Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Somewhere Napoleon is Smiling

Over two years ago, shortly before the most recent elec­tion for the fif­teen Har­ris County Crim­i­nal Court at Law (mis­de­meanor) benches, there was a brouhaha at the Har­ris County Crim­i­nal Jus­tice Cen­ter about a polit­i­cally incor­rect email sent by CCCL6 Judge Larry Stan­d­ley to other judges:

The issue: an e-mail [cap­tioned, “What in the world is this? My God?”] for­warded to at least one of the judges from one of their col­leagues. Why it’s an issue: It appar­ently included a poster for the under­ground short movie enti­tled Gaynig­gers From Outer Space. (The movie itself is made by gays from Den­mark and is a spoof of sorts; the title allegedly refers to what some gay African blacks in Europe call them­selves. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW5NRj2YhE.)

(Hous­ton Press, Octo­ber 26, 2006 and Hous­ton Chron­i­cle, Novem­ber 25, 2008.) The story was in the TV news as well as the weekly free tabloid Press at the time.

Judge Stan­d­ley is an excel­lent judge who cares about peo­ple. There is more jus­tice done in his court in a morn­ing than in most courts in a week.

He is also one of those peo­ple whose social fil­ters don’t always work the way they are expected to; we can agree that send­ing this email was a lousy deci­sion. Judge Mike Fields took offense and com­plained to the Com­mis­sion on Judi­cial Con­duct (of which he is the Vice Chair­man). The com­mis­sion took evi­dence, includ­ing affi­davits by sev­eral other CCCL judges in favor of Judge Stan­d­ley, and rejected the complaint.

Flash for­ward to 2008, right after an elec­tion for Har­ris County Crim­i­nal Dis­trict Court (felony) benches in which the Repub­li­can Party got its rich white ass handed to it. Judge Fields is hop­ing to be appointed to a vacant seat on the Court of Appeals (the inter­me­di­ate appel­late court for both civil and crim­i­nal cases); Har­ris County Repub­li­can Party Chair­man lawyer Jared Wood­fill (who bears a strik­ing resem­blance to a cer­tain Mike Judge char­ac­ter) had rec­om­mended Judge Fields for the position.

A side note: Because they are elected to rep­re­sent a larger area includ­ing Houston’s white-flight sub­urbs, Court of Appeals judges were well insu­lated in 2008 from the Demo­c­ra­tic tide that swept the Dis­trict Court benches. One way for a Repub­li­can mis­de­meanor judge to escape the pos­si­ble 2010 con­tin­u­a­tion of the 2008 surge is to be appointed to the appel­late bench.

Any­way, Judge Fields doesn’t get the gig, and he and Wood­fill blame Stan­d­ley. So:

With copies of the e-mails now in hand, Wood­fill recently had Fields
and Stan­d­ley explain their actions to the party’s advi­sory com­mit­tee,
the same group that helped push out Rosenthal.

Wood­fill said merely the con­tent of Standley’s e-mails jus­ti­fies
call­ing for his res­ig­na­tion, regard­less of whether the fall­out affected
Fields.

When you see racism like that you have to kill it one act at a
time,” Wood­fill said. “Regard­less of what party you are affil­i­ated
with, you have to stand up and say it was wrong.”

(Hous­ton Chron­i­cle arti­cle by Alan Bern­stein — read the com­plete article.)

That might have been a con­vinc­ing and noble argu­ment in the past — say in Novem­ber 2006 — but now it falls flat. Wood­fill, unless he’s even more clue­less about Har­ris County pol­i­tics than I am, knew about these emails, includ­ing their spe­cific con­tent, in Octo­ber 2006. If that con­tent jus­ti­fies call­ing for his res­ig­na­tion now, it has called for it every day for the last two years.

Wood­fill pitches this as the party act­ing, but it turns out that party lead­er­ship met recently in exec­u­tive ses­sion and did not decide to act against Standley.What Wood­fill is doing is try­ing to give the idea of oust­ing Stan­d­ley some legs before the party has to make a deci­sion on it.

It’s a hatchet job. Not only is it a hatchet job, but it’s a hatchet job under­taken for per­sonal revenge. Not only is it a hatchet job under­taken for per­sonal revenge, but it’s a hatchet job under­taken for per­sonal revenge against one of the fairest, most just mis­de­meanor judges in the courthouse.

And that’s what makes Jared Wood­fill today’s Ass­hat Lawyer of the Day.


Hey, Beavis, he said ‘ass­hat!’ Heh-heh. Heh.”

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

10 Responses to “Somewhere Napoleon is Smiling”

  1. AHCL says:

    Is Wood­fill a lawyer?

  2. Mark Bennett says:

    I don’t know if he’s a lawyer, but he’s an attorney.

  3. Anon says:

    I think Wood­fill is actu­ally work­ing for the democ­rats. Do I smell a conspiracy?

  4. Why does my icon have buck­teeth and glasses? Are you TRYING to give away my super secret identity?!?!?

  5. Lawyer4Real says:

    [edit] are you seri­ous? Judge Fields is a black man who had the NUTS TO STAND UP FOR HIMSELF AND SOMEHOW HE IS WRONG.…[edit]

    [Sorry, tmerriweather08. If you’re going to call peo­ple names here, you won’t be doing it anony­mously. ed.]

  6. Mark Bennett says:

    No, Fields did what he needed to; I don’t begrudge him that.

    Then noth­ing — silence — for two years.

    Wood­fill, how­ever, is wrong. He acted like he didn’t know any­thing about this (despite the press cov­er­age) until now, when it serves his pur­poses (i.e. revenge) to act like the Repub­li­can party gives a damn.

    You have to ask your­self, “why now?” The answer is not that the Repub­li­can Party cares about the black man.

  7. AHCL says:

    I agree with you, Mark. The tim­ing on this is def­i­nitely fishy. The ques­tion is what does this par­tic­u­lar tim­ing serve?

    Do you recall if the offend­ing e-mail was sent before or after the 2006 elec­tion? If so, did it mat­ter? I don’t really remem­ber any of the CCL judges being opposed (but that was a life­time ago, it seems).

    Do you have any ideas on why the release hap­pened now?

  8. Mark Bennett says:

    It was before the 2006 elec­tion. My the­ory is that the release is now because it’s moti­vated by per­sonal revenge. Some might argue that it’s now so that Wood­fill can try to reframe the Repub­li­can Party.

  9. L.Lane says:

    Wood­fill ought to have the good grace to fall on his sword; with luck Benkiser of RPT will top­ple with him. Any oppor­tu­nity Wood­fill has had to tune-up the local party is gone.

  10. When I was work­ing for a civil defense firm in Galve­ston, one of my bosses was dri­ving in his car one day lis­ten­ing to Nazi Talk Radio when who should appear as a guest talk­ing about ‘tort reform’ but one Jared Woodfill.

    This par­tic­u­lar boss of mine (in addi­tion to be a State Demo­c­ra­tic Exec Com­mit­tee mem­ber) also hap­pened to be han­dling what can only be clas­si­fied as utter bull­shit law­suits against a rail­road client for injuries caused to a town in cen­tral Texas by a cross-tie plant. [I’m for tort plaintiff’s get­ting their jus­tice in courts–but these claims were BS].

    He tried to call in to talk to Mr. Wood­fill about his com­ments about ‘run­away law­suit abuse’, but Wood­fill refused to let the call screener put my boss through. Seems he talks out of both sides of his mouth on ‘tort reform’.

    Wood­fill is a hyp­o­crit­i­cal shys­ter of the first order.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply