For almost 16 years, I have represented Texas in the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). In that time, no one has done more petitions for discretionary review, briefs, or arguments in the CCA.
As a career prosecutor, my ethical duty has always been to seek justice rather than convictions. In a system of law, justice can only come from following the law. I have followed the law even when I did not like where it led. My supporters know that my adherence to the law will eventually result in unpopular votes and opinions. For most of them, that adherence is the reason they support me.
In criminal law, defendants get access to the courts whether they like it or not. The more appropriate question for them is whether they have access to quality representation. Texas spends a tremendous amount of money on this. And courts are fairly lenient when it comes to filings made by defendants who for whatever reason proceed without counsel.
The most important factor is whether its ruling was correct. Courts do not make law, legislatures do. If the CCA misinterpreted a statute, the CCA should fix it. The exception is for statutes that were genuinely ambiguous when passed. If the CCA made a good-faith effort to interpret it and that interpretation has stood for a significant amount of time, that decision is owed some deference,
Courts exist to settle disputes and interpret laws, not to force their personal policy preferences on the public. Judges should have the humility to accept their limited authority. Too many judges (or would-be judges) view the courts as the place to do what is right in their own eyes regardless of what a statute or rule says.
Having been a prosecutor, defense attorney, professor, and court attorney with broad jury trial and appellate experience, I’ve seen the system from all sides. I will work for just and fair rulings.
Judges must perform their duties without bias or prejudice, yet those who are not wealthy must raise money to campaign for office—often from lawyers who practice before them. The system needs to be reformed. Only a small number of my donations came from lawyers that practice in this court. I will recuse from any case where I served as counsel or where there is any possibility of bias or prejudice.
The judicial system is complicated and intimidating. Lawyers are expensive yet self-representation is not a good option for most. The appointment system in criminal cases can lead to overloaded lawyers and inadequate representation. Poor and minority litigants are disproportionately impacted. A crucial first step is to sufficiently fund indigent legal and interpretation services.
Following past rulings promotes stability and helps ensure that litigants with similar facts are treated fairly. When deciding whether to change a ruling, the court should consider the impact of new laws and high court cases, protection of constitutional rights and freedoms, the extent other courts have relied on the ruling, and its workability. The court should not act merely due to disagreement.
I am dedicated to upholding a justice system that is: independent, impartial, and not beholden to special interests; grounded in the constitution and the rule of law; free of bias based upon race, sex, religion, or other unconstitutional factors; respectful of due process and other constitutional rights; and fair, just, and compassionate to litigants, victims, and others before the court.
