VOTE411 Voter Guide

Judges are responsible for ensuring everyone appearing in their courts is treated with dignity and respect regardless of their personal circumstances or background. Judges set that example with their own behavior, and require it of others in their courtroom. They can also do that by simplifying court processes and explaining to people what is happening, and why they reached their decisions.

One of the most unfair aspects of our justice system is how it operates differently, and better, for people with money than for people without money. I saw that reality up close as a public defender, and my clients felt it. Judges must understand how that happens, and work to reduce and eliminate those inequities, which harm everyone involved. They can best do that by ensuring everyone has a qualified lawyer representing them. I have devoted my career to doing that.

Finally, judges must make consistent decisions from case to case. When appropriate, they must acknowledge their own biases and disqualify themselves when their ability to be fair is in question.

Judges are people, and all people are influenced by their personal beliefs when making decisions. Any judge who says their judicial decision-making is not influenced by their personal beliefs is not being honest. But, the law does not require judges to leave their personal beliefs behind when they take the bench. Judges are required to follow and apply the law, and they cannot allow their personal beliefs to stop them from doing that. I am certain that will not be a problem for me. I've spent 30 years working to ensure judges follow the law.

That said, judges have broad discretion in how they apply the law. My personal background and experiences representing people in our criminal legal system have shaped my beliefs about justice and public safety. I have learned that crime is largely a product of circumstance, not bad people, and that jail and prison do not make us safer in the long run. These beliefs will shape how I use my discretion as a judge to do justice.

As Nashville's elected Public Defender from 2008-2018, I often felt political pressure around decisions I made. Ultimately, I considered it my responsibility and obligation to do the right thing for the people I served, regardless of political pressures. Judges must do the same when deciding cases, and I have repeatedly demonstrated my ability to do that.

As the Public Defender, I reduced attorney workloads so our clients could get the representation they deserved, despite pushback from all directions. I spoke out against biased policing practices, and started Nashville's first Court Watch program -- inviting public scrutiny into how courts operate. After I left the Public Defender's Office, I fought for people in jail whose appointed lawyers were failing them. When a judge issued a gag order against me that prevented me from talking to people who wanted my help, I sued her for violating my free speech rights. I am not afraid to do hard things when the hard thing is the right thing.

The most critical issue facing our courts today is the lack of qualified and willing lawyers to represent people charged with crimes who cannot afford to hire counsel. Without a capable attorney, it is impossible for someone charged with a crime to get a fair trial. Two years ago, I co-created a Pilot Project in Nashville to address this problem, and it currently operates through my non-profit organization, Choosing Justice Initiative. Judges are responsible for upholding the constitutional right to effective representation, and as a judge, this would be the first issue I would work to address.

Criminal Courts face many other serious issues, including long cases processing times. Several factors contribute to long delays in case outcomes, including the lack of qualified attorneys, slow evidence processing times, and a high volume of cases. Judges can improve this by how they schedule cases and by holding lawyers accountable for working in a timely manner.

Judges play one of the most important roles in the ensuring fair treatment. Judges issue warrants, set or revoke bail, decide on the admissibility of evidence, set the schedule of when a case will be in court, ratify plea agreements, dismiss cases when appropriate, and sentence individuals.

More importantly, judges decide if a person's voice is meaningfully heard throughout the court process. A person who has committed crime, even a heinous one, is entitled to full due process. The victims of crime are also entitled to weigh in at certain points according to State law. If people feel their due process was trampled on or that their right to be heard was ignored, they will leave dissatisfied with our justice system.

People must also know that regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, or immigration status that they will be welcomed in the courtroom and receive equal treatment under the law.

I believe our system has never been fair to poor people and people of color. So many people leave court feeling as if they were treated unfairly. This is true for both victims and the accused. Because of this, people have lost a lot of faith in our justice system.

This belief has influenced how I have handled cases throughout my 16-year career. I have never been the kind of prosecutor that believes in getting the longest sentence possible just because I can. I believe prison should be reserved for the few who have caused great harm and repeat offenders. I have dismissed cases when the evidence was insufficient and gave second chances when appropriate. But I have worked hard to hold people accountable when their criminal actions necessitated such.

I think our city would be better served if we helped more people get the resources they need to get back on their feet and on a path to become productive citizens.

I will not be influenced by political pressure. I have handled cases in accordance with the law and as justice demands. I was a member of a Public Corruption Unit for two years. During that time, I investigated and prosecuted corrupt government officials. It was my job to act with integrity in the face of political pressure. Often that meant I prosecuted powerful people and sometimes I had to tell powerful people that I wouldn't be a pawn in their attempt to go after their foes.

I have prosecuted multiple high-profile cases that brought on intense scrutiny and high emotions. I have also dismissed serious cases when there was insufficient evidence, or I believed that the accused was innocent. I have often had to explain my decisions to those in positions of influence or power. These conversations have not always been easy, but I have always done what I thought was right.

Professionals in our system are often struggling to find rehabilitative aid and treatment for people struggling with addiction and mental illness. We have some good programs, but we need more resources and more help identifying the available resources. I intend to dedicate a member of my staff to help identify resources and connect the accused and/or their counsel with these resources when appropriate.

We have a huge problem with the amount of time it takes for a case to be resolved. The famous maxim, "justice delayed is justice denied," rings true to this day. Cases need to be resolved quickly and efficiently without jeopardizing anyone's constitutional rights or violating the law. Some of the most serious crimes often take years to resolve. Everyday a case is open is another day a victim deals with the stress and trauma of an uncertain outcome. Everyday an innocent person is in jail or on bond and dealing with secondary consequences of an open charge is a great injustice.

A judge's first obligation is to ensure that every person who enters the courtroom, victim, defendant, witness, or family member, feels heard, respected, and treated with dignity regardless of their race, wealth, gender, identity, or citizenship.

Fair treatment means more than following procedure. It means patience on the bench, plain communication so every person understands what is happening and why, and the humility to recognize that a ruling affects real lives. It also means recognizing that the size of someone's bank account should never determine the quality of justice they receive.

In 33 years of criminal law, as a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge, I have seen firsthand how profoundly a judge shapes whether people feel the system worked for them or against them. That experience drives everything I do on the bench.

Fair treatment also extends beyond the courtroom. When laws or procedures fail to deliver justice as intended, a judge has a responsibility to work with legislators and community partners to fix them. Justice is not a passive pursuit.

Every judge arrives at the bench shaped by life experience. My belief that every person deserves dignity and fair treatment, regardless of race, wealth, or background, makes me a better judge, not a biased one.

But there is a critical line between values that inform fairness and beliefs that drive advocacy. A judge must never be an advocate on the bench. My obligation is to follow the law, apply the facts, and rule impartially, even when the outcome is not what I would personally choose.

Thirty-three years on both sides of the courtroom taught me this discipline. I have represented clients whose actions troubled me and prosecuted cases where I felt sympathy for the defendant. That experience, prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge, built the muscle to separate personal feeling from professional duty.

My personal beliefs belong off the bench, where I will continue working with lawmakers and community partners to improve a system I care deeply about.

Political pressure has no place in a courtroom, and I intend to keep it that way.

Every decision I make will be grounded in the law, the facts presented, and the constitutional rights of every party before me. Not in public opinion, not in political consequences, and not in who is watching.

I have long believed that judicial races should not be partisan. A judge does not serve a party, they serve the law. That belief shapes how I campaign and how I preside.

Thirty-three years on both sides of the courtroom deepened my respect for the process and my commitment to letting the law, not the moment, guide every ruling.

A judge who rules based on political pressure is not a judge, they are a weathervane. The moment a ruling is shaped by who might be upset rather than what the law requires, the independence of the judiciary is undermined.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of Tennessee. That oath does not bend under pressure, and neither will I.

First, I would suggest caseload and efficiency. Criminal Court Division III currently carries over 700 open cases, with 42 set for trial this year alone, including 10 homicides. Justice delayed is justice denied, for victims, defendants, and witnesses alike. Moving cases efficiently through the system while ensuring every party receives full due process is the most pressing operational challenge facing this court.

The second issue is equal access to justice. There is a growing and troubling disparity between the quality of justice available to those who can afford it and those who cannot. Indigent defendants who fall outside public defender representation are increasingly underserved. I have taken this issue to the legislature and was recently appointed to the Supreme Court's Indigent Defense Council Commission to begin addressing it systemically.

Both issues strike at the same core principle: a justice system that works well only for some is not a justice system at all.