TM interviews SA4 lawyers

Michael Hall at Texas Monthly has posted an interview with Mike Ware and Keith Hampton who were named criminal defense lawyers of the year by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association for their role championing habeas corpus relief for the San Antonio Four. Check it out. And congratulations to both of them.

CCA judicial education grants as much about patronage as pedagogy

After the Texas Tribune praised Judge Sharon Keller for grantmaking by the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense while she was chair, yesterday I mentioned in reaction that "a little-discussed 2009 report from the state auditor lamented that the CCA 'lacks formal, written policies and procedures for awarding and administering grants.'"

In the comments, Charles Kuffner rightly noted the irony: "And of course, it was a lack of formal, written policies and procedures regarding last minute death penalty appeals that got Keller into official trouble in the first place. Funny how these things work, isn't it?" Indeed! If we're going to be giving CCA judges credit for grantmaking under their watch, they should also be held accountable for its more problematic aspects.

As Grits pointed out when the auditor's report was first published, an even bigger point of concern is how CCA grantees use money that's supposedly for judicial education to fund large portions of their groups' administrative costs, most prominently the prosecutors' association and the criminal defense bar. Here's a list of the grants given by the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2008 and the percentage of the grants each group spent on administrative costs (from a table on pp. 8-9 of the pdf):

• Center for American and International Law $ 299,696, 36.5%
• Texas Association of Counties $489,220, 50.6%
• Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association $1,098,670, 75.1%
• Texas Center for the Judiciary $1,738,265, 41.7%
• Texas District and County Attorneys Association $1,798,289, 47.8%
• Texas Justice Court Training Center $1,931,037, 50.6%
• Texas Municipal Courts Education Center $2,127,274, 44.7%

All of these administrative allocations are astonishing. Paying 50-75% of judicial education grants for administrative costs arguably merits the term "scandalous." By contrast, most private foundations allow 10-15% of grant funds to be used for administrative or overhead costs, and many don't let grantees use their funds for administration at all. Nonprofits must rely on individual donors or membership dues in addition to grants to keep their doors open because foundations are such sticklers about this.

The idea that the CCA grants $1.1 million to the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, ostensibly for judicial education, and $825,101 of it is going to "administration" means the CCA is basically paying for a big chunk of the group's primary day to day activities. The prosecutors' association gets an even larger sum for grant administration - $859,582 - but they get more money overall, so their administrative proportion is lower. On its face, it appears as though the administrative proportions are not attributable to a particular pot of costs but were simply allotted in such a way to give the prosecution and defense bar roughly equal amounts.

Little attention has been paid to this bizarre pork-barrel arrangement. By contrast, when the Governor's Criminal Justice Division gives out grants, there are more accountability mechanisms to ensure most of the money is actually spent on the tasks the grant is given for. But the purpose of these "judicial education" grants appears to be as much patronage as pedagogy.

Restless natives rebuff court nominee as TCDLA President-elect

Austin criminal defense attorney Keith Hampton faced two elections this year - one for President-elect of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and one for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where he is the Democratic nominee facing incumbent Michael Keasler. This week Keith lost the first one, Mark Bennett reports, when TCDLA members selected Gary Trichter in his stead to lead the criminal defense bar.

I don't know much about the internal politics behind the contest, but the natives are clearly restless.

Contested battle for presidency of criminal defense bar

Democratic Texas Court of Criminal Appeals candidate Keith Hampton, oddly enough, is running in a second contested election this year: For President of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Not everybody, however, thinks that's a good idea. Writes Mark Bennett:

Keith Hampton was TCDLA Secretary, then Treasurer, then Second VP and so forth. I’m sure he expected to be President by operation of the system as it has always worked—the “chain” of positions that lead inexorably to the presidency.

This year, for the first time in recent memory, TCDLA’s members are not content, sheeplike, to allow the Board of Directors to choose the organization’s officers. Gary Trichter tossed his hat into the ring. The bylaws somehow allowed it. So, for the first time in recent memory, TCDLA had to get ballots out to its members so that they could vote for one of the two candidates for President-Elect. ...

The online discussion among TCDLA members of the contested election has been as passionate and vocal as you would expect. The listservs have lit up; TCDLA Past-President has used TCDLA’s email list to send a one-sided and error-laden email promoting his favored candidate.

Bennett and Paul Kennedy were miffed that their ballots for the race came in a non-descript plain envelope from an accounting firm they'd never heard of before.

I find it perplexing why Hampton chose to seek the TCDLA Presidency the same year he is running for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Even Sharon Keller was never elected head of the prosecutors' association while sitting as a judge! Does Hampton's bid mean he assumes he will lose the CCA race? If so, why run? I emailed Keith to get answers straight from the horse's mouth. He replied:

There is no president's election. I was nominated as president-elect, and in accordance with our by-laws, have been challenged for that position. If I am elected to the CCA, I would resign that office (assuming my election to it) because I believe there would be a conflict of interest between the two offices.

I don't understand that response. Of course there is a TCDLA president's election - that's why TCDLA members are receiving ballots in the mail! (Hampton even refers to "my election" in the sentence after he denied there is one.) And it's difficult to imagine why one would simultaneously seek two positions if they "believe there would be a conflict of interest between the two offices."

A contested election every now and then never hurt any membership organization. But to win such battles requires focused campaigning, which always favors those playing insider baseball. It'll be hard to unseat Hampton if Trichter isn't actively organizing supporters and making sure they all open and return their nondescript ballots. If he does, though, he might be doing Hampton's so-far ghost-like CCA campaign a favor. He's on the November ballot no matter what, and he can't do both jobs.