1. Ric Moore
    March 19, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

    If a woman seeking an abortion has to have an invasive ultrasound procedure, why is it that a Judge isn’t ordered by the State to have his head candled? Surely, there is a greater need to search for signs of life within the head of a Judge than in some poor woman’s womb?


  2. Cynthia Henley
    March 19, 2012 @ 7:53 pm

    I had a conversation with Anderson at HCCLA’s holiday party in December (2011). I told him essentially that he was not missed sitting as a full time judge and that I, and other lawyers, did not appreciate that he tried to ruin his replacement judge by teaching him all the dirty tricks. He laughed. (The conversation was longer than that & much more fun but I won’t bore with the details. And no, I had not been drinking . . . . The bonus was apparently he repeated at least some of the conversation to some of his former court staff but obviously given what happened to Jim it made zero impression.)

    I have not tried a case in his court in years but back in the day when I tried quite a few DWIs & before the internet was so great, I collected Houston Chronicle articles about all the cops who were doing bad things everywhere. One of Anderson’s favorite things was to talk about how hard a job the cops had and strongly suggest if not outright say that they were truthtellers with no reason to lie. I filed a motion in limine to stop him from doing that once and he overruled it. So I made a strategy decision and when he finished with his voir dire & it was my turn, I pulled out my trusty file folder jammed with the articles & started holding them up one by one & talked about how jurors who had heard this officer testify while he was out committing thefts probably thought he was trustworthy and if he had testified in this court, this judge would have told the panel that…..etc. I did it with several articles & held up the packed folder & told them we could talk about that all day, and that is only part of why, contrary to what this judge was trying to push on them, the law says that NO ONE starts with on the plus side of being honest. (The panel laughed & there were some great comments resulting.) You get the picture. So did Anderson and that little BS game didn’t happen again in my trials.

    But, he is B A D. His voir dire is totally prosecution oriented as are his rulings. He cares nothing about a fair trial and seemingly does not believe that innocent people are ever prosecuted – which is absolutely wrong.

    It would be fantastic if his “visiting” status is stopped, although he would probably go and harm another accused person’s right to a fair trial in another county.


  3. Robert Fickman
    March 20, 2012 @ 4:09 am

    On an individual basis most judges are fairly amiable people. Jim Anderson is an amiable guy. That has precisely nothing to do with what Jim Anderson or any other Judge does on the bench.

    Being a judge is a public trust. Judges are supposed to be neutral and detached. They are not supposed to take sides. In the Harris County criminal Courthouse, what is supposed to happen and what does happen are two entirely different things. In the overwhelming majority of county and district courts the judges routinely abandon their supposed role of neutrality in favor of a role as an advocate for the Prosecution. There is absolutely nothing new about it. It has been going on for years and it is as wrong now as it was 30 years ago.

    When judges abdicate their role and become an aid to the prosecution, they violate their oath and the public trust. We call them ” Your Honor” as a sign of respect. Unfortunately too often we are calling people ” Your Honor” and the words are empty. Calling someone ” your Honor” does not embue people with Honor , nor does it restore their lost integrity.

    When a judge becomes an advocate for the state, he taints the trial and almost guarantees a cinviction. When numerous judges take the state’s side, as has been the case for at least 30 years, they taint the entire criminal justice system.

    For years we have pleaded with these biased judges in an amiable fashion aaking them to be fair and” just do the right think.” We are generally met with blank stares,and flat denials of bias. The judges who are pro prosecution are so used to their own misconduct that they cannot see themselves or their wrongdoing clearly. They view those of us who complain as naive or just out of touch.

    But the truth is as Mark has described it. These judges, often lost in their own narcissism, are blind to their own foul deeds. The robe is powerfull. It changes people and not always for the better. Like the ring, in Lord of the Rings, to often the robe corrupts and blinds those who wear it.

    We on the defense are more than tired of asking elected judges to be fair. We are out of patience. There are no more time for that. The only option now is for lawyers to stand up as Jim Medley did, and for the organized defense bar to file Judicial Misconduct complaints. Judicial misconduct complaints that are supported by the evidence must continue to be filed until the offending members of the judiciary change their unethical behavior. The judges have given us no choice but to fight them, given some of their longstanding odious practices of acting as adjuncts to the prosecution. It is past time that those with the title ” Your Honor”, earn it, rather than disgrace it.

    Robert J. Fickman

    Robert J. Fickman


  4. Larry Standley
    March 20, 2012 @ 8:54 pm


    I plumb forgot to tell you how much I appreciate those mountain climbing Holiday cards you send out every year, Thank You. Also nice tie last week! 🙂

    Larry Standley


    • st ww
      March 4, 2016 @ 8:03 pm

      Very well put. I been doing my research on you and i feel it in my heart you are the guy i need. I will comtact you prettu soon. Ty!5


Leave a Reply