Business as Usual

I remember the first time I met my opponent on the campaign trail.  She said to me, “You’re so young – you’ll have plenty of chances.  It’s my turn.”  That statement speaks volumes about the differences between us.  Unlike her, I believe that judges should be elected based on qualifications, not political dues.  Like I have stated before, I have tried to run an honest campaign that focuses on my qualifications.  However, my opponent’s repeated, purposeful misrepresentations compel me to respond with the truth.

Her direct mail piece, which I received on July 20, claims that I am an “inexperienced politician.”  As I have stated repeatedly and will address again below, I have significantly more relevant experience than my opponent and a summary review of both of our professional credentials will demonstrate that I am more qualified to hold the position of District Court Judge. Furthermore, I have never run for or held public office before or held any political position.  Sadly, this is just a politically motivated, dishonest claim to sway voters at the waning moments of the campaign.  The charge is also rather ironic, considering it is she who touts her involvement in political clubs and the establishment as one of her qualifications for being a District Judge.  The vast majority of her endorsements are from “political friends,” many of whom are only vaguely familiar with what a district court judge actually does – and what qualifications truly matter for the position.  The organizations that actually went through a vetting process – where they interviewed and investigated each candidate, giving each an opportunity to be heard and making decisions based on qualifications instead of friendship or favors – endorsed me.  Additionally, significantly more people that work daily in Collin County District Courts and know firsthand the qualities and experience a District Judge should possess are supporting me.

In her mailer, my opponent shows herself in photographs with Laura Bush, Sam Johnson and Ralph Hall, Ted Cruz, and Greg Abbott, falsely implying that she is endorsed by them, and omits any disclaimer that would state otherwise.  To date, my campaign has verified with the offices of two of the individuals depicted that she used their likeness without their permission and that they are not endorsing her.

My opponent continues to state the incorrect number of years I (and she) have been practicing law.  She also continues to state that I have no experience in family or civil law, which is not true.  I have handled both family and civil cases.

My opponent claims that there are 580 criminal cases in the 380th District Court out of a total of 2,082 cases pending (28%), when only several weeks ago, she was sending out email blasts claiming that only 10% of cases in the 380th are criminal cases.  In her mailer, her footnote references a report obtained from the District Clerk on June 30, which is interesting since she sent out email blasts on July 5 and July 10 with numbers that vary significantly from the June 30 report she obtained.

My opponent also claims to be endorsed by law enforcement, but does not identify the law enforcement entity who endorses her.  The truth is that every law enforcement group who has endorsed in our race has endorsed me.

My opponent states that she is a “public servant” and “community leader,” and that I am not.  Who is she to make this judgment?  I spent eight years of my life pursuing justice on behalf of the citizens of Collin and Kaufman Counties; obtaining convictions and prison sentences for dangerous criminals; serving my church and my family; volunteering my free time to mentor at-risk youths who have no positive male influence in their lives.  Being a leader starts in your home and it is displayed in how you live your life day to day.  It is not about how many titles you can accrue.  How exactly is this a “fact,” as she claims it to be?

I would likely have quietly endured all of the attacks and misrepresentations mentioned above, but my opponent unfortunately stooped to even more desperate measures. She also claims that I have “State Bar grievances filed against” me, while she has none, and that I have “Texas Ethics Commission Campaign Violations,” while she has none.  In a footnote, she states that I “violated Title 15: Election Code Sec. 255.005 and Sec. 255.006, Penal Code violation Sec. 12.21 punishable up to 1 year in county jail and/or a $4,000 fine.” There is no ambiguity here.  She unequivocally claims that I have committed criminal offenses.  By her definition, I am a criminal.

Outrageous, false, and scurrilous would be appropriate in describing her statements, but in a word, they are lies.  These accusations are grossly untrue and not only unbecoming of a judicial candidate, but of any person with decency and integrity.

Here is the truth.  The basis for her claim is a complaint made by one of her supporters, Richard Dodson (who appears on her April 30, 2012 campaign finance report as having financially contributed to her campaign), to the Texas Ethics Commission.  Dodson told a friend that Green wrote the entire complaint and pressured him into signing it.  Dodson’s complaint was notarized on June 20 and postmarked June 21.

The Texas Ethics Commission’s letter rejecting Dodson’s complaint is dated June 28.  In his complaint, Dodson accuses me of misrepresenting myself as a public official because, in an article dated June 1, 2012, the Dallas Morning News published a press release that my campaign submitted announcing my receipt of the Collin County Business Press 40 Under 40 award (ironically, an award  “saluting… professional success and community involvement” – she failed to put that in her footnote).  Since the article was published right after the primary election, the editor decided to add a statement announcing the results of my race.  However, being unfamiliar with elections, the editor erroneously believed that I had won since I received the highest number of votes.  As soon as we discovered this error, we requested a retraction.  The Morning News printed a retraction on June 15, 2012,six days before Dodson mailed the complaint.  At my request, the Morning News published an additional, more detailed, retraction on June 29.  However, the Ethics Commission had already dismissed the complaint.

Dodson’s complaint demands that I be found “guilty” and “confined in jail,” as well as be fined the full amount for my “unethical” behavior, and/or removed from the runoff ballot.  At no time did Dodson, Green, or anyone else call me or my campaign and ask about the article.  Given that the paper published a retraction five days prior to the filing of the complaint, it would appear that Dodson failed to contact the paper as well. In summary, the Dallas Morning News made the error, not me or my campaign, and they retracted the statement at my request.

As for the claim that I have had grievances filed against me with the State Bar, I have no knowledge of any grievance ever being filed against me.  To date, the State Bar has never contacted me to inform me that someone has filed a grievance against me.  In addition, any member of the public can visit the State Bar website, enter my name, and confirm that I have no disciplinary history.  Again, my opponent offers no proof for such claims.

It is the type of conduct that illustrates to me why so many people loathe politics and politicians.  It makes good, honest people not want to seek office.  And that is a real shame.

“Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.” James, 3:10,

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Dismissal

He Said What???

Prosecutors often witness the very worst of humanity.  During my career, I worked on crimes that many people would find unimaginable.  I recall a case where a woman was stabbed no less than nineteen times in her bed.  She was asleep when the attack began.  To this day, I still think about the horror she must have experienced, being peacefully asleep and then waking up to a knife being plunged into her body over and over again.

I also had the great misfortune to meet a man who had repeatedly raped his fourteen year-old daughter.  It had gone on for years.  When she walked into my office with her mother seeking a protective order, I wasn’t prepared for her story.  I’m still not.  She was so sweet and innocent.  Although it was many years ago, I remember her well.  I was never the same after meeting her.

Your heart breaks over and over again.  But there is some measure of justice to be gained, and it was the pursuit of that justice that energized me and provided some semblance of peace.  Prosecutors often say, “You can’t make this stuff up,” and it’s true.  Whether it’s a diaper fetish or a man who hires someone to kill his eight-month pregnant wife, truth really is stranger than fiction.

A good example of the oddities I’ve encountered in the Collin County courthouse occurred in the summer of 2008.  I had just been promoted to chief felony prosecutor. My first case as a big-time chief?  It wasn’t a capital murder or a bank robbery or anything I would have chosen.  It was theft.  Of a rug.  Well, it was an Isfahan rug valued at $150,000.  A Persian hand-woven silk rug worth as much as a house.  When I arrived in the courtroom, I saw the defendant berating his attorney. The defendant was wild-eyed and fast-talking.  He was unhappy with his attorney and insisted on representing himself.  And to my surprise, the judge let him.  At one point, someone mentioned that the defendant displayed signs of methamphetamine psychosis.  Okay, it wasn’t nearly as boring as I feared.  Watching him cross-examine the detective was priceless:  the detective had a lot of fun with him, taking every opportunity he could to tell the defendant how all of the evidence pointed to his guilt.

During closing arguments, the defendant rambled on and on.  “The State has not proven that I stole anything.  They did not prove that I had anything to do with this theft.  And they did not prove that the rug was worth $150,000.  And Satan is good.  The State is prosecuting an innocent man.  And it is your duty to find me not guilty.”

I looked around the courtroom.  Did I just hear what I thought I just heard?  I looked at the judge.  Nothing.  I looked at my co-counsel.  “Did you hear that?” I whispered.  “Hear what?” he responded.  I looked at the jury.  I looked at all twelve of them, and could not discern any indication from any of them that they had heard what I heard.

I wanted to stand and yell, “Objection, Your Honor! Satan is NOT good!”  But I began to doubt myself.  Did I really hear that?  No one else seemed to have heard it.  I couldn’t have been the only one paying attention!  I’d make a fool of myself.  I sat there.  And the moment passed.

The jury later sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison.  After the trial ended, I went to the court reporter.  I had to know whether I had really heard him say that or not.  I asked her to look at the record.  I told her what I heard.  “He didn’t say that,” she laughed.  I didn’t give up.  I asked her to indulge me and look.  She looked.  Right there, in black and white: “Satan is good.”  She had typed it without even realizing.

I was right.  And I really, really, wish I would have objected.  But ultimately, it served as an important reminder: be bold and righteous, even if you have to stand alone.  Even if people might think you’re a little crazy.

Like I said, you can’t make this stuff up.  You would never know it, but there are both very awful and very strange happenings that go on in our community.  And it’s important to elect judges who have the experience to handle them appropriately.  Please vote.  And be informed when you do.

Setting the Record Straight

Political campaigns are strenuous. No matter what people tell you, you never fully understand it until you experience it yourself. Many months ago, a dear friend gave me the best advice I’ve received throughout this campaign: “Run your race. Don’t worry about what your opponents are doing or saying. Focus on your race.” I have done my best to focus on my qualifications, endorsements, and on communicating my message to voters. However, my opponent has recently sent out email blasts that misrepresent the nature of the District Court’s docket and our respective qualifications. As a result, I feel compelled to set the record straight.

In emails dated July 5, 2012 and July 10, 2012, my opponent claimed that “the 380th Judicial District Court currently has 1,900 cases pending, including 850+ family law, 700+ civil trial and the remainder criminal.” According to my opponent, then, there are currently 350 criminal cases pending in the 380th. In a separate email blast dated July 3, 2012, my opponent claimed that the 380th District Court hears approximately 55% family law cases, 35% civil cases and 10% criminal cases. Assuming her numbers are correct, her percentages contradict her own numbers. 850 family law cases is 44%, not 55%. 350 criminal cases would be 18%, not 10%. But are her numbers accurate to begin with?

Let’s consider the records of the Collin County District Clerk. The District Clerk is responsible for maintaining the records of each District Court. According to the District Clerk in a report I obtained on July 9, 2012, there are 1,872 pending cases in the 380th District Court. Of these, 777 are family law cases (41.5%), 604 are criminal cases (32.3%), and 491 are civil cases (26.2%).

Back on January 17, 2012, I obtained a copy of this same report. At that time, there were approximately 2,030 pending cases. Of these, 826 were family law cases (40.7%), 617 were criminal cases (30.4%), and 587 were civil cases (28.9%). As you can see, between January and July, the percentages didn’t change very much, which indicates (to me) that it is both reasonable and accurate to state that in this court, approximately 40% of cases are family law cases, 30% are criminal, and 30% are civil. At candidate forums, these were the numbers I used – I even stated each time I used the numbers that I obtained them from the Collin County District Clerk’s Office. Even so, my opponent continued to state that only 10% of cases in this court are criminal, and 55% are family law. Based on the records of the District Clerk, it is unequivocally clear that her representations are false. Unfortunately, she continues to make them. While I cannot be certain why this is the case, it appears that she is intentionally downplaying the significance of criminal felony cases, in order to diminish my extensive experience handling them and to compensate for her lack of experience in this area.

In her July 3 email, my opponent also stated that she is “well versed in all three types of cases that are heard” in District Court. However, a search of court records shows that she has handled exactly one criminal case: a misdemeanor shoplifting case that settled and did not go to trial. The truth is that she has never tried a criminal case and has never handled a felony of any kind. She also claims that she has “prior judicial experience,” having served as a teen court judge for four years. In candidate forums, she has asserted that this “judicial” experience is also “criminal law” experience. Although volunteering one’s time to serve the community in this manner is commendable, teen court is not comparable to a real court. High school students who are charged with fine-only class C misdemeanors such as traffic violations and truancy forgo their right to real court proceedings in a Municipal or Justice of the Peace court and agree to be judged by their peers in “teen court.” The juries who decide the cases, and the lawyers, are high school students. The Texas Rules of Evidence and the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply. District Court judges make complicated legal decisions that can literally involve life or death. Presiding over high school students pretending to be lawyers hardly prepares one for real life, skilled, and highly qualified attorneys making complex objections and legal arguments.

In her email, my opponent also criticizes me for being licensed to practice for eight years compared to her 23 years. She also asserts that I have never handled a non-criminal case. This is also false. I have experience handling family law cases, and civil cases such as bond and asset forfeitures, mental health hearings, and I have served as attorney ad litem. I also recently handled a civil lawsuit in county court at law as attorney for the defendant. Furthermore, I have been licensed to practice law in Texas for nine years, not eight, and in my nine years as an attorney, I have handled over 5,000 cases, more than 100 jury trials, and hundreds of bench trials. I diligently searched for my opponent’s trial records in Collin, Denton, Grayson, and Harris Counties. The available records in those counties show only one jury trial in District Court for which she was designated as an “active party” by the records clerk – and it was seventeen years ago. The records show no evidence of any trials in Collin County (where she has practiced the last ten years) – civil, criminal, or family. Interestingly, the vast majority of all of the family law cases she has handled involved uncontested prove-ups. Much of her civil law experience is as an ad-litem. For the past ten years, she has specialized in probate law, which is not heard in District Court. According to Collin County online records, she has handled approximately 100 cases in Collin County in the past ten years. Of these 100 cases, only 22 were in District Court – the court we are both running for – while I have handled thousands. The majority of her cases have been in County Court, with 75 of them being probate cases. That means that 75% of all cases she has handled are probate cases, which are not even heard in District Court. Most probate cases are not contested. Bottom line: In my nine years as an attorney, I have handled thousands more cases than my opponent and significantly more trials than she has in her 23 years of experience. In addition, I have extensive experience practicing law in District Court, and she does not. Don’t take my word for it, folks. Look at the records yourselves. I agree with my opponent: know who you are voting for.

I do not begrudge my opponent for trying to make the most of her experience and record. However, the numbers she is citing are clearly wrong. The claim that she has judicial experience is misleading. I do not doubt that she is a fine attorney and quite skilled at probate cases. That is simply not what District Court is about. The fact remains that based on a thorough review of our records, I have significantly more relevant District Court experience and am in a much better position to handle the rigors of the 380th District Court. I encourage all voters to research our records for themselves. I am more than willing to provide documentation for any of my assertions and statistics above. If anyone would like a copy of the reports I obtained from the District Clerk’s Office, please email me at bensmithforjudge@gmail.com.

The Dark Angel

Edward wanted to be a serial killer. He had thought about killing someone for several years.  He bought countless books on the subject.  When he read them, he felt like he was among friends.  He studied their methods and how and why they got caught: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein.  He studied cannibalism, necrophilia, vampirism, and the art of converting human body parts, including skin, into decorations.  He studied bomb-making and how to make poison like ricin.  He fantasized about bringing ricin-laced cookies to a church bake sale.  He began collecting weapons: knives, hammers, swords, clubs, and sharpened sticks.  He even started carrying them on his person.  He began mutilating animals and keeping their body parts in jars.  He began to wonder what it would be like to taste human flesh.  He started fantasizing about shooting up his school, Frisco High.  He was sixteen years old.

He started to “hunt.”  He cased Frisco neighborhoods and kept detailed notes about bike and walking trails, vacant lots, and creeks.  He began identifying locations and plotting escape routes.  He considered what his “signature” was going to be, and finally decided on carving runic symbols into his victims’ skin.  He was determined to “be somebody.”  Having books filled with the names of his victims and how he had killed them – that was his goal.  He decided to nickname himself, “The Dark Angel,”  and started an after school club called Serial Killers United.

An acquaintance sold Edward a gun he burglarized from a neighborhood car.  It was a Makarov 9mm with a laser sight.  Edward began to “hunt” with it.  One evening, he saw an elderly couple and their dog on a walking trail in Starwood.  He walked up to the gate.  He positioned the pistol between two bars and set the laser on the man’s back.  He fired.  He missed, and ran away.  The round ended up lodged in the staircase inside someone’s home.

Several days later, he had grown bolder.  There was a game he had made up called, “Ding Dong Die.”  It was finally time to play it.  A house was selected at random, and whoever answered, he shot.  It was dark.  He followed the sound of a barking dog to a house, and rang the doorbell.  He raised his pistol.  The door opened.  Edward fired twice and then left.  He returned home, following his planned route back.  The person shot was a fourteen year-old boy name Bryan.

Incredibly, Bryan survived.  His gall bladder was removed, his liver was lacerated, and his lungs were collapsed.  He was induced into a coma, placed on a ventilator for 4 days, and stayed in the hospital for a month.  But he made it.

Bryan’s young mind couldn’t fathom a stranger doing that.  So when police detectives asked him who shot him, he identified Jordan, someone he had recently been in a disagreement with.  The police subsequently arrested Jordan, who was innocent.  Later, while investigating a car burglary, police questioned a teenager who claimed that he sold the gun he stole to an Asian kid named Edward. Police went to Edward’s house.  His parents allowed them to look around Edward’s room.  Not only did they find the gun (which ballistic testing later confirmed was the firearm used to shoot Bryan and the one used to shoot at the elderly man), they also found Edward’s diary, numerous other weapons, and countless books about serial killers.  Detectives later got a search warrant and took custody of all of it.  Once arrested, Edward was eager to talk.  He provided police with a four-hour interview, during which he detailed his plan to become a serial killer and his absolute revulsion for human life.

Believing that he should be treated and punished as an adult, we sought certification of Edward as an adult.  The judge agreed.  We also had a special competency trial to make sure that he was mentally competent to stand trial.  By the time we were able to present evidence against him and seek a conviction for attempted capital murder, he was nineteen years old.  He insisted on representing himself.  The judge decided to appoint an experienced defense attorney named David Haynes.

After a suppression hearing, the judge decided to exclude a key piece of the State’s evidence.  The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the seizure of the “personal writings” of the accused pursuant to a search warrant.  I argued that since police found the diary pursuant to a consensual search, the prohibition should not apply.  The judge found that the diary was not admissible because it was seized pursuant to the search warrant.  Although I was disappointed with the judge’s decision, I understood it.  Although the diary was found as a result of a consensual search, it was seized pursuant to the search warrant.  The law was clear, and the judge acted according to what it said.  The judge’s decision exemplifies the importance of a judge’s experience, knowledge of the law, and pragmatism. There was no reason to risk a later reversal of a conviction when, even in the absence of the diary, the State had a confession and a ballistics match.

The jury was out for ninety minutes before finding Edward guilty.  In Texas, a defendant can choose to be sentenced by the judge or the jury.  Edward chose the judge.  After listening to Edward recite his lengthy manifesto, during which he railed against most of Western Civilization, the judge assessed a life sentence.

There is a lot of discussion in courtrooms about the rights of the accused.  And rightly so; it’s a reflection of our system and our country’s values to place a great emphasis on individual rights.  During a trial, life is breathed into those rights.  The absolute right to a trial – even for someone like Edward, who admitted to being a “monster;” the right to testify or not testify; the right to confront witnesses – the right to challenge the State and make the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The courtroom guarantees all of those things.  But the courtroom is about something else, too.  It’s about accountability.  Often in the real world, the word “accountability” is just window dressing.  But in the courtroom, it is demanded, and we have the right to expect it.

Edward, in his twisted way, wanted attention.  He wanted to be somebody.  But he was a sociopath, and ultimately, in his words, an “utter failure.”  In the end, as he was sentenced, the courtroom was almost completely empty.   When it was over, Edward came over to me,  slowed by his arm and leg shackles, and extended his hand.  “I’m not going to shake your hand, Edward,” I told him.  “Oh, come on,” he said.  “Don’t be a poor sport.”  I turned my back on him.  What a waste.

Additional Articles:

Survivor of ’06 Collin County Shooting at His Home Testifies He Played Dead
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/64528967.html

Teen Gets Life Sentence for Frisco Shootings
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/64809142.html

Racehorse

During my campaign for district court judge, I have often emphasized the importance of felony trial experience.  A district court judge presides over the most serious crimes committed in our county; and as gatekeeper of the evidence, the judge decides which evidence is admitted and which is excluded.  These decisions can substantially impact the outcome of a trial; errors can lead to irreparable consequences.  An innocent person can go to prison.  A guilty person can go free.  In a capital murder case, someone’s life is literally on the line.  The stakes are never higher in our system of justice.

It occurred to me that the best way to illustrate this point might be to share some of my trial experiences as a prosecutor.  Back in 2009, I had the great privilege of trying a case against famed attorney Richard “Racehorse” Haynes.  Even in his early eighties, Racehorse was as sharp as a tack, charming, and spry.  He was small in stature, but when he spoke, it was with a clear voice filled with experience and authority.

The facts of the case were tragic.  A group of friends were drinking at a local restaurant and sports bar.  Scott had been drinking and shooting pool for several hours.  He was intoxicated when he left the bar.  On his way home, Scott lost control of his pick-up truck on the northbound service road of U.S. 75 just south of Eldorado Parkway.  He was not wearing his seatbelt.  His truck crashed through the guardrail and rolled over.  Scott was ejected onto the right lane of the highway.  His body lay motionless.  A semi-truck driver named Mario and a nurse named Tracy stopped to help.  They turned on their hazard lights.  Other cars stopped, too, and traffic slowed down.  As they approached Scott to check on him, Mario and Tracy noticed another car coming.  It wasn’t slowing down or changing lanes.  Mario and Tracy scurried over to the shoulder just in the nick of time.  The car ran over Scott’s body and veered toward Mario’s tractor trailer, which was parked on the shoulder just beyond the Eldorado overpass.

The car didn’t seem to slow down.  It collided head-on with the rear of the tractor trailer.  The passenger side of the car was pulverized, while the driver’s side was left relatively intact.  The driver, Michael, escaped with relatively minor injuries.  The other two passengers were killed instantly.  Chris, who was in the front passenger seat, was decapitated just above the eyebrows.  David, who was sitting in the back, died from blunt force trauma to multiple areas of his body.

An ironic twist to the story was that Scott had been drinking at the same place as Michael, Chris, and David.  In fact, they all knew each other.  Scott, described by some as socially awkward, had been trying to befriend them.

At the time of his blood draw several hours later, Michael’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.19.  No one could determine whether Scott was alive at the time Michael’s car hit him.  As a result, Michael was indicted twice for intoxication manslaughter — for causing the death of his two friends by reason of his intoxication.

As you can imagine, the trial was emotional and dramatic.  Complicating matters was the fact that the defendant, victims, and their families all knew each other and were friends.  In most criminal cases, the State has to prove that the defendant intended to engage in conduct or cause the result.  Intoxication manslaughter cases are different.  Intent is irrelevant.  Chris and David were killed in a car accident.  But unlike other types of accidents, accidents caused by intoxication are criminal offenses.

Intoxication manslaughter cases can be very difficult cases to try.  The State must prove that the intoxication caused the victim’s death.  In addition to Racehorse, Michael hired two other outstanding attorneys: Mitch Nolte and E.X. Martin.  I had my work cut out for me.  The defense’s theory was that by the time even a normal, non-intoxicated person saw Scott’s body, it would have been too late to avoid the accident.  In other words, even a sober person would have hit Scott, lost control of the car, and then collided with Mario’s tractor trailer.  The defense hired an expert to testify that based on speed, distance, and lighting conditions, even a normal, non-intoxicated person would not have been able to avert the accident.  If the jury had a reasonable doubt about this fact, they would be obligated to acquit the defendant.

To make matters worse, when I was assigned the case, I learned that we did not know the identity of a key witness: the nurse at Parkland who drew the defendant’s blood.  The nurse’s name was not included in the medical records, and the bureaucracy at Parkland proved difficult to navigate.  Without the nurse’s testimony, the blood draw and blood results would be inadmissible.  Without the blood results, I would not be able to prove that Michael was intoxicated, let alone the fact that his intoxication caused the accident.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of my investigator, Robin, we learned the name of the nurse who drew Michael’s blood.  The trial went forward.   The defendant sobbed during my closing argument.  I tried to focus on the victims and their families.  In this case, everyone lost.  Two young men lost their lives, and no one meant for it to happen.  Punishing Michael was appropriate, both because he deserved punishment for his terrible choices and because there must be a deterrent for others who would contemplate making similar choices about drinking and driving.  However, Michael never intended the result.  He wasn’t an evil or malicious person.  He made a horrible decision that night that led to the deaths of his two friends.  And he will live with his horrible choice for the rest of his life.

As the jury deliberated, Racehorse Haynes’ co-counsel, E.X. Martin, started taking pictures.  I asked for a photo to be taken of me shaking Racehorse’s hand.  As we began to pose, Racehorse leaned toward me and said, “Son, why do you want your picture taken with me?”  I replied, “So I can tell all my friends that I tried a case against Racehorse Haynes!”  He looked at me, smiled, and said, “That’s right.  And you can tell them you kicked my a$#, too!”

The jury came back shortly thereafter with their verdict.  Racehorse was right.

And the Race Continues

It’s been a while since I’ve published a post to the blog so I want to start by saying thank you to everyone who took time to vote. I am very grateful for your support.  As I anticipated, the race for 380^th district court judge will be decided in a runoff election on Tuesday, July 31. Early voting is Monday, July 23 through Friday, July 27.  Please mark your calendar! You’ve been so generous already but hang in there with us, it’s not over yet.

I would like to publically acknowledge the fine campaigns run by Chip Jarvis and Jody Johnson.  Chip was always friendly and quick to help everyone relax, and Jody added a great deal of professionalism and class to our campaign.  I wish them both the best in their future endeavors.

We received very good news recently. Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of the Liberty Institute, is endorsing my candidacy for 380^th district court judge. Many thanks to Kelly for his support.

In the last week, we’ve taken some time to refuel and focus on the task in front of us. We’ve also spent a lot of time giving credit where credit is due—God has come through for us in so many countless ways these last few months.

Our eldest son, Jackson, finished his kindergarten year.  My wife, who teaches third grade, wrapped up the school year on Friday. So, the Smith family is officially in summer vacation mode. This year, we’ll be getting a lot of exercise on our vacation…walking door to door.

Speaking of vacations, I suspect many of you will be heading out of town in the coming weeks. If you expect to be outside Collin County during the week of early voting and on election day, July 31, you can arrange for an absentee ballot to be mailed to your location. Find more information here.

Thanks again for your support and encouragement.

Is Teen Court Judicial Experience?

Does presiding over teen court qualify you to sit on the district court bench?  One of the candidates for the 380th district court is very proud of her experience as a judge for the teen court in Plano and frequently lists this as one of her strongest qualifications. Claiming you are ready to preside over major felony cases because you volunteered as a teen court judge is comparable to the volunteer teen attorney claiming that he or she is suddenly qualified to practice real law.  While it’s an admirable way for this candidate to give back to the community, you can’t equate teen court cases (think minor traffic violations and other fine-only type offenses) to the felony sexual assault or capital murder cases heard at the district court level. In teen court, the “attorneys” are teenagers. The “bailiffs” are teenagers. Members of the “jury” are teenagers. The Texas Rules of Evidence and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure don’t apply.  This experience is commendable, but it does not qualify anyone to preside over a death penalty court.

The 380th district court in Collin County is a criminal trial court that hears cases involving assault, rape and murder – among other criminal and civil matters.  It’s not a teen court.  It’s not even close.  In district court, there are real attorneys, real juries, and a real judge.  That’s why real criminal jury trial experience matters, and why I believe I am the best candidate for 380th district court judge.

Please vote on Tuesday, May 29 if you did not early vote!

District Court Judges Don’t Argue Cases Before the Supreme Court

One of the candidates for 380th District Court Judge talks a lot about the importance of having been admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, and claims that this is somehow a qualification for her to be a state district court judge.  I would consider it an honor to appear before the Supreme Court, but it is hardly an extraordinary achievement to be admitted to practice before the Supreme Court. Arguing a case in the highest court? Impressive. Winning an argument before the highest court? Very impressive. Getting admitted to practice there?  A cool thing to say, but not a hard thing to do.

Admittance to practice before the Supreme Court may appear to be a huge achievement. However, it’s not an accomplishment reserved for the upper echelon of legal practitioners.  It’s not an exclusive club. In fact, any attorney who meets minimum qualifications can get in.

The qualifications are:  three years of legal experience in good standing, two recommendations (by two lawyers already admitted to practice before the Supreme Court), and payment of a $250 application fee.

Yup, that’s it. You can see for yourself at the Supreme Court’s website.

As a chief prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office, I had no need to apply to practice before the Supreme Court.  If I am elected district court judge, I will certainly have no need for this.  Why pay $250 for something I have no intention of using?  The district court is a trial court.  In fact, it is the highest level of trial court in the state.  The Supreme Court is an appellate court.  It is the highest appellate court in the federal court system.  Being admitted to practice there has nothing to do with the practice of law in a state trial court.

Unlike my opponent, I have extensive trial experience, with over one hundred jury trials, and hundreds of trials before the court.  Incidentally, I also have more appellate experience, having written (and won) five appeals.  It’s not just about any experience, or someone’s length of experience; it’s about having the necessary experience.

I encourage voters to vote using their heart, their values, and their common sense.  Thank you for being interested enough in this race to read my blog.  Please share it with your friends. Most importantly, get out and vote!

Martindale Ratings

Martindale-Hubbell® ratings have been a topic in the race for 380th District Court judge. If you go to www.martindale.com and search for Ben Smith, you won’t find anything. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What does a lack of a rating mean?  Not a whole lot. Let me explain.

Martindale ratings are peer reviews for attorneys who are in private practice. The ratings are primarily used by attorneys to market themselves.  According to Martindale, “the majority of Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ are initiated by LexisNexis through random selection of lawyers listed on martindale.com and Lawyers.com^SM, on a geographic basis and in a specific area of practice.”  Attorneys can also request to be rated.

Unlike my opponents, I have spent the last decade working in a public capacity with the Collin County District Attorney’s Office and the Kaufman County District Attorney’s Office. I believe this experience uniquely qualifies me to serve as district court judge. But as a government attorney whose cases were automatically assigned to me, I’ve had no need to pursue ratings by Martindale in order to drum up business.  I have not been able to find a single public-sector attorney rated on Martindale, unless at some point he/she was also in private practice and rated at that time.

One of my opponents likes to frequently mention that she is the only candidate positively rated by Martindale-Hubbell® , implying that it is somehow a negative for those who aren’t.  However, let’s look at what the Martindale-Hubbell® website states about not having a rating: “It is important to note that because LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell® does not undertake facilitation of Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ for all lawyers, the fact that a lawyer is not rated should not be construed unfavorably.

Their website also states that “Martindale-Hubbell® ratings are not allowed in:

• Political Pieces, advertisements, or campaign materials
• “Letters to the Editor” or similar articles or opinion pieces that are public commentary or reflect the personal opinions of the rated lawyer or law firm”

I’m not against Martindale ratings. They serve a purpose for attorneys in private practice. They just don’t apply to me and my experience over the last decade.

Should Judicial Candidates Have Opinions?

At a recent candidate forum, judicial candidates were asked if we thought that judicial elections should be non-partisan.  In Texas, judges are aligned with a political party.  I agree with this approach.  Look at the federal system.  Judges are appointed for life and are not affiliated with a political party.  Yet, one look at the Supreme Court, and everyone knows who the conservative justices are and who the liberal justices are.  I agree with Texas’ straightforward, no-nonsense approach.  It’s honest.

What does it mean to be a conservative judge?  To me, it means that the judge believes in interpreting and applying the law and constitution as they are written, not how he believes they ought to be.  A judge should not interpret the law as something to be manipulated in order to achieve “social justice.”  A liberal judge, on the other hand, believes that the constitution is a living document, and that the law should be open to modernization and new evaluation if justice so requires.  In my view, this makes us vulnerable to the rule of judges instead of the rule of the law.

Judges must be impartial.  However, to assume (and require) judges to be robots without opinions and beliefs is naive and unrealistic.  As a voter, I want to know where my candidates stand, judges included.   A good judge is not one who has no beliefs; it merely means that he or she has the discipline and strength of character to put those beliefs aside, to be fair, and to follow the law.  The first step in being able to set aside your beliefs is to recognize them in the first place.

Should judicial candidates be allowed to express political views while campaigning?  According to the United States Supreme Court, they have constitutional first amendment rights just like everyone else.  In Republican Party of Minnesota v. Suzanne White, the Court held that judicial candidates could NOT be prevented from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues.  If a judicial candidate, for example, announces that he is a Christian and pro-life, for example, he should not be subject to discipline or punishment.  Such an announcement does NOT indicate a promise or pledge to rule in a particular way.  The U.S. Supreme Court agrees.

I will not apologize for who I am and what I believe.  And I strongly oppose any tactics that attempt to bully me into silence.  Being a Christian and having clear moral principles does not mean that I cannot be impartial and fair.  Indeed, I believe that by knowing where I stand, people will be able to hold me accountable for my decisions and make sure that I am abiding by my oath of office.  I am not afraid to unequivocally state my beliefs and my judicial philosophy, and in that regard, I believe I stand alone.