Q&A from our local GOP

Brenda Platt, Republican Precinct 19 Chair, Wise County - who has endorsed me - wanted to give candidates an opportunity to answer some questions. Since my wife and I were in Greece on vacation at the time she posted the request on Facebook, I wanted to publicly thank her for letting me get home before I responded. Thank you, Brenda! I provided a link on FB to this page as my response. It is an honor to provide brief insights into my views on the judiciary.

I have cut/pasted the questions in their original phraseology and answered them accordingly. If there are more questions, I welcome them! I'm happy to meet in-person with anyone to discuss my views in all matters judicial and legal, especially as we gear up for the primary election season.

1. What is your stance on audio and video in the courtrooms?

Audio and video recordings can be officially and properly introduced as evidence in any civil or criminal case, provided the statutory rules are followed in doing so.

If the intent of your question is whether the average citizen or spectator is allowed to record (audio or video) proceedings in a courtroom (whether the hearing is held in-person or via teleconferencing or other means), the short answer is NO.

There are exceptions, however, including ceremonial and investiture actions.  The decision to allow recording of proceedings is essentially at the discretion of the Judge, provided the Judge is following the proscribed tenets in the administration of justice.  The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure state that recordings of proceedings may only be allowed if the circumstances will not “unduly distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings and the parties have consented, and consent to being depicted or recorded is obtained from each witness whose testimony will be broadcast, televised, or photographed.”

However, if the intent of your questions is whether the average citizen or the public should be allowed to record proceedings in a courtroom, the answer is more involved.

Short Answer - No. It seems like a great idea but I think it would be disastrous. I've laid out brief rationale below.

In referencing the Judge’s discretion on this issue, let me simply say that there are many competing considerations.  Personally, I believe strongly in the transparency of government, since they are elected by “we the people,” so I would want the ability to record whatever I want.   Yet, there are many instances where judicial privacy is rightly afforded – jury selection, jury deliberations, attorney-client privileged communication, settlement discussions between counsel and parties, chambers conferences, bench conferences, mediation, etc. The ability to have “off record” and frank communications is essential to the efficient administration of justice.

In this response, I’m not considering the use of actual “media coverage” for LIVE portions of formal proceedings, which can be addressed separately, but rather the average citizen taking out his iPhone and randomly recording.

Courtrooms are open to the public usually.  Anyone and everyone can typically view public proceedings.  Anyone can get a transcript of the record of a given proceeding, if it is not sealed by law.  The rules now existing are for the promulgation of fairness, equality, and efficiency.  The rules are constituted to balance the free flow of public information and foster public understanding and access while providing the best solution for maintaining the dignity, decorum, and impartiality within the Court system for participants and litigants, and within the context of a full hearing.  The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and Texas Administrative Code also provide a framework to guide Judges, with considerations such as whether a recording:

·      Interferes with the orderly conduct of the proceeding

·      Unduly distracts participants

·      Impairs the dignity of the proceedings

·      Interferes with the ability for private conferencing between attorneys, clients, witnesses, aides, etc.

·      Delays the proceeding

·      Causes other disruption, light changes, noise, behavior, or loss of decorum and dignity

·      Potentially harms a child, a participant, law enforcement, or medical personnel

·      Interferes with fair administration

·      Slows advancement of the trial on the merits

·      Discourages proper objections and motions in limine

·      Sways the reliability or credibility of witnesses

Ultimately, the Court must consider the implications of audio and video recording in every case, but Judges are consigned to the general rule of NOT allowing public recordings as the baseline.

A few real-life implications might be helpful to the casual reader here.  Images and recordings on phones can be altered, modified, and deleted.  A simple click of the button on the new iPhone can remove objects from a picture.  A “screenshot” is no longer valid, if the screen was manipulated before the “capture” was initiated.  We can easily lose authenticity and originality in our text message chains, images, recordings, and electronically stored media.  It costs thousands of dollars to provide experts to unravel the metadata, and the hiring and use of these individuals becomes quite untenable in prosecuting the typical lawsuit – relative to time and money.

Also, it’s important to acknowledge that Judges hear and discern matters within the context of the case (or at least within the confines of the motion and relevant hearing of the day/instance).  Snippets of recordings, photos, and images, taken out of context only tend to misconstrue, misapply, and mischaracterize the actual proceeding and legitimate evidence for review.  This ill-informed rhetoric then becomes the ignorant fuel to the fire of the current social media-age masses, thus curtailing the efficiency and ability for the proper administration of justice.

A Judge is called upon, by prescribed judicial canons in Texas, to comply with the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, not being swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.  A judge shall require order and decorum in all proceedings and thus dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly.

Based on the law and my daily litigation practice in the courtroom for almost 23 years, the general rule of disallowing public recordings of judicial proceedings without further judicial discretion is sound.

2. When legislative reforms come before you for interpretation, such as those involving marijuana regulation, gaming, or other emerging industries, do you approach the statute strictly as written, or do you consider broader legislative intent and policy implications?

Judicial Canons require that I review only the pure letter of the law.  I am a strict constructionist of our laws and Constitution.  Only when the legislative verbiage in a statute somehow differs from the plain, ordinary meaning of the word (or the specific legal definition of the term found in the statute) should a Court look further into interpretation of the legislature’s intent.  If the literal application of the law would lead to an ambiguous, “absurd or wholly impracticable consequence,” it may be necessary to interpret.   In that instance, a Judge should only consider the legitimate and objective evidence provided by the legislature.  It is not in a Judge’s purview to consider policy implications.

I will not legislate from the bench.  If the laws are wrong, we each have a moral obligation and duty to seek their change through the legitimate process we subscribe to in our Constitutions, including elections and free speech considerations.

3. How do you balance the letter of the law against the perceived spirit of the law when rendering judgment?

I believe the answer to #2, above, is responsive.

I will simply add a side note that might aid as a further response to your question.  Certain actions, crimes, and behaviors that are not in line with society’s benefit (or for the future good and welfare our Counties and State) in a given criminal case, divorce action, child custody proceeding, CPS matter, or civil lawsuit are typically addressed in the “punishment” phase or “final ruling” of the Court.  This is where a Court has wide discretion to consider the full range of punishment in the code and make Orders that will impact the parties relative to the general public.  This is where it is crucial to understand how our communities thrive under the protection of the Texas and Federal Constitutions, and accompanying laws and statutes.

We believe, and a Judge must adhere to the fact, that we are trying to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  In Texas specifically, our Constitution begins with the earnest request of “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God,” and requires that Judges promote the “great and essential principles of liberty and free government” by ensuring that all men and women have equal rights, “and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.”  We are a family to each other, and actions reverberate against others’ wills.  Consequences matter.

4. Do you acknowledge the corruption in the judicial 2 party justice system and how will you go about fixing it?

As a judicial candidate, I cannot directly agree with whether there is corruption in the 2-party system of justice.  I can personally acknowledge that there is obvious conflict in our nation between the two main political parties – democratic and republican – which plays out on the public stage by groups and factions.  The friction, conflict, and resulting violence is readily evident, without me saying anything.  My focus as a Judge would be administering justice independently and impartially, devoid of considerations of “sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.”  My goal would be to maintain judicial integrity in all of my decisions and to promote this righteous quality by living the very standards I expect from my neighbors in Wise and Jack Counties, Texas.  I will strictly adhere to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

I will likewise strictly adhere to the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and the laws and regulations within the 271^st Judicial District.  I will exercise judicial restraint by maintaining judicial independence, free from political pressure and outside influence.  Most people are generally good, kind, and loving.  However, those individuals who fail to uphold their oaths and agreements shall be held accountable.  True justice is blind to affiliation and centers on the application, and correspondingly the violation, of the law.

Judges who overstep their constitutionally mandated role to discern truth and error based on the facts properly presented are “activists” on the bench and should be reported.  There are measures in place internally and externally to address this.  I support investigations and robust, fair processes for the removal of Judges and elected officials who violate the law and are guilty of genuine ethical obligations.  Judges should not be swayed by political actors or powerful interest groups.

I expect a Courtroom, and by extension its participants and adherents, to be a beacon of the noble terms: Righteousness, Respect, Honor, Civility, Truth, Equality, and Justice.  You can be a good human and still have differing views from your friends.  In short, a Court should require and maintain a Decorum that transcends the broader societal ills – it should rise above perceived systemic failures and address individual actions and failures, one by one.  In the consistent and methodically rigid application of the law, justice will prevail.