Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Judge Joan Campbell’s Legacy

Two views of recently retired judge Joan Campbell:

I say, “the criminal-defense bar’s view,” but of course there is more than one view rep­re­sented in Har­ris County’s criminal-defense bar. Some criminal-defense lawyers—at least one of whom aspires to be the next president-elect of the Har­ris County Crim­i­nal Lawyers Association—would vocally dis­agree with Fick­man telling the truth about Camp­bell. These lawyers take the posi­tion that “we should avoid mak­ing ene­mies” is a good excuse for not doing the right thing. They would rather give judges (metaphor­i­cal?) hand­jobs or kolaches than file judicial-conduct complaints.

If Judge George God­win told one of those handjob-and-kolache lawyers…

that any attack by the defense bar on his brethren or “sistren” of the judi­ciary, would be viewed as an attack  on all of them.

…the lawyer would cer­tainly get the mes­sage and resist doing any­thing that might be con­strued as an attack. Not that he would need to be told, of course: “don’t attack judges or pros­e­cu­tors” is a prin­ci­ple fun­da­men­tal to the H&K bar.

(This “judi­cial NATO” seems to exist. In 2010 there was a meet­ing of judges at which judges who had oppo­nents in the upcom­ing elec­tion encour­aged the other judges not to give those oppo­nents court appoint­ments. Some seem to have agreed. I have a term for that: judi­cial cor­rup­tion.)

Robb Fick­man is made of sterner stuff than the H&K crowd. He belongs to the criminal-defense wing of the criminal-defense bar. If some­thing needs say­ing, Fick­man is not going to be deterred by the fact that say­ing it will make him enemies.

Fick­man is a real criminal-defense lawyer, and that’s what real criminal-defense lawyers do. By def­i­n­i­tion, the job requires buck­ing the opin­ion of the major­ity. When we are doing the job, we say the things that nobody wants to admit are true; we point out that the emperor has no clothes; we save Frankenstein’s mon­ster from the mob. So the mob doesn’t much care for us.

The Har­ris County criminal-defense bar orga­nized in 1970. It filed its first judi­cial griev­ance, against Joan Camp­bell, thirty-six years later, when Fick­man was pres­i­dent. In the last seven years it has filed five. This is Judge Joan Campbell’s legacy: the prin­ci­ple that abuses of power by Har­ris County crim­i­nal judges will no longer go unan­swered by the orga­nized criminal-defense bar. 

When HCCLA (640 mem­bers strong, and count­ing) files a griev­ance against a judge, it takes the heat off the lawyers who would like to file com­plaints but don’t because they are con­cerned that the judges may retal­i­ate in a way that will harm them (see “judi­cial cor­rup­tion,” above) or their clients. 

The H&K lawyers would return us to those hal­cyon early days of HCCLA hav­ing a cou­ple of par­ties every year, comp­ing the judges and pros­e­cu­tors, and pro­vid­ing the (metaphor­i­cal) lotion and nap­kins. Fick­man was one of the prime moti­va­tors for HCCLA’s con­ver­sion from bench-bar party host­ess to cour­t­house power. He didn’t do it sin­gle­hand­edly, but Fick­man got us a seat at the table.

But the Com­mis­sion for Judi­cial Con­duct has never done bup­kis about any of our com­plaints. I have long believed that neg­a­tive pub­lic­ity is a bet­ter spur to bet­ter judi­cial con­duct than the CJC. So I have writ­ten here and spo­ken else­where about Ruben Guer­rero, the worst judge in the crim­i­nal cour­t­house (though it wasn’t enough to get the vot­ers to fire him in Novem­ber) and Jim Ander­son, the worst judge in the crim­i­nal cour­t­house emer­i­tus (though it has not yet been enough to get the sit­ting judges to stop let­ting him sit). Here’s why I don’t worry about that: I don’t take court appointments—so pissed-off judges can’t hurt my bot­tom line—and any judge who is going to screw my clients because of some­thing I write is already screw­ing them, so I might as well write. Also pour encour­ager les autres. But it was get­ting lone­some being the one guy nam­ing names.

For those rea­sons, please give Robb Fick­man a warm wel­come to the prac­ti­cal blawgosphere. 

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

3 Responses to “Judge Joan Campbell’s Legacy”

  1. Robb Fickman says:

    Mark– thank you for the kind words. You are right. We must stand up to abu­sive judges. Troy McK­in­ney, Danny East­er­ling, Cindy Hen­ley, Stan Schnei­der, Wen­dell Odom, Pat McCann, You, Joanne Musick, Nicole Deborde, Earl Musick, Chris Tritico, Steve Halpert, Todd Dupont, Car­men Roe, Sarah Wood, Franklin Bynum, Robert Pel­ton, Paul Kennedy, Chuck Stan­field. Ran­dall Kalli­nen, Kathryn Kase, Grant Scheiner, Christina Appelt And a few oth­ers have helped rede­fine HCCLA.
    The days of ” just tak­ing it” are over. We will not go back to those days. We will keep griev­ing bad judges until they start get­ting it right. Thank you Mark for being one of the true lead­ers of the ” New
    Hccla”.
    I guess we will be cel­lies soon enough!
    Robb

  2. Mike Paar says:

    Wow, Fick­man is as hard-hitting and in-your-face as you are, Mark, and I have added him to my list of must-reads. Admirable men, both, but nei­ther of you will ever make the short-list for an appoint­ment to a judge­ship in this county like Brad Hart did. Integrity isn’t a qual­i­fi­ca­tion nor is it repli­cated by many Har­ris county judges who mostly come from the cesspool we know as HCDAO where they are schooled on the finer points of con­sti­tu­tional dis­dain mas­querad­ing itself as jus­tice for vic­tims. Few if any real­ize that by deny­ing defen­dants their rights they are as much a crim­i­nal as any­one who stand before them.

  3. Mr. B., I’ve pur­chased records’ reflect­ing that the very indi­vid­ual charged with ref­er­ee­ing a felony jury trial process allowed a Divorce / Estate spe­cial­ist to dab­ble / wing it in Felony Crim­i­nal Law. Allowed the ADA to sub­sti­tute a .38 w/ a 5 or 6 in bar­rel for an alleged .22 or .25 w/ a 2 in bar­rel in a case involv­ing no firearm evi­dence and / or chain of cus­tody records. Allowed trial to begin know­ing the Crime Vic­tim changed black to brown & blond after live show-up & again from the stand. Allowed the Defense to file Fake Pre-Trial Motions and refused to Agree or Deny the Orders. Allowed Defense to deceive its client dur­ing lunch recess by obtain­ing a Not Guilty plea with-drawl (cross­ing out) based on urgent need to stop the trial and Plea Bar­gain (nolo con­tendere) due to being on pro­ba­tion at time of arrest and its Pre-Trial Revo­ca­tion cherry on top lie of all lies. Thanks again for not allow­ing me to be “vague” and for allow­ing me to name these punks names in the past.

    With that, I place the major­ity of this par­tic­u­lar Judi­cial Crime Spree directly in the hands of the ref­eree and feel bet­ter know­ing that I’m not the only one that’s in pos­ses­sion of the cer­ti­fied case files, HPD Inci­dent Report & book­ing photo show­ing who made who. Despite every­one hav­ing copies from the Gov­er­nor, the A.G., the F.B.I., State Bar, inno­cence projects’ & so-called griev­ance com­mit­tees — the Judi­cial Teflon allowed it to be ignored like it never even hap­pened. We can only hope & pray that Team Fick­man has access to com­mer­cial grade Teflon remover. Good luck in everyone’s endeav­ors’ regard­ing the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem ref­or­ma­tion and remem­ber some of the frig­gin peo­ple are ready to assist. Thanks.

    *Have Pitchfork(s) will travel or is the vet­ting of jus­tice as sim­ple as manda­tory cam­eras’ in all courts’. As it is, the eyes’ of Tex­ans’ are not upon any­one dur­ing the fact.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply