Letter To The Editor: Concerns Over Election Coverage Of The Hays County Court At Law No. 2 Race

“Moreover, this campaign is not the first time Chris Johnson’s truthfulness has been questioned… In the case of Nathan Shipman, Johnson, then a felony prosecutor, was accused of withholding evidence requested by the defense…”

Letter to the Editor

San Marcos Corridor News Dear editor:

I am writing in response to the election coverage of the Hays County Court at Law No. 2 race.

As some of you may know this is a hotly contested race. The County Court at Law jurisdiction includes civil cases for damages within a specific dollar range, all probate cases, all guardianship cases, misdemeanor criminal cases, and juvenile cases.

In addition, the county court at law judges hear applications for mental health commitments. They hear appeals from evictions. They hear most appeals from justice courts.

It is a demanding load and I question Mr. Johnson’s qualifications as he has only criminal experience, the last seven or eight years in the misdemeanor division after years spent in the felony division.

Like many of your readers, I have received highly inflammatory mailers from Mr. Johnson attacking the incumbent, David Glickler, for the sole reason that the judge has a conviction for driving while intoxicated on May 26, 2015. There have been a number of forums, news coverage, and social media posts where Mr. Johnson has pounded this DWI drum.

DWI is not a crime of moral turpitude and Judge Glickler was not disqualified from his office as the result of the conviction.

However, the Hays County District Attorney’s Office, never ones to let an opportunity for tactical advantage slip by, moved to disqualify the judge from hearing DWI cases as a result of a statement he made during the arrest, not as a result of the conviction; I sincerely hope this was not a ploy to gain political advantage for one of their own.

The judge in response voluntarily stepped aside on contested DWIs and assumed responsibility for other cases pending before the court. Judge Glickler resumed presiding over contested DWIs after Judge Jon Wisser, a visiting judge, ruled that Glickler’s statement did not disqualify him from being fair and impartial.

All of this was however not satisfactory to Mr. Johnson, who has gone out of his way to misrepresent the facts and the law in his campaign.

In particular:

— he blatantly lied in his mailer and said the date of the arrest, complete with still photos from the videotape of the stop, was May 23, 2015 “the date of the Wimberley floods” – it was not the night of the floods and this is an egregious attempt to manipulate and play on the emotions of the populace, his “correction” mailer continues that attempt

— he blatantly lied in the original mailer and said the judge “interfered” in the officer’s DWI investigation – an inquiry into that allegation did not so so find

— he blatantly lies in forums and written accounts that the judge got some kind of special deal or treatment – there was nothing special about it, it was lawful and approved by a prosecutor and a judge

— he blatantly misrepresented in mailers that the judge was “barred from hearing contested DWIs which make up more than half the county court at law’s jury docket for more than two years” – the judge was not barred, any impact was to the criminal docket which is controlled by the district attorney’s office and thus readily manipulated by it (misdemeanor cases are filed by prosecutors and can only be dismissed by prosecutors), again I sincerely hope not for political advantage

— he blatantly misrepresents in his mailers, forums and written accounts that there is a backlog in the trial of misdemeanor cases because of the judge’s conduct – in truth the backlog is a result of the prosecutor’s office failing to properly screen the cases (as evidence I point to the fact that misdemeanor case filings are up 49% under the current administration of the district attorney’s office) and then taking months, or longer, to even file these cases, leaving the defense with no alternative than to take these weak cases to trial, leading to crowded dockets at the felony, misdemeanor, and juvenile level, overcrowded jails, and yes, overwhelmed  prosecutors, jailers, court staff, and so on

— he  blatantly misrepresented the judge as having multiple DWIs on many occasions, both verbally and in writing, which is not true – the judge was previously arrested many years ago for DWI and the charge was reduced, while I do not know the specifics of that case I do know reducing a charge is a normal procedure in a questionable case and the Hays County district attorney’s office, including Chris Johnson, regularly engages in the practice with all types of cases including DWIs

Moreover, this campaign is not the first time Chris Johnson’s truthfulness has been questioned.

In the case of Nathan Shipman, Johnson, then a felony prosecutor, was accused of withholding evidence requested by the defense.

At a 2009 hearing in connection with the accusation a fellow assistant district attorney testified that she thought Johnson lied about the evidence being sought.

All I know about this is what I read in the papers. However, I do note in a review of Hays County court records search results that while Christopher Johnson was listed on many, many felony cases as the attorney of record through 2010, he was only listed on a couple in 2011 and none in 2012.

Then in 2013 he again began to be listed as the attorney of record, but in misdemeanor cases, which he practices to this day. Perhaps these events are unrelated but it begs questions.

What happened?  What was he doing?  Was he on the payroll?

As for a DWI charge, there but for the grace of God go you and I. For those of you who just rolled your eyes and thought “I don’t drink” you better check your prescriptions.

If any of us are pulled over and don’t smell right or, heaven forbid, admit to a having a drink or taking medication we will very likely be arrested. It is the way officers are trained these days.

It is a very stacked deck and if it happens to you, you will likely depend on a competent defense lawyer, who in turn depends on a competent, qualified, fair and impartial judge.

As the most qualified candidate for County Court at Law No. 2 my vote is for David Glickler.

While on the bench he has demonstrated that he has the judicial temperament to treat all citizens before him with courtesy and respect, and the knowledge and skill to handle the vast array of cases that come his way.

Personally he has demonstrated the ability to own up to his mistakes coupled with the will to do the right thing about it. On the campaign trail he ran a very positive, issues focused campaign that addressed his opponent’s vitriol without stooping to the same level.

On the other hand, Chris Johnson ran a very negative campaign with no substance other than attacking Judge Glickler. Disapproving of someone does not qualify you to do their job.

Johnson’s experience is limited to criminal law, and only on the prosecutorial side.

His campaign rhetoric, when it briefly let up from direct and indirect attacks on the judge, focused solely on criminal issues from a very pro-prosecutorial point of view and completely ignored the non-criminal matters over which the county court at law has jurisdiction.

Ironically, if elected these are the matters Johnson would preside over initially as he will be disqualified from hearing all pending criminal cases filed while he is an employee of the district attorney’s office.

It will take a while for these criminal cases to proceed through the system, many of them years, which will impose a real and heavy burden on the county court at law system and ultimately on taxpayers.

Sincerely,
Lynne Morris