In a recent article in the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, Judge Price of the CCA was quoted as saying:

"The evidence from that [HPP] lab can't be trusted," Price said. "We shouldn't execute people who are innocent, and if there is any question about the evidence in court, there should be a moratorium until the system corrects itself."

I'm assuming Judge Price is getting his information from the media. Doesn't his statement suggest a loss of impartiality for a judge who might hear a death penalty case from that jurisdiction? Could he perhaps be pandering to an audience that might vote for him? Are his comments appropriate, even for a judge running for election?

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 01-31-06 at .]

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 01-31-06 at .]

I find his comments to be tuned in. We regularly hear about articles dealing with the problems, ongoing, at the HPD lab, in fact, I think I read a few on this website.

Frankly, any county using a lab should want the utmost professionalism, and only use professional results in court. I think what he said is relevant to criminal justice, justice in general, and justice in particular. We elected him to oversee those concepts in ongoing criminal cases.

Hold on. A judge, who hasn't received evidence on a subject and hasn't been asked to form an opinion, announces one before the trial or appeal, and you find that just hunkydory? I bet you would be a lot more troubled if the judge formed the opposite conclusion: that a particular lab was just fine.

My suspicion is that you AGREE with his opinion; therefore, you say it is proper. But, the point of impartiality is to not have an opinion, AT ALL, until someone asks you to make a ruling.

I believe Judge Price's announcement of an opinion on a significant issue in a death penalty case is a direct violation of his ethical obligation to maintain impartiality and to avoid trying to influence a case before it is decided.

Here is the rule:

A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for public office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

Another rule:

A judge or judicial candidate shall not make pledges or promises of conduct in office regarding pending or impending cases, specific classes of cases, specific classes of litigants, or specific propositions of law that would suggest to a reasonable person that the judge is predispoded to a probable decision in cases within the scope of the pledge.

And the associated comment:

A statement made during a campaign for a judicial office, whether or not prohibited by this Canon, may cause a judge's impartiality to be reasonably questioned in the context of a particular case and may result in recusal.

So, what good will Judge Price be on the CCA if he is recused from death penalty cases, now that he has shown a bias and prejudice?

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 01-31-06 at .]

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 01-31-06 at .]

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 01-31-06 at .]

Good commentary on the judicial canons. I agree that Judge Price's comments cross the line. More judges should take the position that if there is even the slightest possibility that it could be construed as a violation they just simply don't do it. Isn't that what the debate was about in the Supreme Court nominations. Judges can't comment on their positions regarding cases that might come before them: the " respect for the judicial process and stare decisis" answer! Doesn't the judicial system get enough bad press without Judges going out of their way to make comments. Of course maybe he was only pandering to the audience he was seeking to get support and votes from and isn't that what a politician does? Judges who become too much the politician will often cross the line to get the votes since the majority of the voters have no idea who they are voting for.

[This message was edited by pkdyer on 01-31-06 at .]

From a 1996 article in the Austin-American Statesman:

Judicial candidates can go only so far in promising to crack down on criminals, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct said Tuesday in a public warning slapped on Judge Tom Price of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Price violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct when he promised during his GOP primary campaign last year that he would show no leniency for violent criminals, the commission ruled.

Price was running for chief judge of the court, the state's highest judicial body for criminal cases, including all death penalty sentences, when he said in campaign literature:

"Judge Tom Price is an advocate for victims of crimes. 'I'm very tough on crimes where there are victims who have been physically harmed. In such cases I do not believe in leniency. I have no feelings for the criminal. All my feelings lie with the victim.' "

That statement, the commission said, went "beyond the usual and amorphous language of campaign promises" to be tough on crime by "giving the unmistakable impression that the judge would favor crime victims over criminals in virtually all cases."

The commission also criticized Price for publishing pictures with former President Reagan and then-Gov. George W. Bush. Price didn't claim the two men had endorsed him, but the commission said using their pictures could be interpreted as an endorsement by voters.

The warning was released by the commission Tuesday.

Price, 55, said he would not appeal the public warning, which carries no monetary penalty or suspension from office -- and he commended the commission, which handles allegations of judicial misconduct.

"It's just a warning," Price said. "I'm going to accept it like this, and I actually congratulate the commission on taking a stance on issues like this. As judges, we have to campaign, and we have been campaigning as politicians, and sometimes that gets us out of whack with what judges are really supposed to be doing."

Price said he thinks the commission was "trying to send a message to judges all over the state that we can't act like politicians -- we can't do things that congressmen and senators and people like that do -- because we have a different role."

Elected to a six-year term on the court in 1996, Price ran in last year's Republican primary for chief judge but lost in a runoff to another judge on the court, Sharon Keller, who went on to win the general election in November.

Price said he "absolutely" will run for re-election in 2002.

Price is the second member of the court to be publicly criticized by the commission in recent years. In 1999, the commission issued a more severe rebuke, a public reprimand, against Judge Steve Mansfield, who had been cited for criminal trespass by a University of Texas police officer for attempting to scalp some tickets on school property after being warned not to do so. Mansfield served out his term and is no longer on the court.

A 2002 article from the Austin-American Statesman:

Tom Price, a former state district judge in Dallas, was elected to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1996 and ran in 2000 for presiding judge.

Not only did opponent Sharon Keller win, but Price got carried away with a campaign promise to look out first for the rights of crime victims. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct later rebuked him for suggesting he would abandon his judicial neutrality.

Price took his medicine without public complaint, but he has drawn two opponents: Carolyn Denero, an Austin criminal defense lawyer, and Justice Tim Taft of the 1st Court of Appeals in Houston.

Taft is blunt in criticizing Price, citing the sanction. Although the commission rebuked Price for promising too much to crime victims, Taft slams him for voting too often for the criminal defendant. Price, he said, has drifted away from conservative principles.

"In other words, he was misleading the electorate," Taft charged.

Taft said he is urging voters to "promote a judge who's doing a good job and replace the judge who's not."

Price said Taft's criticism is exactly the kind of over-the-line remarks that the judicial conduct commission criticized him for making.

"He needs to calm himself down and get himself on board," Price said of Taft. "He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth."

Just another example of telling the masses what they want to hear...

His comments assume the HPD labs never did anything right. Isn't this sort of pre-ordained opinion grounds for recusal on any case involving the HPD crime lab?

I'm not up to speed on the more recent 1st Amendment SCOTUS opinions, but I seem to recall a ruling in a Minnesota case that gave judges more leniency in making policy pronouncements during their political campaigns -- treating them more or less like any other political candidate, in other words. (I think this came up in some Texas Supreme Court campaigns, too.)

If there is an inherent conflict b/t (a) not pre-judging certain issues as an impartial arbiter and (b) campaigning for a partisan political office that requires candidates to distinguish themselves from each other, does that then mean that one or the other must go? Namely, the partisan election of judges? How can that be reconciled with the need for impartiality once the office is won?

Discuss ...

Well, John, you have voiced an opinion that a Judge has violated the judicial cannons, so when will you be filing your complaint?

Maybe the election will take care of that.

It won't. Price will still be on the court, win or lose. He's in the middle of his associate justice term.

The Minnesota case, which is very long and contains typical legalese that confounds many a citizen, covered the following territory:

The announce clause prohibited candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. The judicial candidate alleged that he was forced to refrain from announcing his views on disputed issues during a campaign. Respondents asserted two interests as sufficiently compelling to justify the announce clause: preserving the impartiality of the state judiciary and preserving the appearance of the impartiality of the state judiciary. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court determined that the announce clause violated the First Amendment. The announce clause was not narrowly tailored to serve impartiality in the traditional sense, where impartiality meant the lack of bias for or against either party to the proceeding, or in the sense that impartiality meant openmindedness. Also, the announce clause failed the strict scrutiny review because it was woefully underinclusive, prohibiting announcements by judges and would-be judges only at certain times and in certain forms.

Why doesn't the State Bar info on Tom Price include his prior disciplinary rulings (click here for the site)

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 02-01-06 at .]

Would Commission on Judicial Conduct sanctions be listed under the Bar's disciplinary history?

Probably not but maybe that's something that should be added to the site.