(Note: I ran a series of judicial Q&As for Democratic candidates in contested primaries earlier this year. I am now doing the same for the candidates who were unopposed in March, which includes most of the sitting incumbent judges. As always, this is to help you the voter know a little bit more about the candidates on your ballot. I will be publishing these in the order I receive them. You can see the Q&As and interviews I did for the primaries on my 2016 Election page.)
Jim Peacock
1. Who are you and what are you running for?
I am Jim Peacock running for Chief Justice, First Court of Appeals.
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
Civil and non-capital criminal cases appealed from lower Courts.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
We need greater diversity of opinion on the courts of appeals in Texas. The courts have been dominated for several years by people of a particular mindset that I believe is not completely unbiased. Diversity of opinion can be derived from having different backgrounds and life experiences. The extent of my exposure to more diverse legal experience has enabled me to have a more open and objective approach to matters that will come before the court.
As the titular head of the court it is vital to have someone that is not beholden to any one group or limited by a closed political philosophy. I can offer that capability. Although most of the duties of the Chief Justice are the same as any other justice on the court, there are some differences. As the Chief of the court you can set an example for the entire court of openness and objectivity. I believe in leading by example.
Also the Chief Justice has some duties that bring him in contact with other political entities and subdivisions of government wherein the Chief Justice must represent the interests of the court and of the people that come before the court. I believe that my professional and life’s experience makes me well suited to that purpose. I offer an opportunity to bring change to the court without sacrificing ability or integrity.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
I have tried nearly 200 jury trials to verdict covering extremely diverse areas of law. Some of the issues tried include: civil rights violations, disability discrimination, racial discrimination, slander, libel, invasion of privacy, fraud, usury, breach of contract, car wrecks, medical malpractice, sexual harassment, guarantor breach, premises liability, capital murder, murder, sexual assault, DWI, etc. The diversity of my experience and the variety of judges I have appeared before has given me a clear understanding of what it takes to be a good judge. I have represented thousands of individuals in my practice and have become adept at understanding the unique nature of each person and each case. I have experienced injustice and unfairness from courts that were indifferent to the rights of individuals. I have also experienced the pleasure of appearing before well qualified and compassionate jurists, one of which I aspire to be. My practice has placed me before dozens of trial courts in Texas, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, Federal District Courts, Federal Bankruptcy Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
In addition to my trial experience I have taught numerous areas of law, to other attorneys, on many occasions. I have taught voir dire, opening and closing statements, direct and cross examination of witnesses, trial as theater, and the nexus between criminal and civil law.
5. Why is this race important?
The First Court of Appeals has nine justices. Presently they are all elected or appointed Republicans. The justices have generally come from large civil defense firms or from experience as criminal prosecutors. Virtually none of the members of the court have experience on the plaintiff’s side of civil ligation or the defense side of criminal litigation. The current Chief Justice has held the position for many years after working for a large civil defense firm and serving initially as an appointed then elected judge and later an appointed and then elected justice. Over the years the court’s rulings have consistently favored the defense side of civil cases and the state’s side in criminal matters. The frequency and consistency of the rulings favoring those sides is, in my opinion, not indicative of unbiased review of the cases.
When the rulings of the court overwhelmingly favor one side of litigation it can reduce the public’s belief in the objectivity and fairness of the court. It is crucial that the integrity of the courts be preserved and beyond reproach. We need balance to be returned to the courts in Texas and the Courts of Appeals are essential to that goal. The vast majority of opinions that establish the precedents to be followed by the courts of Texas are from the intermediate courts of appeals. Therefore, the jurisprudence of this state is disproportionately affected by those courts. Few cases are actually ruled on by the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Thus, the intermediate appellate courts can have a pronounced effect by the sheer volume of their opinions. Ensuring an efficiently run court and pressing for timely rulings is important to obtaining justice.
The Chief Justice is also involved in lobbying various issues relevant to the conduct of the court and has additional administrative duties that pertain to the operation of the court. This race is to determine who will be the Chief Justice of this extremely important appellate court.
6. Why should people vote for you in November?
I have more practical litigation experience than anyone presently on the court. My trial practice has been diverse and has included extensive experience in both criminal and civil matters. I have served as a criminal prosecutor and defense attorney in hundreds of cases and truly understand both sides. I have also handled hundreds of civil cases and have experienced both sides of that docket as well. No one on the court has the multifarious background that I do. This court has jurisdiction over both civil and criminal matters and society would benefit from a justice that truly understands what it means to try cases in all areas of law that come before the court.
I also bring the ability to return balance to the court. I am not beholden to any one side or group. I can make rulings that are legitimately unbiased and based only on the evidence and the law. Since I have handled so many different sides of litigation, and represented such diverse groups and people, I can be truly fair and open to all. Because I have over 35 years of trial and appellate experience, I can be productive on the bench immediately and bring a pragmatic perspective that lawyers from a more limited background could not. I represent a change from the status quo by bringing a new and different set of opinions to a court that has been dominated by only one philosophy for far too long.
I always wonder why people think results in the appeals courts should be balanced between defense and plaintiffs. That may seem logical, but there’s no reason to expect that balance – it all depends on which cases are appealed, and the reasons for appeals. It seems far more logical to think that businesses prevail more often, simply because they appeal when they have a good case, and fully understand the legal reasoning, and don’t appeal when the results are not likely to be favorable.
” I am not beholden to any one side or group….”
I would have liked him to spell out exactly what side or group the incumbent is beholden to.
Other than that, this is the most well written response I have read by a candidate, published here.
@Ross:
Good point.