, as one of the largest counties in Texas, we should be on par with our counterparts in other jurisdictions. As a defense attorney, I understand the role we play in a client’s life and the efforts and hard work that is put into diligently defending that client. Regardless of outcome, that time and experience has value and should be compensated appropriately.

7. I would be open to issuing scheduling orders upon request.

8. While I think a standing scheduling order may work for specific courts, I don’t believe a standing/ standard scheduling order is needed in a standard misdemeanor criminal court. Misdemeanor courts face timeline challenges with obtaining breath/ blood evidence, applying for different programs, evaluations for specialty treatment courts and negotiating with the DA’s office.

34

9. My past experience will serve me well in overseeing this bench. I have been a practicing attorney for over 14 years and have maintained my own full time practice. My background, my experience, my commitment to this bench and my devotion to my community make me the best candidate for this position. I am hardworking and committed to producing an efficient court as well as bringing Veterans Court to its full potential.

This is a bench belonging to the voters of Bexar County. I am asking that they entrust me with this position knowing I am committed to my community. To our safety and to our future. To ensuring that my time is fully accounted for, that I will follow the law and be fair and impartial to citizens that come before this bench and to fully devoting my time to our Veterans currently in our Veterans Treatment Court.

10. Yes. I believe this answer correlates with question 15. A competent defense requires full disclosure and an opportunity to review and prepare. There should not be any last minute, surprise supplemental discovery that puts either side at an unfair advantage/disadvantage.

11. No. Motions should be heard prior to trial and prior to jury selection. I believe it is a waste of judicial economy and taxpayer money to select a jury prior to trial.

12. Recidivism can easily be defined as repeated criminal behavior and having consequences for that behavior. I have strong convictions regarding this behavior which derived my desire to run for a county court at law bench. If we wat to prevent recidivism, we have to start with the youth that come before us and recognize that they are a part of our community, they are our sons and daughter, our neighbors, our students and out future. We must

invest and put forth the effort at the county court level if we want to ensure lower recidivism in our felony courts. We have to recognize and individualize each defendant that comes before us by their character and not their case number. We must train ourselves to recognize and isolated incident from a perceived lost cause.

13. Because this is a misdemeanor court, generically speaking 30-45 minutes tends to be sufficient. I would certainly be open to a request for additional and equal time should it be necessary for certain offenses, complex offenses, or cases with particular issues.

14. I believe as long as the conversation is not only engaging but relevant, than it should be permitted.

15. A competent defense requires full disclosure and an appropriate time to review and prepare. I believe having 20 days before trial is certainly sufficient for both parties, including a witness list, for proper preparation. There should not be last minute supplemental discovery right before trial.

County Court 7: Michael DeLeon

1. As judge of a domestic violence court, I will look at every case to see if there are extenuating circumstances that warrant some type of specific punishment beyond the standard conditions that will be placed on every defendant in a domestic violence case.

2. I do not have a judicial philosophy that I can point to a specific United States Supreme Court Justice and somehow correlate that to how I will run a mis-

demeanor domestic violence county court.

3. I am seeking this office because I believe this court needs a judge who has the proper temperament when handling domestic violence cases. Every attorney should expect that the judge of County Court #7 will treat their client with respect, along with treating the complainants and attorneys in the courtroom with proper respect. No attorney should have to ask what the mood of the judge is before going to the bench.

4. I have been an Assistant District Attorney for the past 17 years, 15 of those years in the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, and 10 of those years specifically handling felony domestic violence cases including sexual assault of children and adults, murder, and capital murder. I have tried over 100 jury trial cases and handled over 1000 felony domestic violence cases. Ask any member of the defense bar and I am confident they will tell you I am fair and reasonable prosecutor who has a firm knowledge of the law and will be respectful in any situation.

5. With the sheer volume of criminal cases in Bexar County, the courts need to resolve cases in a more timely fashion while protecting the rights of victims and defendants. In County Court #7, I would diligently go through the trial docket to resolve cases while giving both sides the appropriate time to be prepared for trial. I have seen and witnessed specific judges in my career fairly go through this process to timely resolve cases for both sides.

6. YES, I would vote for an increase. The hourly rate/flat rate absolutely needs to be increased so that defendants are properly represented by their attorneys, and attorneys are adequately compensated for their work.

7. I do not believe in general that scheduling orders

35

are needed in a misdemeanor domestic violence case. If a specific case warrants the need to put that in place I would be happy to do so, in a case by case basis.

8. I do not believe in general that scheduling orders are needed in a misdemeanor domestic violence case. If a specific case warrants the need to put that in place I would be happy to do so, in a case by case basis.

9. Voters want a judge who has the proper knowledge and experience of dealing with domestic violence issues and has the proper temperament to run a fair and efficient court. As judge, I will treat all the parties with respect, give proper time to both sides to be ready for trial, and most of all be fair.

10. For the third time, I do not believe in general that scheduling orders are needed in a misdemeanor domestic violence case. If a specific case warrants the need to put that in place I would be happy to do so, in a case by case basis.

11. In a domestic violence court, I don’t believe there will be many times where a motion will be dispositive. I would be happy to listen to both sides and schedule a hearing if it would somehow resolve the case.

12. In a misdemeanor domestic violence, I believe most cases can be resolved with deferred adjudication which allows defendants to get help for any issues they may have, protect complainants from further harm, and allow defendants to not have a conviction on their record. My view of recidivism is that defendants will be allowed the chance to prove that the incident they are in court on was a “onetime” incident which they will avoid in the future.

They will know that if there is another family violence incident in the future, they will be looking at

36

felony punishment and they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

13. For a six-person jury trial, I would allow 30 minutes total to each side.

14. I had to ask what “looping” was because I have never heard of it in my 17 year career. I have no problem with an attorney asking if the other jurors feel the same as a particular juror feels on a particular issue.

15. In a misdemeanor court with the District Attorney’s open file policy, there really should not be too much discovery to be turned over. On a caseby-case basis, if one side wanted an actual deadline set, I would be happy to entertain a brief hearing on the matter.

Judge Eugenia ‘Genie’ Wright 1. The law takes precedence. Always. Within that parameter I never forget that I am balancing justice with safety for all involved.

2. Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Strong women, smart and groundbreaking. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

3. I love my job. This job and this office permit me to make positive differences in my community.

4. I have the honor of being the Judge of this Court.

Experience matters.

5. Ancillary and supportive personnel: clerks, investigators, advocates for victims, cases should be properly vetted before coming to court.

6. Absolutely. We should be consistent with comparably sized counties in Texas.

7. On request 8. If personnel is available such orders are possible, both standard and standing.

9. My solution oriented and collaborative approach with the defense bar. Increased use of pre-trial diversion. Speedier resolution of cases.

10. The Morton Act is dispositive of most discovery.

Please be diligent and bring any discrepancies to my attention. I expect both the defense and the state to exercise due diligence.

11. No. Please set a hearing.

12. Every case and every sentence rises and falls on its own merit. No two defendants are the same.

13. 30 minutes per side for general voir dire. More if requested. We bring in individual jurors afterward.

14. You have 30 minutes. Use it wisely.

15. That is a legislative decision.

County Court 8:

Judge Celeste Brown 1. Sentencing in County Court 8 is done on a caseby-case basis. Each person has individual needs and a unique set of circumstances. I try to focus on each person’s welfare and sentence them fairly for their poor choice or wrong doing.

2. I do not identify with any one particular Justice.

They all have individual qualities and attributes that I admire and strive to emulate.

3. During my current term, I feel that I have made a dramatic impact. I have saved lives, provided treatment, and helped those to receive assistance they needed to become productive members of our community. The Court has proven to be more efficient, respectful, accessible, and approachable. Feedback from Attorneys, Defendants and Family members have been positive testaments of my passion for this position. It is an Honor and Privilege to represent Bexar County as your elected Judge in County Court at Law 8/ DWI Court.

4. I have been a defense attorney since 1994 after graduating from St. Mary’s School of Law. I can say it’s truly a labor of love for me to help people better their lives. I believe in a Fair, Focused, and Firm Approach. In just three short years as Judge, the court has eliminated over 74% of the Jury Trial settings and caseload has significantly decreased by implementing efficiencies without compromising integrity. Each individual and case is a priority and unique. My team and I proud to have received The 2017 Spotlight Award, from The Center of The Judiciary for Outstanding DWI Team in Texas. It is an Honor to have their recognition, of the tremendous progress we have accomplished.

5. I believe that the most significant issue facing the criminal courts in Bexar County is the challenge of balancing a defendant’s needs with judicial efficiency and financial responsibility. Streamlining the process from the time of arrest all the way to a plea or trial would improve the criminal courts of Bexar County. I believe all of us in authoritative positions could spend an extra minute or two to ask questions of the defendant to figure out exactly what they need to help their situation instead of just assuming

37

incarceration will fix the problem. Jail time doesn’t necessarily solve all issues. There needs to be a balance of compassion and tough love.

6. I would be in support of a change in the misdemeanor court pay schedule. I would need more information on what amount would be fair, but still have a positive impact on our court budget.

7. We do not use scheduling orders in my court.

8. N/A 9. As the presiding judge of County Court 8/DWI Court, I am most proud of expanding the DWI Court Program; It has doubled in just three years.

We push daily to change lives in a positive manner. I am proud to provide the tools the participants need to live a sober and productive lifestyle. I believe in smart justice, efficiency and accountability.

The changes I implemented three years ago upon being elected to the bench have proven successful. I inherited a docket with 450 pending jury trial settings in January of 2015. That same docket now contains 71 jury settings only three years later. Our Court has decreased the caseload backlog because of hard work and efficiency. I have proven in these last three years that I have a Judicial Temperament suitable for The Bench. I have also proven to be Approachable and Accessible.

10. Yes. Standing discovery orders allow all parties to be more productive and better organized at court settings.

been given the opportunity for treatment and help to rehabilitate. If they have not been provided that opportunity in the past, I take a more therapeutic approach to their sentence. If they have been given this opportunity for help and rehabilitation but failed to use those tools, then I will take a more punitive approach to that person’s sentence.

13. I impose time limits on voir dire of 20 to 25 minutes a side. This allows a jury to be seated in sworn in a matter of hours. Again, it’s about balancing efficiency and fairness.

14. “Looping” can be a necessary part of voir dire.

Sometimes a good argument has an even better rebuttal.

15. Depending on the trial discovery issues, I think 10 to 20 days before trial is a reasonable amount of time for both sides to prepare their case for trial.

County Court 9:

Judge Walden Sheldon 1. I believe in uniformity; however, each case is different. Based on the facts of the case will determine the upward or downward departure. The facts of the individual case takes priority.

11. Yes. I am of the opinion that a jury should be seated and sworn in before any motion to suppress is heard.

2. Antonin Scalia. He wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, holding that defendants must have the opportunity to confront lab technicians in drug cases and that a certificate of analysis is not enough to prove a substance was a drug.

12. Recidivism affects my sentencing decisions. I always look at a defendant’s past to see if they have

3. I am seeking re-election to: (1) continue to reduce the back log of cases; (2) keep the Court within its

38

budget; (3) and, maintain efficiency of the Court.

4. I have been your Judge of County Court at Law # 9 for the past seven years. I have drafted the Standing Orders on Blood and Breath Discovery used by every County Court in Bexar County. I serve on the DWI curriculum committee for the Texas Center for the Judiciary, which provides DWI training for every Municipal, JP, County Court, County Court at Law, District, and Court of Appeals Judges/Justices in Texas. Since taking the bench, I have reduced the backlog in County Court #9 by over 760 cases. I have collected over $5,400,000 in restitution and fines. For the past three years, I have had the highest collections of all the County Courts.

5. The case count is the most significant issue facing the County Courts. The cases need to continue to be reduced so that caseloads can be handled by the current County Courts without the need for any additional County Courts at Law. 6. Yes, the County Courts currently are working on a proposal to present to Commissioner’s Court for approval. I am not on that committee but support a pay increase.

7. Before taking the bench, I had a civil and criminal practice so I am very familiar with scheduling orders. Those would only be ordered by the agreement of the state, defense and bench.

8. No, and No. Those should be issued only on a case by case basis.

9. I have been a good steward of County Court at Law # 9. I have saved the citizens of Bexar County $309,805 over the past 7 years in operating expenses, reduced the backlog of cases by over 760q, and collected restitution, fines and costs over $5,400,000. I have run the most efficient Court for the past three

years and for the past 7 years have never been lower than third place.

10. Yes, I have had a Standard Discovery Order in County Court #9 for 7 years.

11. I prefer to set motions with the trial and hear them after the jury is seated. This provides a final resolution of the case.

12. Each case and individual is different and the sentence should reflect those differences.

13. The time limits are based upon the complexity, novelty, and type of the case to be tried.

14. Yes. 15. The state should produce the discovery before trial with enough time to allow the defense adequate time to review and prepare for trial. The number of days would be dependent on the volume of material.

County Court 11:

Judge Tommy Stolhandske 1. I consider all relevant information available at sentencing. No case and no defendant are the same, but I do my best to be as consistent as possible.

2. More than any Supreme Court Justice, my philosophy has been influenced by the Judges that I have practiced in front of locally. In my opinion, Bexar County is blessed with some terrific Judges and I have tried to model many of my practices after theirs.

3. I have enjoyed serving as the Judge of County

39

Court at Law 11 for the last three years and the Adult Drug Court for the last year and a half. We have run a fair and efficient court and would like to continue to do the same.

4. I feel that there is no better indicator of your ability to do a job than having already done the job and having done it well. It takes a tremendous amount of training to successfully run a Drug Court Program. Drug Court is very different from a traditional criminal docket and I have received hundreds of hours of training and have successfully demonstrated my ability to work with this high risk population.

5. One of the most significant issues we deal with is discovery in criminal cases. The increase in scientific and video evidence has created a number of new issues. I feel that it is important that the Defense have an opportunity to review all evidence and that the State turn it over in a timely manner. It is also important that the Defense utilize Art. 39.14 and request the discovery in a timely manner.

6. I am in favor of a pay increase for attorneys taking appointments in County Courts at Law. I am currently working with a committee to determine the appropriate increase amount.

7. Yes, on request if the case requires one.

8. No, each case is different.

9. I am most proud of our accomplishments in the Adult Drug Court. Since taking over the Drug Court we have expanded the number of participants and increased the rates of successful completion. It is very important that we address the root issue causing the criminal activity of our participants and provide them the necessary treatment to keep them from reoffending.

40

In regards to the County Court 11 docket, we have worked, as a staff, to be accessible to immediately address the needs of the parties in criminal cases.

Having previously been in private practice, I understand how difficult it can be to meet the needs of your client if the Judge and his or her coordinator are not available.

10. I believe in allowing attorneys the ability to tailor discovery requests to their specific case and Art. 39.14. In DWI cases, Standing Breath and Blood Discovery Orders are currently available.

11. No, if the Motion to Suppress is dispositive we hear it prior to trial. In most cases we run Motions to Suppress with trial, but have and will consider requests for a pre-trial Motion to Suppress in extenuating circumstances.

12. I feel that it is very important that the Defendant be provided the opportunity to take advantage of treatment, classes and programs to help them avoid engaging in future criminal behavior.

13. I do not have a set rule on time for voir dire, but give each side a reasonable amount of time based on the issues in the case.

14. I allow all permissible forms of voir dire.

15. I am in favor of the Defense having discovery as early as possible and I set production deadlines when ruling on discovery motions.

County Court 12:

Judge Scott Roberts Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond

to your questionnaire. I hope these responses will be helpful to your members.

1. I consider every case individually and I always consider all factors. In general, I always follow plea bargain agreements. When the parties leave terms open I will listen to all arguments and any testimony the parties wish to present.

2. I think Justices of the Supreme Court seem very removed from the day to day exigencies of County Court at Law#12. I don’t feel particularly influenced by any of them. However, I worked as a briefing attorney for two very good justices who influenced my philosophy. I was a briefing attorney for Justice Lloyd Doggett on the Texas Supreme Court and I always admired his incredible sense of public service and diligent work ethic on behalf of the public. I also worked as a briefing attorney for Justice Phil Hardberger at the Fourth Court of Appeals. Justice Hardberger always impressed me with his ability to disagree with attorneys and colleagues without being disagreeable. Justice Hardberger also had a great ability to cut to the heart of the matter.

3. I am seeking reelection as Judge of County Court at Law #12 because I want to continue the work I’ve been doing for the last eight years. In that time we have successfully reduced the docket. When I started on January 1, 2011, we had 3773 pending cases and 2360 active cases. As of the end of the 2017 fiscal year we had 2369 pending cases and 967 active cases which constitutes a significant reduction.

Also, we have a greatly expanded the Mental Health Court which had 37 participants when I took office in January of 2011. Today we have 73 participants and recently we had as many as 120 in April, 2017.

We have added a pretrial diversion track and we have changed eligibility requirements so that we can accept some ABI cases and felony reductions.

4. I have been the Judge of this court for eight years.

Prior to that I was an assistant District Attorney for 12 years.

5. I think the most significant issue right now in my opinion involves overlapping questions of jail overcrowding, inmates with untreated or undertreated mental illnesses, and all the associated problems. I want to continue working with the Bexar County Sheriff, the Commissioner’s Court, the Mental Health Department, the Public Defender’s Office and the private defense bar in addressing these pressing issues.

6. Yes I support raising the rates for the misdemeanor pay schedule and I am on a subcommittee currently working on that issue. We will be making a recommendation shortly.

7. I don’t think scheduling orders are necessary in county court.

8. No I don’t think we need a standing scheduling order.

9. I am constantly working on improving my court and my numbers reflect that. We have been successful in reducing the backlog of cases and in growing the mental health court which have both been priorities.

10. We already have standing discovery orders for blood and breath evidence in DWI cases.

11. In County Court 12 we will set motions to suppress for hearing on Friday afternoons if the attorneys assure me the motions are “dispositive” or have a realistic chance of success. We are pretty liberal in that regard. If counsel is willing to show up on a Friday afternoon I will give them a hearing unless I think it is purely a waste of time. During trial I

41

typically get the trial going and then have the officer testify on the salient points outside of the jury’s presence during his testimony.

12. I always hope that our sentences will reduce recidivism. That is certainly my goal. Our Mental Health Court program has an excellent record on recidivism.

13. Each side gets 30 minutes for a general type voir dire. We bring back individuals being challenged for cause for questioning at the bench after the general voir dire is concluded.

14. I am not familiar with the term “looping.”

15. I don’t have any problem with ordering the State to produce all discovery at least 20 days before trial.

County Court 13:

Judge Crystal Chandler 1. There should be a sense of uniformity in sentencing particularly at the misdemeanor level. However, the goals at the misdemeanor level are more about addressing individual issues that may be contributing to the criminal behavior. As such, individual factors need to be considered, including the facts and circumstances of the crime, criminal history (paying particular attention to whether any of the prior convictions were violent crimes involving victims), lack of education and/or employment, mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, abusive upbringing, and other relevant information that may impact sentencing.

2. Because I was a briefing attorney at the Court of Criminal Appeals and a legal intern at the Fourth

42

Court of Appeals, it was really the justices of those courts that most influenced the development of my judicial philosophy. Judge Sue Holland and Justice Phil Hardberger taught me to approach each case without any preconceived outcome.

As for my personal judicial philosophy, I believe that the job of any judge, whether serving in an appellate or trial court capacity, is to follow the law, not make it. It is the Legislature’s prerogative to write the law.

I believe a trial judge is to apply the law to the facts of the case regardless of whether the ruling favors the prosecution or the defense. When interpreting a constitutional provision, statute or code, a judge should interpret the law as written and not create or shape a meaning based on personal opinions.

3. If the dysfunction in a family, household or dating relationship takes a turn for the worse and becomes violent, people in Bexar County find themselves in either CC#7 or CC#13. A misdemeanor criminal family violence court may be the last place people think can bring hope or change to a family but in many situations it may be the only place that can.

Bexar County citizens deserve a judge that has extensive criminal law experience, unquestioned integrity, a desire to see justice achieved in every case, and the compassion that comes from long exposure to defendants and complainants in a personal and professional capacity. I have those qualities and I want to use them to make that difference. I believe that impacting each defendant on a positive personal level can help our entire community and having a judge that is dedicated to making that positive impact is crucial.

4. I have dedicated my 20+ year legal career to criminal matters. As a judge, I have handled over 5,000 family violence cases and presided over 50+ jury trials with no reversal on appeal.

Prior to the bench, I worked at the District Attorney’s Office for 15+ years. As a trial attorney, I handled 50+ jury trials on the misdemeanor and felony level. As an appellate attorney, I handled 200+ appeals, habeas writs, and other complicated legal matters.

es have established a committee to address the issue of increasing the rates paid to attorneys on misdemeanor cases. As a member of this committee, it is my goal to see that an acceptable rate is agreed upon by all interested parties with the resolution ultimately being approved by Commissioner’s Court.

I’ve also worked at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, interned at the Fourth Court of Appeals, and served as a student attorney with the Criminal Justice Clinic at the Center for Legal and Social Justice where I represented indigent defendants charged with criminal offenses.

7. While there are no standing scheduling orders in CC#13, the Court has a policy that when a case is set for trial, each party is permitted one announcement of “not ready”. Subsequent continuances are discouraged and will generally be granted only when required by law, there are exceptional circumstances, or when it is in the interest of justice to continue the matter.

All this experience and my dedication to making a positive impact in the lives of those in my community make me qualified for another term as judge.

5. As a misdemeanor family violence court, CC#13 has the opportunity to effect change in individuals before conduct rises to the felony level. Additional resources are needed in family violence cases to assist individuals with mental health issues or who abuse drugs or alcohol. It is for this reason that I have instituted specialized dockets for young offenders (ages 17-25 and who have pleaded guilty or no contest) to help them address issues affecting their home lives. We talk about issues ranging from work or school to their relationship with their children and family. It is my hope that by mentoring these young adults, I can help them make better choices and stay out of the criminal justice system. I have implemented a similar program for defendants with mental health issues, but my current focus is on young adults. I would like to continue to make strides in this area.

6. Yes, I am in favor of a pay increase. Everyone deserves to make a decent wage for the work they do, especially in complex cases like criminal family violence. Currently, the County Court at Law judg-

It is the Court’s normal practice to give two pretrial conference settings without explanation. Subsequent pretrial settings are permitted if the parties can show the Court that the additional settings are intended to make progress in the case (i.e., resolving discovery matters, seeking approval for PTD, exploring participation in one of the specialty courts, etc.).

8. I do not believe a “standing” or “standard” scheduling order is necessary at this time in CC#13 for the reasons mentioned in my answer to #7. However, Defense should never hesitate in approaching the Court regarding this matter. All requests for a scheduling order will be considered and a determination made on a case-by-case basis.

9. I am most proud of the YAARD program that I mentioned in my answer to #5. This is my Young Adult Aggression Re-Direction Program in which I mentor and try to impact the lives of young adults that have come into contact with the criminal justice system. I would like to expand this program to include other mentors other than myself and expose these young people to an array of inspirational

43

individuals, including but not limited to criminal defense attorneys and other members of the legal community. I would also like to expand the services for defendants with mental health issues in order to stop the revolving door type of justice that we sometimes see in Bexar County.

I’m also proud of having reduced the overall number of active cases by over 25% and streamlining the docket to ensure expeditious and efficient handling of all cases.

(which is sometimes the case in family violence cases), more time may be given to explore these specific issues.

14. Yes. Looping can be an effective voir dire technique if done correctly and not structured as an impermissible commitment question. As with any matter though, specific questions or concerns regarding voir dire should be brought to the Court’s attention so they can be addressed.

10. I do not believe a standing Discovery Order is necessary at this time. Article 39.14 mandates that the State provide discovery. When Defense believes the State is not complying with its ongoing discovery obligations, Defense should bring it to the State’s attention. If an agreement between the parties cannot be reached, Defense should approach the Court regarding a hearing on the discovery matter.

15. I generally defer to the parties’ agreement concerning the production of discovery. When a dispute arises, the Court will take up the matter. Although Article 39.14 no longer requires a court order, it is always good practice for Defense to file a motion and obtain a ruling. Defense should never hesitate to bringing any discovery issues to the Court if they feel the State has not complied with the discovery requirements.

11. My preference is to have a separate pretrial hearing. However, due to the unique issues in family violence cases, how dispositive motions will be handled is determined on a case-by-case basis.

County Court 14:

In determining whether to set the motion separate from trial, the State and Defense should confer and approach the Court to indicate the basis for the suppression. All pretrial hearings and matters to be heard by the Court are scheduled by the court coordinator, Justin Clark.

12. As mentioned in my response to #1, sentencing decisions are made upon the particular facts of each case.

13. I generally allow 30 minutes per side for general and specific, to be followed with individual questioning outside the jury panel’s presence when appropriate. If particularly complicated issues arise,

44

Carlo Key

1. Most misdemeanor pleas are handled through agreement between the prosecutor and defense attorney. However, if an individual need of a defendant is apparent and not being met within the plea, then I place a heavy consideration on the individual needs of that defendant and what may be required to ensure their ability to comply with terms of the plea bargain or required to ensure future conduct does not endanger the public.

2. I do not attempt to emulate any U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Full disclosure: I do own a “Notorious R.B.G.” tee shirt which I love to wear.

3. To paraphrase the Beatles, “To get back to where I once belonged.”

4. I have walked into the Justice Center almost every work day since 2003 either as a prosecutor, judge or defense attorney.

5. Oppressive work loads for the entire system from pre-trial to probation. Lowest court appointed fees in the state for the defense bar. No ability to reduce fees for monitoring devices of indigent defendants … to name a few.

6. I have fought this battle before. I would fight again to attempt to get appointed counsel a fee more in-line with the rest of the state.

7. No. 8. No opinion.

9. I believe I did an excellent job during my term as a county court at law judge. I hope others do too.

10. Yes, because we do not have the time to repeat the same arguments for blood/breath discovery. If counsel needs more discovery outside of the agreement, it can always be addressed.

11. I don’t believe forcing defense counsel to agree to a certain action on a case based on a particular outcome is appropriate.

12. I like to see supervision as an opportunity for a defendant to better themselves and their future, but I also am not trying to change the world.

13. I usually give about 30 minutes and am willing to extend if it stays productive.

14. Sure.

15. It’s the law to my understanding.

Judge Susan Skinner 1. Uniformity in sentencing was intended to eliminate disparity in sentencing, but does so at the expense of individual consideration. Uniformity in sentencing is a good starting point, but it is important to individualize sentencing. As a judge I take into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s age and role, mitigating or aggravating circumstances, criminal history, rehabilitation efforts, family situation, possible mental health issues, as well as any other issues raised by counsel.

2. As a member of the John M. Harlan Honor Society at St. Mary’s Law School, I came to know the work of Justice Harlan. I admire Justice Harlan for his several dissents in support of racial equality. Plessy v.

Ferguson established the doctrine of “separate but equal” and held the separation of races was not inherently unequal. Justice Harlan, the lone dissenter, wrote a scathing dissent. Justice Harlan stated our Constitution is color-blind and all citizens are equal before the law. Justice Harlan has influenced my judicial philosophy in that I firmly believe justice is blind. As a judge, I honor this precept by considering the relevant facts in a fair and impartial manner.

3. I want to continue to make a difference. I have dedicated my entire career of over 30 years to our criminal justice system. In those three decades I have served as a child protective service worker, a probation officer, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a Judge.

As a Judge, I have continued to make a difference by utilizing my experience through the insights I have gained through my many roles.

45

See Answers 5 and 9.

4. After receiving my Master’s Degree in 1982, I spent 7 years as a probation officer and supervisor.

In law school I interned at the DA’s Office and at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. After graduating cum laude from St. Mary’s Law School, I spent 15 years as a prosecutor. Most notably, I was a violent crimes prosecutor specializing in the prosecution of gang-related crimes and drive-by shootings. As a first-chair felony prosecutor for 9 years, I prosecuted child death cases, murders and child sex crimes. From 2007-2014 I had my own criminal defense practice. I have now served 3 years as Judge of County Court No. 14. I am the only candidate that has practiced on every side of a criminal case.

My strong record of academic excellence, extensive trial experience, and well-rounded work experience makes me the most qualified candidate.

5. I believe the most significant issue facing the misdemeanor courts is the length of time an indigent defendant, who is unable to afford a bond, spends in jail. For instance, a homeless defendant facing a criminal trespass charge averages 7 to 10 days in jail before an Information and State file is created.

I have met with the DA’s office administration and judicial services in an attempt to have these cases expedited and heard within 3 days at a specialized bi-weekly afternoon jail docket which I have volunteered to preside over. In addition, the defendant would meet with a social worker before being discharged and social services would remain available after discharge. Another area of concern is indigent defendants, who are incarcerated, awaiting DWI blood draw and drug cases to be filed. In these types of cases a judge should be willing to grant a PR bond.

6. Yes, court appointed attorneys should be paid fairly for the work they do.

46

I think it is shameful that the last flat-rate pay increase was from $100 to $140 in August 2011, well over 6 years ago. I would recommend a $300 flatrate, which would keep Bexar County commensurate with other large counties. Although I believe a more meaningful increase is deserved, we are bound by budgetary constraints.

7. I issue scheduling orders upon request.

8. I am neutral on scheduling orders in misdemeanor cases, but do recognize a scheduling order does have benefits in managing a trial docket by imposing deadlines for pre-trial matters.

9. During my first two fiscal years in office, the number of active cases was reduced from 1242 cases to 563 cases, a 50% reduction. There is no longer a backlog of trial cases on the docket. At the time of this writing, 12-6-17, trial settings are completely open for early January 2018. I am proud of the hard work it took to create a court docket that is manageable and efficient.

I proudly preside over the only misdemeanor animal abuse docket, which I implemented 8 months after taking the Bench, upon seeing the needs of the community. Unfortunately, the high volume of misdemeanor cases in many courts prevented animal cruelty cases from being given the attention they require. Since the creation of the animal abuse docket, the backlog of animal cruelty cases have been resolved and the pending cases now have access to timely trials and dispositions.

10. Yes – breath/blood standing discovery orders are beneficial to both sides.

11. I generally prefer to run motions to suppress with the trial, if it is based on a reasonable suspicion for the stop. If the MTS is more complex and based

on the validity of the search warrant, breath/blood result, etc., then the MTS is heard prior to jury selection.

12. I believe it is the Judge’s responsibility to reduce recidivism. A misdemeanor judge is in a unique position to strongly impact a first-time offender from reoffending and advancing to the felony level. With first-time offenders, it is imperative to identify the underlying reason for committing the crime for which they are charged. Common underlying reasons tend to be peer pressure, mental health issues, substance abuse and addiction, unemployment, lack of education or job skills, etc. If the underlying problem is not addressed, there is a greater likelihood of repeated criminal behavior. During my time on the Bench, I have worked closely with several service organizations and the probation department to identify and address the underlying reasons to help ensure a person has a successful future and does not reoffend.

13. Effective assistance of counsel entails a reasonable time to conduct voir dire. Generally I allow each side 30 minutes in a misdemeanor case. If defense counsel believes 30 minutes is unreasonable given the circumstances of the case, more time may be requested and is usually granted.

seeking one. People commit crimes for a lot of different reasons and need different kinds of punishment and treatment to get them on the path to not reoffend. I think that seeking to understand these individualities and addressing them accordingly should be paramount.

2. No response.

3. I do not believe that the current judge in County Court at Law 14 is getting the job done, and the results of the judicial survey conducted by SACDLA reflect that. We deserve better than what we are getting.

We cannot have judges who choose what cases will be heard in their court based on their own interests. This attempt at establishing an “animal cruelty docket” in County Court 14 is at risk of setting a dangerous precedent in Bexar County.

We need a strong, ethical judge who follows the law and shows up to work day after day. I will be that judge.

Joseph Strickland

4. I have been a criminal defense attorney for seven years, handling misdemeanor, felony and federal offenses. As a law student I worked both in the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office as well as in a criminal defense firm. I know that seven years of practicing law will be on the low end of the spectrum of all candidates, but I believe that experience must not be measured in time, but in the knowledge gained in that time. I have appeared in court in over a dozen counties and have learned invaluable lessons from seeing a lot of judges handle things a lot of different ways.

1. I think that priority must be placed on addressing each defendant’s individual situation. There just isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer, and we shouldn’t be

I have the patience, humility and integrity to conduct this court in a respectful and dignified manner.

I will be tough when I need to be, understanding

14. Yes. 15. I think 20 days is reasonable, unless otherwise agreed upon.

47

when I should be, and fair at all times.

5. I feel that there is too much emphasis on docket numbers and moving cases. Given the life altering impact that a criminal allegation can have on a person’s life, I think that the emphasis must be on ensuring that every defendant’s case is handled properly and that they are afforded effective assistance of counsel; not how quickly and inexpensively cases can be disposed of.

This especially true of the time limits placed on voir dire. Too often parties are given more time for a lunch break than they are given to ensure that the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury is protected. If it takes an extra 30 minutes per side to make sure that any necessary or important issues are sufficiently covered, it is worth our time.

My answer to question #3 addresses my additional concerns with County Court 14.

6. Yes; I would vote for an hourly rate.

7. I plan to have three pretrial settings roughly 60 days apart to allow sufficient time for conferring and resolving discovery matters, followed by an evidentiary motion setting another 60 days out, and then a first trial setting 60 days past that. Of course this is an ideal framework, and ideal circumstances rarely present themselves at the courthouse, so there’s certainly room for flexibility when issues arise. However, this will hopefully provide a clear structure of how to expect a case to progress.

8. No. I think that each judge should be able to conduct their court as they see fit.

9. I think my answer to question #4 covers the first part of this response. As far as what I will change, first and foremost is that I will not choose what cases

48

I want to hear. I will hear the cases assigned to this court and I will not seek out other cases that I may have an interest in and have those cases transferred in. I will provide the impartiality, temperament and work ethic that the SACDLA judicial survey shows are lacking from this court.

10. I think that 39.14 is the standing discovery order.

11. No. If a defendant files a motion to suppress and wants a pretrial hearing they will get one.

12. At the misdemeanor level I think that addressing recidivism is paramount. In no case are we considering locking someone away forever, so the main issue in sentencing is what can be done to make sure this person doesn’t come back. I intend to focus on treating the causes and not the symptoms. In DWI cases for instance, I think that counseling can be a much more valuable tool with a longer lasting effect than relying solely on alcohol monitoring devices.

13. One hour for each party as a standard. If an hour has elapsed and a party believes they have additional issues to cover, additional time can be discussed.

14. Yes. 15. I think that is a reasonable standard that should be followed.

County Court 15:

Judge Robert ‘Bob’ Behrens 1. The existence of broad ranges of punishment shows that the individuals’ needs and facts and circumstances of the case should take priority.

2. Scalia. He was a scholar of the nth degree and I love his writing style and his sardonic wit.

3. To continue the progress my staff and I have made since starting our administration. I think we have done a good job so far. We have reduced the pending trials and pretrial hearings by huge amounts.

My education (BA in Criminal Justice, Master’s in Public Affairs, and JD) was tailored for working in this capacity. I also believe I possess a good judicial temperament.

4. My education as mentioned above, along with 2 years as an intern in the DA’s office, including trying real motions and trials on a 3rd year bar card, a brief time as a prosecutor in county court, 20 years of private practice concentrating in criminal defense, trying dozens of aggravated felonies, substantial knowledge of rules and case law, and continuing desire to learn in order to help me make the best decisions possible.

5. Keeping pretrial incarceration to a minimum for defendants who don’t want to get their case JSAT is a very significant issue. One of the factors hampering this objective is that nearly all other defendants incarcerated pretrial have one or more other holds (e.g., ICE, parole, awtg psych eval, awtg treatment, unindicted and/or indicted felonies, and/or MTR/ MTEAG with high bonds or RWOB, and sometimes RWOB on a family violence case). We do the best we can to move cases quickly and having been in defense shoes for so long, we start at 9:30 to accommodate felony settings and stay late and sometimes through lunch to reset or receive pleas. I am always open to suggestions on how we can improve and encourage thoughtful input from all concerned.

6. Yes. How much: Uncertain. The CC judges are studying that issue now.

7. Only on request.

8. No. 9. Our major reduction in significant backlog of cases dating back to 2010. Also, haven’t had many appeals filed and no reversals on the few that have been filed. See also answer to #4.

10. Yes. Other counties have used them for years. I believe it is an efficiency that should be utilized so we can save time instead of attorneys having to file hear entire motions.

11. No. We always hear them in a hearing on a separate date from trial unless both parties agree to “carry” the motion. I don’t believe in selecting a jury first; it is potentially a waste of the entire panel’s time and the parties’ time to select them when a motion may be granted. Also, when I was practicing criminal defense, I always found it hard to believe there wasn’t just a little extra pressure on a judge to deny a motion when it is carried with trial and all have gone through the jury selection process. Furthermore, many motions end up being dispositive without a need to designate them as such. Finally, I think both sides should have time to obtain a transcript of the hearing for trial, if desired.

12. It has some bearing to be sure but punishment in any particular case depends on a whole host of factors, of which recidivism is just one.

13. I generally give both sides 30 minutes but I am flexible with that as a matter of course and as far as I know, as long as the party requesting more time can demonstrate that they have additional relevant questioning, the law requires that. On the other hand, I think most trial attorneys can conduct an ef-

49

fective voir dire within the time allotted and they also realize the need to be efficient so they don’t alienate the panel.

14. Yes 15. That is what I generally order.

the tennis players as part of a gang initiation. I remember bullets whizzing past my head and hearing ricochets behind me. Therefore, I don’t necessarily have a prosecutorial or defense mindset. I have the experience of a survivor and I would advocate for survivors through a court policy of restorative justice. My goal for running for public office is to reduce the “wrong place at the wrong time” indictments.

Cesar Garcia

5. No Response

1. No Response

6. I’d vote to increase the flat rate fee schedule to $250 per disposition.

2. Sandra Day O’Connor is the most influential Supreme Court justice to the development of my judicial philosophy. Sandra Day O’Connor said, “We do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.” To me, this has always meant that the First Amendment applies to minority rights. This phrase exemplifies that First Amendment principles apply to all Americans, no matter who they are or what they believe in. It also suggests that judges should always be impartial when dealing with all litigants.

7. No Response 8. No Response 9. No Response 10. No Response 11. No Response

3. I would like to implement a policy of restorative justice to reduce the rate of recidivism and the jail population.

12. No Response

4. I’ve had two experiences with criminal law matters that make me uniquely qualified for this seat.

When I was about 12 years old, my Dad and I were driving back from the Rio Grande Valley to San Antonio and were driven off the road by a drunk driver. We spun out of control and ended up sideways in a ditch. I remember having to crawl out of the vehicle.

14. No Response

Also, when I was in high school, I was on the tennis team playing a tournament behind the Alamodome.

A car circling the tennis center began shooting at

50

13. No Response

15. No Response

Jessica Gonzalez 1. Over the past 13 years as an attorney, I have come to appreciate the beauty of the two phases in the Texas criminal justice process. While there should be uniformity in sentencing, I believe that comes

from the range of punishment outlined by the Texas Penal Code. It is incumbent for both prosecutors and defense attorneys to raise punishment arguments on behalf of the victim and client respectively during the plea before the court or during the punishment phase at trial. It is the duty of the sitting judge to determine what punishment will bring justice to the victim, yet provide treatment and services helping a person learn to follow the rules and laws of our community. Since victims’ losses and defendants’ circumstances vary case to case, flexibility is a must in order to create a successful, working justice system.

2. If a person asked me this question in college or law school when I was immersed in my studies of constitutional law, I would have different answers based on the case I just read or the issue I was researching. In college I enjoyed reading the opinions of Justice Scalia and recognized the value in his distinction of separate duties in the three branches of government. During law school I greatly respected Chief Justice John Marshall as he shaped the role of the judicial branch and constitutional law. Unfortunately now, as a practicing attorney, I focus less on the prose surrounding the rule of law and just extract the legal arguments I need for a motion or brief. I look forward to the day when I can once again enjoy a Supreme Court opinion as historical and modern day literature as opposed to an instruction book to practicing law.

3. Plain and simple: to extend my commitment to community service. For over eight years, I served our community as a prosecutor helping victims of crime seek justice against their offenders. For five years, I helped people accused of crime navigate their way through the criminal justice system towards positive resolutions for my clients. After I left the D.A.’s office, I joined the Junior League of San Antonio in order to serve our community in a way

not tied to the legal world. While I have enjoyed many successes as both a prosecutor and defense attorney and as a leader and volunteer in the Junior League, and I believe sitting as a criminal court judge is the best way to marry all my experiences to be a fair, compassionate, and experienced judge.

4. I graduated St. Mary’s Law School in 2004. While at St. Mary’s, I interned at the D.A.’s office, competed on the moot court team, and wrote for the Law Journal among other activities. After passing the bar, I worked at the D.A.’s office on every part of a criminal case from the investigation of an offense to the appeal of a conviction. While with Bexar County, I’ve worked in the Family Violence, Appellate, Criminal Trial, Intake, Child Safe, DHS, and Juvenile divisions. After 8 years prosecuting, I left the office to get experience as a defense attorney. For over 5 years, I’ve represented defendants in the adult and the juvenile justice systems. In my 13 years as an attorney, I’ve handled over 6,000 cases in the Bexar County Courthouse making me the most qualified candidate for County Court at Law No. 15.

5. The top issue plaguing the Bexar County criminal justice system is an overburdened system. The court dockets are overloaded, the jail is over populated, and the attorneys are overworked. All this leads to frustration, irritation, and aggravation with our legal process from victims, offenders, attorneys, judges, and court staff. In order to ease this overall dissatisfaction, it takes a balance of three key components which feed off of and into each other. We all need to bring hard work, patience, and respect to keep our system moving. As judge, I would lead by example. Sounds simple, but I want to work. And I expect all in the court to work alongside me. But even with hard work, our criminal justice process takes time, so I hope all would have patience with our system. Patience comes easier when people see us all working respectfully together.

51

6. I whole heartedly believe the misdemeanor court pay schedule needs to be adjusted to fairly compensate an attorney for the work going into the preparation of a defense. As of right now, I do not know the best way to accomplish this goal because many things need to be considered like costs of the increase compared to how we will pay for it. But the one thing that is known is the current pay schedule needs to be fixed immediately, this reform is long overdue. Because the fee schedule is so low, court appointed attorneys are forced to take a higher caseload. A higher caseload means an attorney is spread thin over the court house, courts and clients waiting around all day which increases overall frustration, cases reset which clogs dockets, and attorneys spend less time working on a case which leads to clients’ needs not being fully met.

7. Only on request.

8. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the time lines, and I intend to follow the TCCP. 9. While I have never been a judge, I spent the past 13 years improving our community through professional work and volunteer service. I hope to bring all my experiences together to advance the criminal justice system through County Court No. 15. If elected, I want to explore the feasibility of adding a youth offender program to Bexar County’s treatment programs. While a person becomes an adult at the age of 17, I do not believe all youths are equipped to handle the rigors of the adult criminal justice system. If the State, defense bar, and probation work together, we can find a balance that will bring justice to the community and services to help youth offenders. I believe my experiences in the juvenile justice system, my work with non-profits, and my participation in Drug Court and Re Entry court will help foster and support this program.

52

10. Yes, with the passage of Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the State to produce the statutory discovery upon request from defense, the next logical step is for the County Court judges to enter a standing discovery order which will help improve the efficiency of the trial docket.

11. I see how ruling on dispositive motions pretrial and after a jury is sworn has pros and cons with both timelines. Since I do not know facts of the case, I would defer to the defense attorney submitting the motion to determine which is the most effective way to dispose of these issues. Of course, I would hope the attorney would consult with the prosecutors and the Court in making this determination and would be mindful of the court’s time, the witnesses schedules, and costs associated with starting a jury trial. Furthermore, this decision would need to be made at least 21 days before the setting in order for the prosecutor to prepare the witnesses for the motion and trial schedules and the court to make necessary arrangements with case management.

12. If I could pick the second significant issue plaguing our criminal courts, it would be recidivism.

Time after time, the courts see the same faces making the same pleas for forgiveness and help. At times people are sincere, other times the requests are superficial. First and foremost I would rely on the defense attorney to make the arguments to the court on behalf of the client (which is why the fee schedule needs to be adjusted) as to how probation and its programs can help the person be successful.

Second, we all need to consider “outside the box” on the programs, services, and fees. Unfortunately this takes more time which would seem to overburden the system further, but I believe if we put in the extra time upfront, it would save time and costs in the end if the person leaves the criminal justice system a better person.

13. Time limits on voir dire should be based on time announcements from the attorneys set at the onset of the case. It is unfair to both sides to impose blanket rules including time limits in voir dire, opening statements, and closing arguments. Before a case begins, I do not know the evidence of the case, the issues coming up, or the way an attorney choses to present a case. It would be unreasonable for me to control such issues by enforcing arbitrary time limits. I would expect both sides to confer before we take up housekeeping matters and would expect time announcements before the jury walks in. At that point it would be my job to enforce such time constraints in order to keep trial moving efficiently.

14. Looping is a technique most attorneys use in some form or another in voir dire. While it may seem time consuming, it is not my place to tell an attorney how to present their case as long as it is done within the bounds of the law.

15. While I believe it is completely reasonable and practical to require the State to disclose all evidence at least 20 days before trial and plea, I understand evidence comes in last minute to the District Attorney’s office without any fault of the individual prosecutors. In that case a reset would be granted to defense if needed, but charged to the State because it was the fault of the State for why the defense was not prepared for trial. Furthermore, if untimely disclosures become a pattern of the State and defense objects, I will entertain requests for remedies if necessary to protect an individual’s constitutional rights.

Melissa Vara 1. I don’t believe that uniformity in sentencing is effective, as each case has different facts and circum-

stances. I believe that sentencing should always be on a case by case basis.

2. Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina on the Supreme Court, as she is a trailblazer for women like myself.

3. From my first day at St. Mary’s University School of Law, running for judge has always been one of my ultimate career goals. As a San Antonio native, I feel that I can best serve my community as a member of the judiciary.

4. My strong work ethic and legal experience makes me a qualified candidate for this bench. I have done hundreds of cases at the criminal county court level alone. I have been through the process from the inception of a case to it finishing with a jury verdict. I have jury trial experience, experience with suppression hearings, experience with probation through the MTR process and experience dealing with the various specialty courts. Additionally, I have practiced in front of all the sitting criminal county court judges, which has given me the insight on what works and what doesn’t; therefore allowing me to tailor County Court 15 in a way I feel will be most efficient.

5. A significant issue facing the criminal courts is efficiency. A positive change I would make in County Court No. 15 is to make sure that court starts promptly each morning. Additionally, I would be open to assisting other courts with overflow they may have, time permitting, as I believe it leads to a successful judiciary as a whole.

6. Yes, how much of an increase would be on a case by case basis, where the attorney would choose either an hourly or flat fee rate based on the amount of work put into the case.

7. Only on Request

53

8. No; No 9. The voters of Bexar County should entrust me with this official position because I vow to make County Court No. 15 more efficient and to be fair with everyone that may come before me. I have worked hard my entire life, and will continue this work ethic for the people of Bexar County as Judge of County Court No. 15 if given the great privilege by the voters.

10. Yes. I believe it adds to efficiency.

11. No; Suppression hearings will be set in advance of trial.

12. Sentencing should be on a case by case basis, factoring in what may be causing the individual to reoffend, i.e. mental health/addiction, and tailoring an appropriate punishment considering all factors.

13. 30 minutes per side 14. Yes 15. I agree with it.

DISTRICT COURTS: 144th District Court:

Judge Lorina Rummel 1. I believe there should be some uniformity in sentencing for like crimes, so that Defense counsel knows what to expect. I do this regularly in regards to probation conditions. Felony DWI cases will receive Driver’s License suspensions, Ignition Interlock, alcohol/drug treatment, etc. Drug cases have

54

a TAIP evaluation and treatment, if needed. However, I treat each case/defendant on an individual basis and sentence according to their needs and the best interest of the community. I do not believe that there can be complete uniformity in sentencing. All crimes and defendants are different and it is inherently unfair to use a “cookie cutter” approach. I expect the State to advocate for the victim and defense to advocate for their client. I listen to arguments, get assistance from probation if needed and determine the appropriate sentence. A sentence is a balance between society’s interest and the Defendant’s background and criminal responsibility.

2. The Supreme Court Justice I am most influenced by is Justice Scalia. He believes in textualism – which is strict interpretation of the law and statutory language. It is giving strict interpretation and plain-meaning approach to statutory language.

I do not believe it is a criminal judge’s job to create law, but rather, to strictly interpret the law and apply it as it currently exists. As a judge, I need to know the current status of the rules of evidence and all the interpretations. This is done by researching legal issues as they arise. I listen to opening statements, identify potential legal issues, and begin my research. Every legal issue eventually re-appears. I maintain a library of legal issues and rely upon them when making judicial rulings. I am constantly updating this library. As Judge of the 144th, I follow this strict interpretation approach when ruling on legal issues and matters.

3. I have presided over the 144th District Court for 3 ½ years so far and have made sure that the judicial system keeps working in a timely manner. Delayed justice only helps a guilty defendant. It certainly is of no benefit to a wrongfully accused individual, or for a victim or victim’s family and certainly not the tax payers. I initially ran for office after having a lengthy criminal trial career as a prosecutor and a criminal

defense attorney. I think it is extremely important that a judge have an extensive criminal trial practice under his or her belt. We need to make sure that judges know and understand the law and can rule in a quick and decisive manner, so that matters can move along in the criminal courts. I believe my 25 plus years of trial experience and hundreds of jury trials enables me to do just that.

4. I have practiced criminal trial for over 25 years.

I have over five years in criminal defense, 17 years in prosecution and going on four years as a judge.

I have always been a trial attorney. I have worked on criminal cases at every level- early investigation, Grand Jury development and presentation, plea negotiations, witness preparation and ultimately, trial.

I have handled felony matters ranging through capital murder death penalty cases. Having been a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge, I can properly evaluate a case on its merits and consider appropriate defenses. My background and experience makes me well-balanced and an extremely fair jurist. As judge, I received a docket winning in all categories –longest wait for trial, the largest jail and trial docket. In the 3 ½ years on the bench, with the help of fantastic attorneys and staff, the court has done a complete turnaround.

5. The sheer volume of criminal cases is a significant issue. I try to have attorneys ready for trial by a third setting, if it has not been previously disposed of. I always ask about discovery issues on a 2nd setting, if not already brought to the Court’s attention. I coordinate with prosecution and defense counsel on the setting of murder trials so that everyone is aware and can coordinate witnesses and experts. I feel that if defense and state know when a case is “ripe” for trial, it helps move a court’s docket. I also believe an additional liaison with the Sherriff’s department or increased communication might be helpful. I understand many people are working on this issue. This

could perhaps ensure that defendants are properly dressed for trial and that those housed out of county are available on a plea, motion or sentencing. This would help alleviate jail overcrowding.

6. I have advocated for increased pay on Capital cases and on felony cases, as that is the area in which I am involved. There was a comparison of our county’s rate on felony cases and Capital cases – flat and hourly – to other counties. It resulted in an increase in Bexar County’s pay scale to be competitive and more in line. I would advocate the same process be done for misdemeanor pay schedules. Our defense bar works hard and deserves to be paid comparative to other large Texas counties.

7. I will issue scheduling orders on Capital Murder Death Penalty cases. On other cases, I impose the deadlines as set out in the code, ie. sanity notice timelines, 404b notice deadlines, witness lists, expert notice, etc. I set my cases every 5-6 weeks if on bond, quicker if in jail, and inquire on every setting if there are any issues the court needs to address.

This way there is constant contact between the parties and the court is available to rule whenever necessary. If attorneys request scheduling orders, I certainly will consider their request. If prosecution and defense bar litigate a scheduling order such as the standard blood order, I would certainly be amenable to using the order.

8. Again, I like to set cases as set out above. I do not think cases can all be handled uniformly because different issues arise as each case and each defendant is unique. If attorneys request a standing order, I certainly will be amenable. In the 144th, a case is “ripe” for trial by the third post indictment setting. I inquire as to any discovery issues on the 2nd setting so that all matters can be handled and addressed by the court prior to the third setting. I will hear “dispositive” motions prior to trial. Other motions run with

55

trial. The 144th docket has gotten smaller every year I have been in office so the above system seems to be working fairly well. But I am always open to suggestion and change.

9. When I first took over the 144th, my first trial involved a defendant that had been in jail going on three years. After this “delayed justice,” I vowed to improve all the court’s statistics. This court had the largest docket awaiting trial, the largest population in Bexar County Jail and one of the longest waits for trial. With the help of the fantastic ADA’s and defense attorneys that practice in this court, as well as amazing staff, there has been a complete turnaround. This court now has one of the lowest jail populations, one of the smallest dockets awaiting trial and one of the shortest waits for trial. This helps all parties – society, victims, tax payers, defendants. Also, I am extremely proud of the Esperanza program. Instead of once again warehousing these defendants in TDC or State Jail, they do my program. Like Drug Court, we are changing lives.

10. I try to address any discovery issues very early on. I always inquire from defense counsel if there are any discovery matters needing my attention or ruling. This is always done no later than the 2nd trial setting. A standing discovery order may not address a defendant’s specific needs if the issue is not brought to the court’s attention and ruled upon. If attorneys request a standing order, I certainly will consider their request. If prosecution and defense bar litigate a standing discover order such as the standard blood order, I would certainly be amenable to using the order. But I still would want the parties to approach the bench if their particular discovery matter is not handled through the order.

11. No, I do not rule on dispositive motions only after jury selection. I often hear them beforehand.

Dispositive motions to suppress can often alleviate

56

the need for jury trial. To me, “dispositive” means that if the state loses, they dismiss the case and if defense loses, they will plea. I have also ruled on outcry witnesses and admissibility of statements prior to jury selection. Often these rulings either help alleviate the need for trial or assist in negotiations.

When the Court is in trial, I try to handle any other matters in the early a.m. We often do not begin trial until 10:30 in the mornings. My coordinator calls counsel and requests they arrive by 9 allowing for time to hear their matter. However, the reality is that defense attorneys are in multiple places. So I also utilize the impact courts to help when I am in trial.

12. My view of recidivism is that if we equip defendants with the appropriate tools, perhaps some of the re occurrence of crime can and will be avoided.

It is very easy to “judgment satisfy” a case which would be time served for an offense, especially for drug and prostitution cases. However, if these individuals were instead sent to Drug Court or the Esperanza Program and given appropriate treatment, perhaps some could better their lives and not reoffend. I think it is important to give defendants a support system and guidance. That is exactly how I run the Esperanza Program. But ultimately, recidivism is the defendant’s choice. It is the judge’s role to provide the framework and tools for success. Hopefully the result is defendants making better choices, improving their lives and giving back to society.

13. I try to get a jury seated within the day. I do my remarks prior to lunch. If time permits, the State will begin prior to the lunch break. If not, then after lunch, hopefully by 1 p.m., I turn it over to the State and defense for their remarks. I ask the sides to limit their remarks to around 1 1/2 hours each, to use any way they choose. However, I never cut counsel off.

This has worked fairly well through the years. I do

not ask the attorneys to make challenges for cause during their remarks. I do not want a challengeable juror to “taint” the panel or attorneys to use their time. After voir dire, I allow the attorneys to confer and excuse those jurors they agree upon. Then I hear individual challenges for cause at that time.

Typically we get a jury seated by 5 p.m.

14. I allow the attorneys to conduct voir dire as they see fit, as long as the issues discussed are relevant and are not improper commitment questions. To me, looping is simply taking one potential jurors answer and using it as a segue for another question/ response to another juror. I think this is a good technique and makes voir dire be a more fluid and effective process.

15. My preference is to have all discovery produced well before 20 days prior to trial. That is why I inquire on 2nd settings if there are any discovery matters that the Court needs to address prior to the third setting. Sometimes later discovery is unavoidable.

Depending on the circumstances, the Court has appropriate remedies to address the issue. The Court can exclude the evidence, allow it in only through defense counsel, or allow for a continuance during trial. However, the court would rather all discovery be completed by the 2nd setting and well in advance of 20 days prior to trial.

186th District Court:

Judge Jefferson Moore 1. It isn’t a matter of which takes priority as much as what is the right thing to do. A first time drug offender compared to a drug offender who has an extensive record is a situation where uniformity of sentencing for drug offenses will take a back seat

to individual sentencing factors. Meaning, the first time drug user is going to get a lighter sentence than the other defendant who has the long record, even if the offense is the same.

2. I am reading a commentary on the United States Constitution by Justice Joseph Story. I admire the way he looks at the law’s construction, but at the same time he peers into the reason the law came into existence in the first place.

3. I have a history of public service from when I was an assistant district attorney, from when I was in the Army as a JAG, and from when I was in private practice taking court appointed cases. No doubt, presiding over a district court has its privileges, but there are times when it is a public service too. You have to make decisions all day long; decisions that can have huge effects on peoples’ lives. Those kinds of decisions can weigh on a person and that makes the position a public service at times.

4. I have extensive experience and qualifications on criminal law matters. I have principally practiced criminal law for 26 years now. I started my career as an assistant district attorney in New Orleans. I was then a military prosecutor for the US Army as a JAG for several years. After going into private practice I defended cases in federal, state and military courts. By the time I took the bench in 2015 I had over 150 trials. As a judge, I have presided over 49 trials and counting. I now have nearly 200 trials in my career as a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge. Furthermore, I have written several articles and presented several CLEs on criminal matters.

I have been named as one of the top attorneys in San Antonio for criminal law. I am also appointed to the Court of Criminal Appeals Rules Advisory Committee.

5. Our antiquated information technology contin-

57

ues to hold us back. We should have a more robust online presence and we should be able to manage a paperless courthouse in the truest sense of the word.

Currently, motions and such have to be filed electronically, but the system does not have a way to manage these electronically. We have to print out the paper in order to get them signed and processed.

Fixing this is not an easy endeavor; it is going to take leadership and money. I continue to advocate for a true paperless system and believe that it will improve the administration of justice.

6. As a district court judge, I do not have a vote on County Courts-at-Law matters, but I would encourage an increase. I think criminal law attorneys, both prosecution and defense, are underpaid.

7. Yes, but only on cases that need them. In my experience, most cases do not need scheduling orders.

Although I do not issue scheduling orders, in my court we run cases on a regular schedule. I pass on the first three trial settings, but by the 4th trial setting you are in the zone to be selected for jury trial.

During the first three settings I expect the parties to iron out discovery issues, file motions to suppress (and have them heard), request psych evaluations, etc.

8. A few years ago, we tried a system called the Case Management Plan where each case would be on a standard schedule (discovery exchange, motions hearing, final consultation, trial). It did not work.

No one seemed concerned about getting ready for a trial when there was no trial setting. Even at “Final Consultation� there was no sense of urgency for either side (or the judge). Based on that experience, I do not see where a standing or standard scheduling order is going to improve case management.

9. I am a presently serving judge. I am proud that we have a courtroom where we start on time; I am

58

strict with myself to make sure I am on the bench at the appointed hour. I move cases as efficiently as possible and treat all with respect. I do my best to sign paperwork as soon as it hits my in-box, to include the attorney vouchers. I am extremely accessible both at the bench and in chambers, and I will listen to you. I may not always rule your way, but you will be heard and I will treat you with respect.

Those reasons alone are good ones for me to have the privilege to sit for another term.

Planned changes if reelected? I look at it that if it is not broken, don’t fix it.

10. Speaking for my court, I have not had many discovery issues to warrant publishing a standing discovery order. The Michael Morton Act cures many discovery issues that took place in years past. Most of the times where there has been a discovery concern, a quick meeting about it with the parties has cleared up the issue. If, in the future there appears a need for a standing discovery order, then I can revisit publishing one.

11. I want dispositive motions heard before trial. I do not like parking the jury in the jury room to handle matters that could have been brought up before trial. If you have a motion that is dispositive, file it and we will refer it to the felony criminal magistrate (Judge Andrew Carruthers) to hear and rule. For good cause, I may hear the motion myself, but we generally refer them to the criminal magistrate.

12. Not all recidivists are equal. We have plenty of recidivism with drug use, prostitution, and shoplifting. Oftentimes, the DAs will recognize the recidivism issues for these types of cases and work out plea bargains that allow for probation and treatment despite the fact that the defendant has offended before. Recidivism for crimes of violence is another matter. A pattern of violence will warrant a closer

look at sentencing.

public opinion are against you.

13. I ask the attorneys for both sides for their input on how much time they are going to need. I usually concur with their opinions. Murders and sex assault cases get more time than run-of-the-mill drug cases.

3. I’m seeking this office because I firmly believe that my background both professionally and personally can be a benefit to the judiciary.

14. Sure, why not? If looping is going to help you figure out who you want to strike or challenge, then go ahead.

15. That is reasonable, but there are practicalities to consider. Not all new information warrants a continuance. For instance, let’s say your client already has a long criminal history and the State discovers another misdemeanor conviction that was not part of the original discovery packet. That type of new discovery is not going to sway me to grant a continuance. The materiality of that type of evidence is low. I never encourage late discovery, but when it happens, we need to make a reasonable ruling based on its overall effect for the trial.

187th District Court: Stephanie Boyd

1. It is important as judge that each case stands on its own merit. Any case that becomes before me for sentencing will be judged individually. It would be unfair and unjust to establish a set guideline for all cases.

2. Justice Marshall is most influential to me. I admire him for his willingness to be selfless and to seek justice at a time when many roadblocks were placed in his path. He stands as a person that realized that you must always do what is right even if the odds and

4. I have approximately 20 years’ experience in criminal law. As one of the originating attorneys in the felony drug court program and Esperanza court, I am aware of all treatment programs available to probationers. I am familiar with the criminal justice system as a defense attorney and a prosecutor. I have tried many criminal cases, civil cases and argued before the 4th Court of Appeals.

5. As a judge, it is important to remember that judicial economy SHOULD NEVER come before justice. Justice includes giving both the State and the Defense time to present their case.

6. As a defense attorney I was invited to sit on the committee to present recommendations concerning the misdemeanor appointment system versus private system. I voted that the misdemeanor appointment system should remain. I also stated that attorney pay should be increased for criminal defense attorneys as well as for civil attorneys who practice in the child abuse and neglect court.

7. I will have a standing scheduling order. It is important that the Defense and State are given the opportunity to have pretrial motions in advance of trial ensure that each party receives a fair trial.

8. Yes, there should be a scheduling order.

9. I have approximately 20 years’ experience in criminal law. As one of the originating attorneys in the felony drug court program and the Esperanza court, I am aware of all treatment programs available to probationers. I am familiar with the criminal justice

59

system as defense attorney and a prosecutor. I have tried many criminal cases, civil cases and argued before the 4th Court of Appeals. I have designed several international and local continuing legal education courses for attorneys.

10. Pretrial motions will be heard in advance of trial.

11. Pretrial motions should be heard in advance of trial. There will be a motions setting in my court.

12. Based upon my experience as a defense attorney in the treatment courts and in the child abuse and neglect court, I am aware of all available treatment programs.

13. Both the State and Defense will be given time to intelligently select a jury.

14. Both the State and Defense will be allowed to question the venire panel as they choose.

15. There will be a motions setting in my court.

Pretrial motions will be ruled upon at the Motions Setting.

Judge Joey Contreras 1. There is a role for uniformity in sentencing. Similarly situated defendants should face similar outcomes. However, any fixation on uniformity leads to rigidity and a formulaic approach that has no place in the justice system. I prefer that individual sentencing predominate for the simple reason that a profile of any defendant is made up of infinite variables that can’t be reduced to any single checklist.

2. Oliver Wendell Holmes had a profound impact on the development of modern legal theory. Holmes

60

recognized that the law is a tool designed to address societal needs. He didn’t believe that the law consists of universal truths or in its infallibility. His approach was a practical one that recognized the law is created by man and is subject to foibles and human error.

3. There is no other candidate in the race for the 187th District Court who approaches my experience and knowledge of the law. I’ve tried hundreds of cases and have been recognized as a gifted trial lawyer. The rules of evidence are reflex to me. Constitutional doctrine is a passion for me. And it helps that I have a great deal of appellate and habeas experience. Ive argued before multiple courts of appeal including the CCA. And my temperament is even keeled, patient, and temperate.

4. I’ve been a lawyer for nearly thirty years. I’ve handled tens of thousands of cases and numerous appeals and collateral litigation. I’ve served as a chief in the District Attorney’s office and chief of the Major Crimes Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office. I was chosen for these positions for the depth of my legal knowledge and my willingness to work tirelessly. No other candidate has a fraction of the experience and knowledge I do when it comes to criminal law.

5. I’ve been on the bench for a month. I am bothered by the limited time and resources appointed defense counsel has to devote to their clients. Defense counsel appear to be overworked and too much is expected of them. I believe compensation should be increased for those lawyers willing to serve as appointed counsel. Appointment as counsel should be an honor, not a sacrifice.

6. I would vote to increase compensation for appointed counsel. The rate should be competitive with lawyers who are retained.

7. I will issue scheduling orders for complex or high grade offenses if requested by the parties.

8. A standard scheduling order is too rigid. I believe one should be issued if requested by the parties.

9. I’ve been on the bench four weeks and have heard three serious jury trials. I am a very hard worker and love the work.

10. A standing discovery order is not necessary because discovery statues are in place and control discovery. Moreover, I am more than willing to mediate discovery disputes and issue immediate remedial orders or sanctions.

11. Dispositive motions should be heard well in advance of trial. Suppression hearings in particular should be heard well before trial at a designated suppression hearing date.

12. Recidivism is the best indicator of future criminal conduct. I am a firm believer in second or even third chances, especially for youthful offenders.

However career offenders have been shown to commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime.

They should be sentenced accordingly.

13. I believe the Court should conduct a thorough, comprehensive general voir dire to free counsel to focus on the issues more germane to their case. I impose a time limit of less than an hour unless the issues presented are especially complex or counsel can show a particularized need for more time.

14. I’m not familiar with voir dire looping.

15. Production of discovery at least twenty days before trial benefits both parties and the administration of justice.

Jan Ischy Prins 1. Because each person accused has a different history, individual sentencing takes precedence over uniformity in sentencing. A judge must consider an individual, the circumstances and the crime.

2. The first Chief Justice John Jay who was appointed by President George Washington. He had the seemingly insurmountable task of building a respectable legal system.

3. I enjoy the field of criminal law and want to continue serving the citizens of Bexar County. I know that I am the qualified candidate in my race. I have tried almost every type of Felony case including capital murder death penalty cases. In addition to achieving over 18 years as an Assistant Criminal District Attorney, I have seven plus years as a criminal defense attorney. It is imperative that a judge be familiar, not only with the challenges the prosecutors face each day, but also with the challenges the defense attorneys face each day. I am the experienced candidate with the necessary judicial balance and temperament gleamed by being both a prosecutor and a defense attorney.

4. I am clearly the most qualified candidate for this position. In addition to being a member of our local legal community for 25 years, I have actually tried to a jury the most serious crimes including Capital Murder Death Penalty cases. We all know how important it is that a judge not only know the law and know how to apply it accordingly, but that a judge be open to hear all sides, read all case law presented and listen to arguments of counsel before making a decision. This sense and ability to perform this responsibility can only be developed with criminal law experience. And of high importance, my experience has been as a defense attorney in our District Courts in addition to being a prosecutor. It is im-

61

portant a judge have this type of “balance.”

5. First and foremost, every single person that enters the courtroom must be treated with dignity and respect. This includes, but is not limited to the victims, attorneys, staff, law enforcement, visitors, jurors and the defendant. No further explanation needed. Second, the State should be held accountable just as the Defense is. This is especially important where the Michael Morton Act is involved.

6. Most definitely yes! Regarding the amount of increase input by the Defense Bar would be needed.

My criminal defense service has shown me the significant issues faced by the Defense Bar. In addition to insufficient pay to attorneys, there is also a lack of funding for experts and investigators. It is unacceptable for an accused non-citizen not to be provided an expert immigration counsel to advise as to how a conviction or deferred adjudication will affect his or her immigration status.

7. Scheduling orders should be issued in some circumstances.

8. I have no problem with a “suggested standard scheduling order.” It should be decided on a case by case basis whether the order should be followed.

As a defense attorney, I have first hand experience that scheduling orders are often impracticable, and in fact work against the defendant. There are other situations where scheduling orders are necessary to move the case along and ensure the State provides all evidence to the Defense in a timely manner.

9. Because I care, I want to do the right thing, I do my best to keep my word and I am not a politician. This is exemplified not only in my role as a defense attorney, but also as a prosecutor. Recently, I learned that in Bexar County a murder case was indicted that had been under my control when I was

62

a prosecutor. Under my control, the murder case was not indicted because there was no true evidence that this defendant was guilty of murder. In fact, there was Brady evidence to the contrary. I was surprised when the case was recently indicted, but not surprised to learn that the defense attorney had obtained a “not guilty” for her client. I will continue to exercise discretion and fairness on the bench.

10. I think a standing Discovery Order is a great way to force the State to provide necessary evidence to the Defense. It also assists the State, because they know that on every case there is an expectation.

11. No, dispositive motions will not be only after a jury is sworn. Motions to suppress will be handed on a case by case basis, but I believe the majority of dispositive motions can be heard prior to seating a jury.

12. If there is hope of saving a person, he or she is worth saving. But if we are dealing with a person who “thumbs his nose” at the system after being given assistance, that will be another story. The facts of the case and history of the accused will typically be controlling.

13. Voir dire is extremely important in a jury trial.

Latitude should be given when an attorney is gaining meaningful information from jurors.

14. Yes. 15. As a defense attorney I believe it is fair to order the State to produce all discovery at least 20 days before trial starts.

Veronica Legaretta 1. Each case before a judge has its own set of circumstances which should be taken into consideration when sentencing is imposed. What will work for one case may not work for another. Certain conditions that may benefit one case may hinder another.

That being said, attorneys should not be left guessing what perimeters a judge is working within. I believe that individuals in similar situations should expect similar results with the particular conditions varying based on the particular case. Individual sentencing and uniformity in sentencing should work hand in hand.

2. Chief Justice Earl Warren grew up in a financially conservative family who valued good work ethics and education. When he served at the District Attorney’s office and as Attorney General he was tough on crime. He was Governor of California and later sworn in as the 14th Chief Justice based on his affiliation with national politics. As Chief Justice, however, his past beliefs on crime did not dictate his rulings on the bench. Chief Justice Warren took into account influential conditions surrounding violators and believed the Court should restore ethics and protect the community. Individuals have approached me saying I was tough when I was a prosecutor. But my past beliefs as a prosecutor do not dictate how I will serve on the bench. I believe the Court should be respected but also respectful to all in front of her and sentencings need to consider all surrounding circumstances.

3. Somewhere along the way justice was lost in the courtroom. Cases are held hostage by an unreasonable prosecutor or handled by inexperienced defense attorneys who do more harm than good. At some point a judge has to say enough. At some point someone has to not be scared of drawing an opponent or being overturned or having low numbers

and do what is right and just. I am seeking this office because I have practiced in these courts every day for the past ten years and I am tired of seeing what happens. I know things can be better and go smoother. I know I can make those changes to bring justice back to the courtroom.

4. For a little over the past ten years I have practiced every day in the Bexar County state criminal courts.

I have been a prosecutor and defense attorney. I have tried over a hundred cases and have won some and have lost some. I know both the District Attorney’s side and the defense side. I know the benefits and problems each side faces. I am the most qualified candidate because I know these courts and the people in them. I want everyone to feel comfortable coming to talk to me. I will handle each case individually without bias or prejudice and I will ensure that true justice is done.

5. One of the most significant issues I see facing our Courts is immigration problems. The immigration holds on inmates add to overcrowded jails. The nuances of immigration law create opportunity for cases to be overturned because most attorneys are not equipped enough to handle such cases. I plan to start an immigration docket for jail cases with to handle immigration issues. I want to work with the State and the defense bar to set up a system to appoint attorneys versed in criminal and immigration law to work cases out more efficiently than if they were to stay on the regular docket. This would ensure defendants know their rights and would task the DA’s office with prosecuting or dismissing cases appropriately.

6. Yes, I would vote for a pay increase. I would also vote to allow defense attorneys to add an additional amount for additional felony cases of the same defendant on their felony voucher.

63

7. Yes, I will issue scheduling orders on the most serious felony cases and in unique circumstances.

8. No, I do not think there should be a standing scheduling order. Each case is different and a standard scheduling order does not work for all cases or circumstances.

9. I should be entrusted with this official position because I have practiced in these State courts every day. I have been a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I know the problems attorneys face and I will be sensitive to those while also being fair and impartial with my rulings. I will create an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect between all parties. I want attorneys to feel comfortable approaching me about issues. I will work to be timely, efficient, fair and humble with the position entrusted me. I will always remember my job is to serve the citizens of Bexar county in the best possible manner I can.

10. Yes, there should be a standing discovery order.

This will help ensure the state produces evidence they plan to use and names of witnesses they plan to call in trial. Defense attorneys should also file additional motions as needed for their particular case.

An open file policy should not replace the rules of evidence. So many times, I have seen judges allow the state to circumvent discovery motions filed and granted due to open files and ediscovery. A standing discovery order, or any discovery order, will only be effective if the Court holds the responding party accountable.

11. No, I will not rule on dispositive motions only after the jury has been selected and sworn. Sometimes the parties involved can work out the case after certain issues have been resolved but before trial. If a defense attorney wants a motion to suppress heard prior to trial then they will be given a special motions docket date.

64

12. Recidivism will affect my sentencing decisions in deciding what programs, classes, length of probation or incarceration is appropriate. My goals for sentencing are to deter future crimes, help reform the offender and protect the community. I will want to know as much I as can about the defendant and the crime committed. Depending on the offender, the crime and the individual’s propensity to commit crimes the sentence imposed should be structured to reform that individual in hopes that he/she will return to our community a better citizen. More egregious offenders with little hope of rehabilitation will require harsher punishments.

13. Time limits on voir dire will depend on the type of case being tried.

14. Yes, I will permit looping during voir dire. Many jurors do not feel comfortable speaking up in public especially about their personal lives and views.

Looping makes it easier for other like-minded jurors to speak up thus allowing attorneys to learn biases that may not lead to fair trial. Jurors who do not share the same biases are not likely to change their mind just because that bias was repeated.

15. I think the State should produce all discovery more than 20 days before trial. Some evidence requires a longer time frame for a defense attorney to investigate and some witnesses take longer to track down. Current phone numbers and addresses should be produced in the witness lists. Several times I have seen a witness list with a name so common there literally could be hundreds of people with that name.

The State should not be able to hide behind an open file policy or ediscovery in an attempt to make the defense responsible for finding evidence in a case. I believe all discovery should be turned over before the first trial setting, not only when the State believes the trial is actually going to go. Defense attorneys are not privy to what the State and Court have

agreed will go to trial thus defense attorneys aim to be prepared.

8. Just as every case is different, so would every scheduling order be different.

Virginia E. Maurer

9. My experience representing both victims and defendants makes me uniquely qualified to be a judge.

The changes I would bring to this court would be to bring a balanced approach to my rulings

1. In theory, uniformity in sentencing sounds fair.

However, just as the facts of every offense are different, so too should the punishments. I believe individual sentencing should take priority.

2. Justice Antonin Scalia. His passion for the U.S Constitution and the rule of law serves to remind me that no man is above the law and that the law is color blind.

3. To bring fairness and professionalism to this bench.

4. I have been licensed to practice law for over twenty three years. My main areas of practice have been in criminal defense and abuse and neglect (CPS). I have also done some civil litigation. Of all the candidates on this ballot my experience is the most well rounded. Many of my criminal cases had companion CPS cases and vice-versa. Being able to navigate between the two worlds was always very beneficial to my clients. As a judge, this knowledge will provide me with different options/services available in the community that can aid in sentencing.

5. The abuse of the resources granted by the county for the representation of the indigent. An overhaul of the pre-trial services application for court appointed attorneys.

6. n/a 7. Yes, if appropriate.

10. Yes. By the time a felony case gets to a first trial setting, both sides should have all of the discovery necessary to try the case. No attorney should be getting pertinent discovery from the state at a third trial setting, or for that matter, after the jury has been pick and opening arguments have taken place.

11. No. 12. While everyone is capable of making a change in their life, at some point society requires that a true change be made. If a person is not capable of making a true change, they must suffer the consequences.

13. Usually an hour-an hour and a half is sufficient time for voir dire. Obviously in cases which are more complex more time will be given 14. Yes. 15. I am in favor of the State having to produce ALL discovery 20 days before trial.

226th District Court: David Martin

1. I don’t believe you can balance the two. Individualized sentencing takes priority over uniformity in sentencing for several reasons. First, no two cases are the same. Even though the same charge may ap-

65

ply, the individual facts of the cases make them different. Second, no two individuals are the same. To draw a line in the sand based on a particular charge deprives you of the ability to see each defendant as an individual, with individual needs and possibilities, that may warrant a variance from a uniform sentence. Finally, it is important to look at the overall picture in determining a sentence and not be blinded by a uniform standard.

2. The late Antonin Scalia was a great influence on my judicial philosophy because he is an Originalist, and felt the U.S. Constitution should be adhered to without regard for the contemporary views of society. The law is the law, and it is to be followed as written, not as one wishes to interpret it. This will result in your judicial decisions not always being popular, but being historically and legally correct. He was always more focused on following the law than being popular. I also have always enjoyed reading his legal opinions in which he is direct and “tells it like it is�, but also enjoyed his unique writing style.

3. Because I believe I have the experience and ability to keep the 226th District Court running as efficiently as it has for nearly 30 years. I have extensive trial experience in a large variety of cases that will come before the court. In addition to my trial experience, as a Chief Felony prosecutor, I am responsible for reading every case that comes through my court in order to distribute them to an appropriate attorney. This experience is equally as important as it requires me to evaluate all factual and legal issues in each case, like how I would as a judge. I have dedicated my career to serving the community and believe I am the most qualified candidate to continue serving the community as Judge of the 226th District Court.

4. In law school, I interned for the Federal Public

66

Defender, Northern District of Texas – Fort Worth Division. I have practiced criminal defense and served as a prosecutor for the past 11+ years. I have over 130 jury trials including Aggravated Sexual Assaults, Aggravated Assaults, Aggravated Robberies, Aggravated Kidnapping, Vehicular Fatality and over a dozen Murders (included Capital Murders).

I also tried 175 cases involving the termination of parental rights, which gives me a unique view of how criminal cases, especially drug cases, can have drastic family consequences. This experience allows me to bring a unique perspective to the cases before me along with a unique appreciation for how to identify those defendants who can be helped and those who cannot. Finally, I believe I have the most overall trial experience, with the greatest variety of cases, that will lead to the most seam-less transition from the current judge.

5. By far, the most significant issue is ensuring that full discovery is provided to the defense in a timely manner. To improve this process, I will look at the viability of implementing a modified court docketing system, where each setting has a purpose. No case will be called to trial prior to CCP 39.14 being fully complied with. To expedite this process, by the 1st post-indictment setting I would expect full discovery to be provided to the defense and provide ample time to review such. The 2nd setting would be used to ensure that all available discovery has been provided and provide an opportunity to raise any discovery issues that may be lingering. I would expect all issues to be resolved prior to the 3rd setting where it will be expected that all cases are ready for trial. I feel this will greatly reduce the number of discovery issues.

6. As a District Court Judge, I do not know that I would have a seat at that table, but I do believe an increase in the flat rate/hourly rate for Misdemeanor cases is long overdue.

7. Yes, I would issue scheduling orders on highprofile cases, such as Murders. While giving cases a “special setting” can be advantageous, I feel a scheduling order on any high-profile case will provide more of a benefit to both sides. It would ensure that all motions would be filed and ruled on in a timely manner. It would also provide a date certain for both sides to know that they will be going to trial, instead of popping up on the docket every month or two.

8. No. While I personally can see the benefit in a scheduling order in certain cases, I do not believe they are necessary in every case. It should be up to each judge to determine on a case by case basis what case(s) they feel requires a scheduling order.

9. For nearly 12 consecutive years I have been working hard to serve the citizens of Bexar County as a prosecutor. I have dedicated my career to serving the community and feel the experience and knowledge I will bring to the bench are unmatched. I feel I am the candidate best suited to ensure the most seamless transition from the current judge. I will take the bench on day one ready to continue to serve the community and would require the least amount of on-the-job training. I do not feel that any changes are necessary, as this court functions very well. However, I would consider a modified docketing system (as mentioned above) and issuing scheduling orders on high-profile case.

10. No. The passing of the Michael Morton Act (as outlined in CCP 39.14) is a state-wide standing Discovery Order. I do not feel that any additional orders are required, but more can be done to ensure that 39.14 is being fully complied with. By giving each post-indictment setting a particularized purpose related to the discovery process, I believe that will help ensure maximum compliance with the discovery process as outlined in 39.14.

11. No, I will not require a jury to be sworn before ruling on dispositive motions, but will evaluate the whether to hold a hearing prior to trial on a case by case basis. Most motions can be heard during trial, but in certain circumstances a pre-trial hearing may be appropriate. In certain high-profile cases where a scheduling order is issued, a separate pre-trial motions setting will be scheduled to hear all pre-trial motions, including motions to suppress.

12. I believe you need to try and determine the underlying cause of why someone falls back into a criminal behavior. While I cannot state what I would do in particular cases, I do believe that most crimes happen for a reason. Whether it be compulsion, substance abuse, etc., there is an underlying reason for committing the crime not simply a desire to commit the crime itself. I would look at the whole picture (the fact, the person, the person’s history, etc.) in determining an appropriate sentence for each individual.

13. I would Impose appropriate time limits based on the crime being tried. For example, 30 minutes is not enough time for complex cases (i.e., Sexual Assaults & Murder), but 1 hour is likely more than enough on a standard drug case.

14. As a judicial candidate, I cannot state how I would rule on a particular issue. As judge, I would uphold the laws and hold each lawyer to the same standard to ensure a fair trial in accordance with the applicable laws at every stage of the proceeding.

15. CCP 39.14 states “as soon as practicable after receiving a timely request from the defendant the state shall produce and permit the inspection…of any (thing)…not otherwise privileged… that constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the state or any person under

67

contract with the state.” Thus, I would require the State to turn over all evidence well more than 20 days before trial if it is already in the State’s possession. I will ensure that this is done before or at the 2nd post-indictment setting to guarantee evidence is in the hands of the defense well before trial. Any evidence provided thereafter would be subject to a hearing on admissibility and any and all remedies available under the law.

morning or late afternoon) for matters not on the docket. For example, if you need to approach about a bond, if there is a scheduling issue that can be addressed quickly, or a plea that is ready and you’d like to have it heard, then there should be an allocated time for that. That way during the docket times we handle matters on the docket and not have interruptions. I also think that there are many pre-MTR related matters that I can handle via email with probation officers without necessarily having to file an MTR.

Velia J. Meza

6. If I had the authority to vote on that issue, I would absolutely increase the pay rate for the misdemeanor attorneys. If I have influence over that decision, I would also vote favorably for that.

1. I have addressed this in my response to 12.

2. Justice Thurgood Marshall because he made lasting changes in a difficult time in history.

3. I am seeking office because I have always wanted to be a judge that makes a difference in people’s lives; each case has a face on both sides to me.

4. I have practiced criminal defense and other civil matters for over 16 years. I have traveled to over 35 counties in Texas and have gained perspective on how to best handle a court. I have tried in excess of 50 jury trials, and over one thousand bench trials during the relevant period. I have handled appeals and post-conviction matters. I have a universal perspective on how everything that happens at the trial level will affect the case after it leaves my court. I am a student of the law. I have a very good temperament and everyone who knows me knows I can be firm, fair, and flexible.

5. For the 226th specifically, I would like to implement a scheduling order. I’m certain that returning to court every 30 days on cases is in place for a reason, but it’s not my preference as a Judge. Generally speaking, I would allocate some time each day (early

68

7. My goal is to implement a scheduling order because it sets the expectations for both sides to move the case along. As an attorney in Bexar County it feels like we do a lot of “chasing” for discovery and that is not helpful. I believe the scheduling order should alleviate some of that.

8. I prefer a standing scheduling orders that will be issued at the beginning of the case once its indicted with some flexibility depending on the severity of the charge.

9. Much like a job interview on “why you should entrust me” to this position, I’d like for you those people who don’t know me to be confident that I will bring the knowledge I’ve acquired in 16 years of practice, the balance of a lawyer who has advocated for both the accused and the victims, and the innovation I’ve acquired from traveling to 35 counties.

As an attorney, I come to work on time every day, stay late to meet the needs of the court, and come prepared to work. I am grounded in my faith and am involved in my community. I mentor young attorneys and enjoy presenting at CLE’s.

10. I do favor a Standing Discovery Order. I’ve traveled to other jurisdictions where at the first appearance the Judge hands you the Discovery Order and the State hands you a disk with all the discovery. I favor those types of orders because it holds the State accountable and there is no question about what the Judge expects to see happen.

11. I have done all of the above in the different jurisdictions I’ve appeared in. I favor scheduling orders.

However, I do believe that where there is no scheduling order, the defense counsel should have an option to have the dispositive motions heard separately. I’ve asked courts before to give me a separate hearing because I know that it will dispose of the case. Other times, I’ve deliberately waited until the jury is sworn because I know that if favors my client to have jeopardy apply.

down my questions so I can make a record of the questions I wasn’t able to ask if I run out of time and I’m not able to inquire further.

14. I would permit looping as long as it is used appropriately and within the parameters of what the law permits of the voir dire process. I personally have used looping in the 5 different counties where I’ve been in front of juries and it’s a very effective tool for attorneys to learn potential jurors’ viewpoints.

15. I think that 20 days prior to trial may not be enough time and I prefer more. All discovery issues should be resolved in advance of trial. It is never acceptable for the State delay the status of the case for the lack of discovery. If the State has indicted an individual, it is reasonable to expect that all discovery be produced according to a scheduling order, or other discovery order. Having traveled throughout Texas, I have found that scheduling orders work very well when you enforce the event scheduled; i.e. if the setting is for §28.01 matters, then rule on the Motions. One of the issues in Bexar County is that most Judges will require both sides to be ready at the third trial setting. In the major felonies, that’s a problem because I find that there is more of a delay in getting the discovery completed.

12. I don’t believe that a trip to TDC will reduce reoffending. In non-violent offenses, I am a big advocate of taking advantage of all the tools available to help the offender succeed at community supervision. I will utilize the specialty courts as much as possible, I will look into other alternatives that track the services of specialty courts for those who may meet the criteria of a program. We’ve all had occasions where a client does “not meet criteria” for MIC or MIOF but could be successfully supervised using other services. I would be open to that. I do believe treatment alternatives can get offenders on the right track to succeeding.

Kristen Mulliner

13. In felony trials (except capital murder) I have found 90 minutes per side is reasonable to conduct both general and individual voir dire. In the trials where I have run out of time in the past, I ask for additional time and it’s not a problem. If the attorneys require additional time, I would expect that they be able to inform the court the specific questions or areas they need to inquire. I personally always write

1. Fairness is essential when determining an appropriate sentence. Fairness cannot always mean parity or uniformity of sentence. A court should consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the history and character of the defendant among other things. It is my opinion, however, that similarly situated individuals accused of similar offences should receive similar treatment, regardless of the court or

69

the prosecutor.

2. No response 3. I am seeking to be Judge of the 226th District Court because it is an open bench that needs to be filled by someone who has the depth and quality of experience to handle the serious matters that come before a criminal district court and someone who has demonstrated that they have the type of temperament, discernment and work ethic that will ensure that everyone involved in the criminal justice system receives fair and impartial treatment. I have theses qualifications and qualities and, just as importantly, the desire to serve the community in this role.

4. I am a former felony Assistant District Attorney who handled both misdemeanor and felony level offenses throughout my tenure. I am currently in private practice handling both Federal and State criminal defense. I am licensed federally in all of the districts in Texas, the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court. I have experiencing trying and handling, during every step of the process, serious felony offenses to include capital murder. I have acted as an Attorney Pro Tem while in private practice on multiple cases including murder. I have tried multiple Federal cases to a jury (without a finding of guilt on any of them). I have handled complex federal cases including RICO violations, drug conspiracies, child pornography, alien smuggling and human trafficking. I am the best candidate to serve our community because I don’t feel entitled to the position, because the type of temperament, discernment and approach that I will exhibit will be to treat individuals with fairness, respect, due process and to seek justice.

5. Capital murder cases present one of the most significant issues facing the felony district courts in Bexar County. I believe that zealous, competent, ef-

70

fective representation in these cases is significantly hampered by the relatively small pool of attorneys who accept appointed cases and are deemed qualified to be designated as lead counsel in a death penalty case. The backlog created by this circumstance affects both the accused and complainants and affects the quality of the representation afforded the accused. I believe the solution lies, in part, in requiring a date certain for the district attorney’s office to make a decision with respect to whether they intend to seek death. This requirement will allow the court to appoint from among the much larger pool of 2nd chair eligible attorneys initially and subsequently add a first chair qualified attorney relatively early in the process in the event the District Attorney pursues death.

6. Yes 7. Yes 8. No. While I think it is necessary to set standards and expectations, I believe there are circumstances that must be considered on an individual basis.

9. The voters should entrust me with this position because I am a candidate with the qualifications, skill, work ethic, temperament, discernment and heart to be the type of public servant that our community can feel safe and assured by the manner in which I handle the issues and people who come before the court.

10. My experience is that they have worked well in County Court and Federal Court and would be willing to consider it.

11. No. I would be willing to handle a dispositive motion separate from trial.

12. I think that is an issue to be determined on an in-

dividual basis. It depends on the nature and circumstances of the individual offenses and the individual.

13. Depends entirely on the type of offense and the issues as expressed by the attorneys for the State and the accused.

14. Yes 15. I am certainly in favor of defense counsel receiving discovery at a date and time certain ordered by the court. I think the time period may potentially vary in certain circumstances (example: case with DNA or need for experts should be turned over more quickly etc).

Libby Wiedermann 1. I do think there are certain offenses that tend to result in uniform sentencing, regardless of the defendant, i.e. first time felons charged with a state jail drug case are usually sentenced to 2 or 3 years deferred adjudication. However, I still think individual sentencing should take priority over uniform sentencing. I have represented enough criminal defendants to know that no two defendants are exactly alike, even if they have committed the exact same crime. A defendant’s age, mental health, previous court intervention and whether the offense was a result of a substance abuse problem should all be considered at time of sentencing.

2. Justice Louis Brandeis has influenced my legal philosophy and career more than any other Supreme Court Justice. Specifically, his view that in addition to deciding cases based on legal precedents, cases should also be decided based on social needs, is something that I have thought about throughout my career as a prosecutor and as a defense at-

torney. For example, as a prosecutor, I considered this philosophy when deciding whether or not to pursue the prosecution of certain offenses. In some cases, where I had sufficient evidence to prove that an offense took place, I decided against prosecution when I felt that justice would not be served by doing so and/or that there would be no danger to the community by not prosecuting the alleged offender.

3. I feel that running for judge of a criminal district court is a natural next step for me, after devoting most of my 22 years as a lawyer to criminal prosecution and criminal defense work. Additionally, I have been encouraged by many of my legal peers to run for judge because of my experience trying cases, my knowledge of criminal law and how fairly and ethically I have practiced law. I firmly believe that the criminal justice system cannot work unless judges have real work experience handling hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal cases, just as I have, before taking the bench. This experience should include trying all types of criminal cases to a jury, understanding procedural and evidentiary rules because of their own courtroom experience, and experience representing the State and Defendants in court matters and in trial.

4. I spent over a decade with the Bexar County D.A.’s Office where I prosecuted misdemeanor and felony level offenses in adult and juvenile court. As a D.A, I handled thousands of felony offenses, including capital murder, murder, sex crimes and domestic violence offenses. Over the last 10 years, I have also concentrated on felony offenses as a defense attorney. To date, I have handled over 4000 adult criminal cases in Bexar County and tried approximately 95-100 cases to a jury. I was also a criminal magistrate for 3 years and I have taught college level criminal law courses. I believe I am the best candidate because of the number of years I have been working in criminal law, the type and quantity of

71

cases I have handled, as well as my strong work ethic and reputation for being fair.

5. I think the backlog of cases in some courts and jail overcrowding are the most significant problems facing the criminal courts. The court I am running for is the 226th District Court, which has historically had some of the lowest numbers of pending cases and the lowest number of prisoners. If elected, I would work towards maintaining those low numbers. However, the “cost” of running an efficient court should not be a detriment to the fair disposition of cases. Some courts have been able to maintain their low docket numbers by forcing the parties to be ready for trial on the first trial setting—often forcing a dismissal and refiling of a case or forcing a plea. I will not expect any party to be prepared for a jury or non-jury trial on the first trial setting. I think some judges need to spend more time on the bench.

6. I am running for a district court bench. I don’t believe that the Criminal District Judges are involved in voting for changes for misdemeanor court appointed fees. However, I do believe the fee schedule for court appointed misdemeanor cases needs to reevaluated.

7. I think scheduling orders are appropriate in certain cases, particularly when a trial case is given a special setting and/or when a case has been awaiting trial for a long period of time. I don’t think all cases set for trial need a scheduling order, but I would consider a scheduling order upon request by either party.

8. I don’t think a standing scheduling would work with the quanity of criminal cases pending in Bexar County and the disparity in the number of cases pending in each of the courts. Specific to the Criminal District Courts, the time it takes for a case to go to trial depends largely on the size of the individual

72

court’s docket. A standing scheduling order would require amendment for every case that does not go to trial by the date designated on the order. I do think scheduling orders should be used by an individual court if there is substantial backlog, a request by one of the parties, or to resolve certain cases that having been awaiting trial for a significant amount of time.

9. The voters should entrust me with this official position because of my strong work ethic and my vast experience in prosecuting and defending felony level offenses. Everything I have done professionally up to this point has been preparing me for this position. As a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a part-time criminal magistrate, I have had years of experience working in different courts, in front of different judges, working with different court coordinators, different probation officers and court staff.

These experiences have given me a unique opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t work. It also should show the voters that I am committed to this specific job, in this specific type of court.

10. I believe a standing Discovery Order for the felony courts would assist the resolution of cases in a timely and fair way. It seems that most of the requests for continuances relate to discovery matters.

However, the only way a standing Discovery Order would work is if it were drafted and agreed upon by the District Attorney’s Office, the Defense Bar and the Judges.

11. If a motion will be dispositive, I see no reason to waste the time and money to seat a jury, unless one of the parties can provide a compelling reason to do so. It should be up to the Movant to request a setting for the motion and it should be set at an appropriate time based on when the case is set for trial and the length of court time necessary to hear the motion.

12. Recidivism should never be the only factor in deciding a defendant’s sentence. No two cases are alike and, similarly, no two defendants are alike.

Therefore, the theories regarding the rate of recidivism for certain defendants or certain offenses should never over shadow the importance of considering each defendant’s sentence based on his/ her specific crime, criminal history, personal background and prior court intervention.

13. I think time limits for voir dire should be based on the type of case and how complicated (or uncomplicated) the issues are in the particular case. As judge, I would ask the parties involved if there were any specific issues in the case that required a longer period of voir dire. Too often I have experienced courts imposing a “one size fits all” time restriction for voir dire. As a result, jurors have been seated on cases that have time constraints, bias, or other issues that have affected the outcome of the case and even resulted in mistrials. Therefore, any time limits I impose will be generous and fair to both sides.

14. I will permit looping during voir dire.

15. As I stated in #10, a standing Discovery Order for the felony courts would assist the resolution of cases in a fair and timely manner. Since the Michael Morton Act, the frequency of the D.A.’s office turning over discovery at the last minute seems to be increasing. However, no discovery deadline should discourage the State from continuing to disclose information, even if it’s not favorable to the Defendant. As a former D.A., I know that not all “last minute discovery” is the fault of the prosecutor. An order requiring the State to produce all discovery a certain number of days before trial would certainly cause the State to be more diligent about turning over discovery as they receive or learn about it.

However, any standing order would also have to take into consideration late disclosure that is not the

fault of the DA’s office.

290th District Court: Jennifer Pena

1. In my opinion individual sentencing takes priority. I believe that treating people as individuals in the courtroom has a tremendous impact on their success in the criminal justice system. There is a significant lack of personalized sentencing considerations in our justice system.

2. I would say that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has had the most influence on my judicial philosophy, simply because I can relate to her. Justice Sotomayor came from a very humble background. I believe when she makes decisions she draws on her background and experiences, not just from her legal career but from life in general. She makes no apologies for that and she doesn’t seem to compromise or make excuses. She is a no nonsense type of person who sticks to the facts and rules accordingly.

3. I want to make a difference in my community.

I want to be able to tell my children that people who deserve second chances will never be closed off from the possibility of becoming a productive citizen. I believe that judges should be more than the key holders to the doors of the Texas Department of Corrections—they should invest their careers in stopping the cycle of incarceration that has plagued our justice system. That said, prison is the only recourse for some of the people we deal with in court, but there remains that group of offenders with potential. These individuals need intervention before they become the career criminals we want to protect our families from. I am seeking this office in hopes of preventing or decreasing this costly cycle of

73

incarceration.

their witnesses.

4. I started my legal career as a prosecutor. I have tried many cases and served different divisions within the District Attorney’s Office. I have tried everything from DWI to Capital Murder. In 2009, I left the District Attorney’s Office to start my own practice. Since then I have been defending adults and juveniles charged with misdemeanors, felonies, and federal offenses. I have had trials in both State and Federal Court. I believe that my life experiences and my career as a prosecutor and defense attorney gives me the insight needed for this judicial office.

Additionally the last couple of years I have served as a defense attorney for the Felony Drug Court Program and the Esperanza Program. I believe that these Specialty Courts are our future. They work because they provide individualized treatment and offer a tremendous amount of support for those in the criminal justice system.

8. I think the order depends on the case.

5. The most significant issue in my opinion deals with the supervision of young people charged with nonviolent felonies such as possession of drugs, prostitution, theft-enhanced, evading or theft from a person. I would work with the Specialty Courts to make sure these young offenders don’t turn into career criminals. Sometimes that means that your docket will be clogged up with people on probation or sitting in jail because of a sanction. If an offender is non-violent we should not give up on them, even if that means your case load gets ugly and full. To me it is not about numbers it is about people.

6. Absolutely I want us to be on par with other larger counties.

7. I think scheduling orders are great for both the state and defense for bigger cases with many witnesses. I would look to use them for those cases because it helps both the Defense and State prepare

74

9. I have never been a judge but I have substantial work experience on both sides. I have handled and experienced cases from start-to-finish from both sides of the fence. What I have learned from my experiences is that defendants are more than just an indictment or a criminal history and complainants need a voice regardless of whether the State or Defense wants to hear it. I believe voters could trust me to treat all defendants and complaints with respect and to understand that what takes only a few minutes in a courtroom will have life time ramifications for them.

10. A standing discovery order would be a great tool to keep cases moving. Many times cases are stalled because discovery was not tendered to defense counsel.

11. I believe dispositive motions should be handled separately from the actual trial. These motions should be heard and ruled upon before trial.

12. Recidivism rates tell me that incarceration does not work. What these rates scream to me is that we need to do better. Tossing men and women in prison isn’t always the solution. We need a judicial system that actually rehabilitates and not just incarcerates. I believe judges should look at defendants as more than just another case clogging up their docket. Judges need to look at the person standing before them, talk to them and attempt to use the time on probation as a way to alter the person’s life in a positive way.

13. I do not like time limits on me when I conduct voir dire, it’s a distraction. I trust attorneys to use a reasonable amount of time for their voir dire. I

would not impose time limits on attorneys.

14. I believe what is discussed in voir dire should be left to the attorneys as long as it doesn’t violate the rules of evidence.

15. I believe that discovery should be turned over once requested by defense counsel and updated every time something is added to the State’s file. I think asking the State to turn over discovery at least 20 days before trial is appropriate.

Judge Melisa Skinner 1. For sentencing purposes, I consider each case individually and base my rulings on the facts, circumstances and the individual before me.

2. My judicial philosophy is to follow the rules, evidence and the laws of the State of Texas and the laws of the United States. Because the Supreme Court Justices have a different mandate than I, I do not believe that any one of them has been influential in the development of my judicial philosophy, which is to do my job properly by following the law.

3. I have first-hand knowledge of how rewarding it is to serve in this capacity since I have been the judge of the 290th District Court for almost seven years. It is my privilege to hold this office and I wish to be able to continue to serve.

4. As stated above, I have been the judge of the 290th District Court for almost seven years during which I was initially tasked with clearing a backlog of cases from another court. The 290th District Court is now consistently one of the most efficient courts in Bexar County. As a judge, I have experience presiding over a variety of felony jury trials, including a

death penalty prosecution. As a trial attorney and as a judge, I have tried hundreds of cases to juries, and overall, have handled thousands of criminal cases including Death Penalty cases. This experience makes me the most qualified candidate for this bench.

5. The most significant problem we face in the criminal justice system is our inability to adequately address offenders with mental health issues.

We require more options than currently exist for those competent individuals found guilty of criminal offenses who have significant mental health challenges.

I also believe that the courts should continue to strive to be as efficient as possible. This would improve the administration of justice within the criminal courts.

6. This question does not apply to the Court for which I am seeking office.

7. I will issue scheduling orders on Capital Murder Death Penalty cases.

8. I do not believe that there should be a standing or a standard scheduling order. I have tried this before and found it to be inefficient.

9. I am proud to have efficiently dealt with my docket over the last seven years. I never take this position for granted. For me, it is a 24 hour, seven day a week job and each decision I make is made with careful consideration of the law and the evidence before me.

10. Certain discovery issues are standard. To that extent, I agree.

11. Dispositive evidentiary motions, those that will

75

not require the selection of a jury, I will hear without requiring that a jury be selected. If an evidentiary motion is not dispositive, I will carry that motion with the trial.

12. It is one of many factors to be considered when determining a proper sentence.

13. Time limitations depend on the severity of the offense charged and whether the election of punishment is to the judge or jury.

14. Yes. 15. I am cautious that any absolute rule could result in harm to either side, the State or the Defense. I would not want any rule that would limit the time for discovery since I believe that it is ongoing and the State should be required to continuously provide it.

437th District Court:

Judge Lori I. Valenzuela 1. Individual sentencing will always take priority in my review of a case. I evaluate each case balancing the nature of offense, whether the offense has a violent component, or restitution is owed, with any mitigating factors that may be presented, including, but not limited to: education, mental health issues, gang affiliation, criminal history, and employment.

2. There is no particular Supreme Court Justice that has influenced me, but there are some general principles that I have gleaned from justices and judges that have contributed to the development of my judicial philosophy. A judge at any level should be committed to fair and impartial justice, applying the

76

law to the facts at hand, must uphold Constitutional rights, and have knowledge of and respect for precedence. She should be of strong moral character and have intellectual integrity. A judge should approach each and every decision without a political agenda and appreciate that her role is to interpret and not make law. And lastly, while applying general law to a specific set of facts, she should make all efforts to provide clear rulings and answers to her issues, even when the issues are complex in nature.

3. I am seeking re-election to this bench so that I may continue my service to the community.

4. I have over 20 years of experience dealing with criminal matters. Before I started law school, I worked as the Director for The Bridge Program in New York. The mission of the agency was to help criminal defendants “bridge” back into society by helping each individual prepare resumes, obtain employment, and assist the defendant so that he/ she could comply with conditions outlined by the court. For two years while in law school, I worked as an intern at the Bexar County District Attorney’s office. After passing the Bar, I began work as an Assistant District Attorney and remained there for over nine years. I left the DA’s office in 2007 and opened my own criminal defense practice. I also served as a Bexar County Magistrate. In 2009, I was appointed to the 437th and have presided over this court since that time.

5. In any criminal court, there is always the challenge of getting a case to trial in a timely, but also just, manner. This requires all parties to be prepared. The State must have sufficient time to investigate and to make offers that are appropriate, the defense to have all of the discovery and resources to prepare their defenses, and for the court to have the time to try the case.

6. District Court judges do not have any influence or vote on the hourly rate for appointed misdemeanor attorneys.

11. In the 437th, I rule on Motions to Suppress in advance if the Motion will be dispositive. If it is not dispositive, I will run the Motion with trial.

7. I issue scheduling orders in all Capital Murders, Murders, and Manslaughters.

12. I will always consider granting a disposition that allows a defendant to get the resources he/she needs to change his/her future and not return to the criminal justice system.

8. I think that the decision to have a scheduling order in any or in all cases lies solely within the discretion of the presiding judge of that respective court.

9. I am proud that over the past two terms, we have worked hard in the 437th to reduce the caseload and to bring cases to trial as quickly as possible. I am equally proud of the environment of the court. It is my hope that the people who come through the 437th are treated with respect and kindness from the staff and that the parties believe they are always given the opportunity to voice their position and advocate for their side in front of an open-minded and fair judge.

10. I think a standing Discovery Order would help expedite pre-trial matters and guarantee that all defendants were given all the evidence that they are entitled to in a prompt and timely fashion.

13. The nature of the offense, special legal issues, and punishment will all dictate how much time the parties get for voir dire. I will always allow for extra time if there are issues that arise during jury selection that warrant additional time.

14. I permit “looping� during jury selection.

15. Having the State produce all discovery 20 days before trial is a gold standard, but an attainable one if the State has consistently complied with Michael Morton by turning over evidence from the genesis of the case. It is the defense’s duty to request such information and with the high volume of cases, it is incumbent on the defense to have a hearing or to confer with the state to guarantee they have all the discovery before trial and there should always be an ongoing discovery order throughout a trial.

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS The San Antonio Defender is always looking for content that serves to inspire, educate and excite our membership. If you would like to contribute, please contact a member of the Defender staff.

77

No Response Received by Deadline to the Pre-Election Judicial Candidate Survey: County Court 2: Grace Uzomba

County Court 12: Yolanda Huff

County Court 6: Judge Wayne Christian

District Court 144: Ray Olivarri

County Court 8: Mary Roman

District Court 187: Karl Alexander

County Court 9: Gloria Saldana

District Court 226: Joel Perez

County Court 11: Christopher Cavazos

District Court 227: Judge Kevin O’Connell

2017 - 2018 SACDLA Committee Chairs

Bylaws Michael McCrum Michael@mccrumlegal.com

Defender Magazine Trisha Morales Padia Padia.Trisha@gmail.com

Strike Force Michael Gross lawofcmg@gmail.com

CLE Blakely Mohr Blakely@TheMohrLawFirm.com

Membership George Taylor GeoTaylor101@aol.com

Tech Bud Ritenour Ritenourlaw@gmail.com

Chad Van Brunt VanBruntLaw@gmail.com

SACDLA Room Phil Bozzo pbozzo@sbcglobal.net

Robert Featherston Robert@rhflaw.net

CMAG Program Michael Young Michael.Young@bexar.org

78

Social Trey Porter trey@rradc.com

Voucher John Robertson jrobertson@brylaklaw.com

SACDLA

The San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association P.O. Box 831206 San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 Telephone: (210) 501-2916 Facsimile: (210) 885-7714

OFFICERS

Michael McCrum

Loraine Efron

Trisha Morales Padia

President

Secretary

Editor-in-Chief, DEFENDER

Don Flanary

Christine Del Prado

Jennifer Zarka

Vice President

Treasurer

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Executive Director

*NAME:

PAST PRESIDENTS Patricia Jay Warren Wolf Robert Featherston Jorge Aristotelidis Jay Norton Michael Gross Jeff Mulliner

John “Bud” Ritenour Adam Kobs George Taylor Stephanie Stevens Jim Greenfeld Michael S. Raign John A. Convery

Ernest Acevedo, III Ronald P. Guyer Mark Stevens George Scharmen Cynthia Hujar-Orr

Mr.

Mrs.

Dr.

Matthew Allen Robert Barrera Philip Bozzo Anne Burnham John Carroll Karen Corby Adam Crawshaw Andrew del Cueto Mario Del Prado

MAILING ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________________ Street Address/Suite Nbr./PO Box _________________________________________________________________________________________ City State ZIP County FAX: _________________________________________

*EMAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________________

Joseph Esparza Justin Fischer John Fox Ray Fuchs Roland J. Garcia Paul Goeke Juan Carlos Hernandez John Hunter Blakely Mohr

Angela Moore Kristen Mulliner Miguel Najera Trisha Morales Padia Joel Perez Christopher Simpkins Robin Teague Chad Van Brunt Michael Young

DIRECTORS EMERITUS Charles Butts (Deceased)

Other

_________________________________________________________________________________________ First Name Last Name MI

TELEPHONE: ___________________________

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Professor

*TEXAS BAR CARD NO.: ________________________ DATE OF BIRTH: _________________________ Certified Criminal Law Specialist?

YES

NO

Member of TCDLA?

NO

NACDL?

YES

Do you want a Membership Certificate?

YES

CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP: Contributing ($150 per year)

St. Mary’s Law Student / First Year Lawyer ($30)

Regular ($75 per year)

Anthony Nicholas (Deceased)

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, DEFENDER Trisha Morales Padia

YES

NO

NO

St. Mary’s Crim. Law Assn. ($0, Volunteer 5 hours)

(Attorneys:) I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of Texas. I am actively engaged in the defense of criminal cases in the State, County or Municipal Courts in Bexar County or the surrounding contiguous Counties, or in the Federal Courts of the Western District of Texas. I do not hold a full time or elected Judicial or Prosecutorial Position. *SIGNATURE: _____________________________________________ DATE: ________________

If you would like to submit an article to be considered for publication in The Defender, or see about how you can help or become involved with and contribute as an Associate Editor, please email Padia.Trisha@gmail.com.

PLEASE MAIL APPLICATION TO: SACDLA, P.O. Box 831206, San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 *Required Information (Bar Card No. not required for student membership application)

79

DEFENDER VOL. XX ISS. 1 | FEBRUARY 2018

2017 JUDICIAL SURVEY

SAN ANTONIO

PRE-ELECTION ISSUE PRE-ELECTION JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SURVEY