Because decisions rendered by the Court of Criminal Appeals almost always involve a citizen’s liberty – and sometimes his life – the Court’s first priority should be that its decision is the correct one.  Therefore, a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals should bring a solid background in both criminal and appellate law.  I have 24 years of legal experience, covering virtually every aspect of criminal and appellate law.  I began my career as an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Criminal Appeals Division, prosecuting appeals on behalf of the State of Alabama in the Court of Criminal Appeals and  Alabama Supreme Court.  In private practice, I represented individuals in civil and criminal cases, in state and federal courts  at the trial and appellate levels.  As a Senior Staff Attorney for the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Supreme Court, I worked with the judges and justices on a daily basis, drafting over 1,000 appellate decisions for the Court.  I am the only candidate in this race who has worked as a prosecutor, defense counsel, and assisted appellate judges in writing appellate decisions.  The Court of Criminal Appeals has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the United States, yet it has an efficiency rating of over 95%.  To maintain this high rate of efficiency, there will be no time for on-the-job training.  I will be ready to fulfill my responsibilities from day one.  Given my criminal and appellate law experience, I am the best candidate for Place One.

In my opinion, the three most important attribute of a judge are: (1) that a judge be fair and impartial; (2) that a judge treat all parties with dignity and respect; and (3) that a judge be knowledgeable and well-versed in the law.

I would define my judicial philosophy as “conservative,” meaning that I believe that judges should interpret the law, rather than “make law,” i.e., engage in what I would describe as “judicial activism.”  Alabama’s citizens must be convinced that all parties come before the courts “equal in the eyes of the law,” and that they will be treated with dignity and respect.  To do so, every judge must adhere to the rule of law and resist the temptation to engage in judicial activism.  When judges engage in judicial activism, citizens have no guarantee that a judge’s decision in similar cases will not change, based on some intangible standard known only to the judge.  However, when a judge follows the rule of law, citizens can be confident in the stability of judicial decisions.

I would define “judicial independence” to mean that a judge’s decision should be impartial and based upon the rule of law – free of all outside influence, whether it be from other branches of government, special interests, financial considerations, popular opinion, or political pressure.  I believe that judicial independence is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

In my opinion, the greatest area of need in the Alabama criminal justice system is to overhaul the pro se inmate litigation process.  In recent years, the proliferation of pro se inmate litigation has bogged down the entire court system.  While the Constitution mandates that inmates be afforded “access to the courts,” it seems that multiple, frivolous filings by inmates waste scarce judicial resources – at both the trial and appellate level – needed to address and/or resolve truly meritorious claims filed by deserving litigants.  Such filings clog up the judicial system and deprive Alabama citizens of the right to have their legal claims disposed of by the courts in a timely fashion.  I would like to see the Court of Criminal Appeals take the lead in working to prevent inmates from using their right of access to the courts to file frivolous and repetitious claims by proposing that applicable rules of court and/or legislation be amended to prevent such abuses from occurring by all reasonable and constitutionally permissible means.

 A judge’s decision should be based on his/her informed and good faith interpretation of the applicable case law, statutes, and the Constitution, rather than on public opinion.

In a case where a judge’s personal beliefs conflict with the law, the judge is obligated by his/her oath of office to follow the law.  Neither judges nor any other citizen get to “pick and choose” which laws they will follow. 

| TOP |