Wallace Jefferson

From Judgepedia

Texas Supreme Court
Sitting Justices
Wallace Jefferson Don Willett Harriet O'Neill David Medina Paul Green Nathan Hecht Dale Wainwright Phil Johnson Scott Brister
Former justices
Texas on Judgepedia

Wallace B. Jefferson is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. He ran for re-election to the court in 2008 against Democratic challenger Jim Jordan, and won with 53% of the vote. (See Texas Supreme Court elections for more information). Justice Jefferson is aligned with the Republican party.

Legal Background

Jefferson is an alumnus of the James Madison College at Michigan State University and the University of Texas School of Law. Jefferson's great-great-grandfather, Shedrick Willis, was freed by his own master, a McLellan County judge, who ruled that a free black man could not be bound by contract to sell himself into slavery.

Legal Career

Mr. Willis later would serve two terms on the Waco City Council after the Civil War. In 2001, when Governor Rick Perry appointed him, Jefferson became the first African American Justice to serve on the Texas Supreme Court. In November 2002, Jefferson also became, along with Justice Dale Wainwright, one of the first two African Americans to be elected by popular vote to the Court. In 2004, Wallace became the first African-American Chief Justice in the history of Texas. Jefferson was first appointed to the court on April 18, 2001 to fill the vacancy left by Alberto Gonzales, who resigned to become White House Counsel to President George W. Bush. Jefferson was then elected to that seat in 2002 with 56% of the vote. Before Jefferson could get a chance to complete his new term, however, he was again promoted by Perry. On September 20, 2004, Perry appointed Jefferson the successor to Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips, who had retired from the Court a few weeks earlier after nearly 17 years as Chief. Jefferson was elected to serve out the remainder of Phillips's unexpired term as Chief Justice in November 2006. Thus, Jefferson was not elected to a full six-year term.

Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson

Awards and associations

In Fall of 2008, Michigan State University will honor Chief Justice Jefferson as its Outstanding Alumnus. In 2005, the University of Texas School of Law honored Chief Justice Jefferson with its Outstanding Alumnus Award. He received the James Madison College Distinguished Alumnus award in 2002. He was President of the San Antonio Bar Association in 1998 and the William S. Sessions American Inn of Court in 1999. Chief Justice Jefferson was recognized as a Pillar of the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio. In 2007, Chief Justice Jefferson's parents greeted students at the new "Wallace B. Jefferson" Middle School in San Antonio. Chief Justice Jefferson has served on the Supreme Court of Texas Advisory Committee, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and was chair of the host committee for the 2000 Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference. He has lectured across the country on appellate advocacy and received national recognition from the American Bar Association for his 2001 speech celebrating Law Day.^[1]

Jefferson also served as director of the San Antonio Public Library Foundation and the Alamo Area Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization.^[2]

2008 election campaign

General Election results

• Justice Wallace Jefferson won reelection, defeating both Democrat Jim Jordan and Libertarian candidate Tom Oxford on November 4. Jefferson received 53% of the vote to Jordan's 44% and Oxford's 3%.^[3] Justice Jefferson's new term will end in 2014.

Fundraising

While this campaign is not concluded, as yet Jefferson has raised $309,023.^[4] The top three industries so far are:

• Lawyers and Lobbyists, $107,896
• Oil and Gas, $19,100
• Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, $15,000

For a complete summary of all campaign contributions for Wallace Jefferson, click here.

Campaign ads

Past campaigns

2006 campaign

In the 2006 campaign, Jefferson raised $441,065 with 381 records.^[5] The top three industries were:

• Lawyers and Lobbyists, $247,068
• Oil and Gas, $29,075
• General Contractors, $14,500

2002 campaign

In his 2002 campaign, Jefferson raised a total of $1,143,406 with 1644 total records.^[6]

Notable rulings

Exorcisms

In a 6-3 vote, the Texas Supreme Court threw out a jury award over injuries a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism conducted by members of her old church, ruling that the case unconstitutionally entangled the court in religious matters. The justices found that a lower court erred when it said the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God's First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion did not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by a "hyper-spiritualistic environment." Laura Schubert testified in 2002 that she was cut and bruised and later experienced hallucinations after the church members' actions in 1996, when she was 17. Schubert said she was pinned to the floor for hours and received carpet burns during the exorcism, the Austin American-Statesman reported. She also said the incident led her to mutilate herself and attempt suicide, before eventually seeking psychiatric help. The church's attorneys told jurors that her psychological problems were caused by traumatic events she witnessed with her missionary parents in Africa. The church contended she "freaked out" about following her father's life as a missionary and was acting out to gain attention.

In 2002, a Tarrant County jury found the Colleyville church and its members liable for abusing and falsely imprisoning the girl. The jury awarded her $300,000, though the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth later reduced the verdict to $188,000. Justice David Medina wrote that finding the church liable "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs." But Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a dissenting opinion, stated that the "sweeping immunity" is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the Constitution's protections for religious conduct. "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name," Jefferson wrote.^[7]

Op eds

• Texas Supreme Court reverses jury verdict against hospital in suicide case (May 28, 2008)

• Chief Justice Jefferson wrote an opinion article for the Dallas News on a recent overturned conviction. After serving nearly 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, Charles Allen Chatman recently became the 30th Texan since 2001 whose conviction was overturned after DNA analysis. Jefferson writes, "Given the individualized nature of our criminal court system, a statewide commission, with appropriate resources, would be an ideal source of powerful reform. Other states, including Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina and Wisconsin, have adopted similar proposals which have, in many instances, led to statutory reforms that help ensure the fairness and accuracy of criminal justice."^[8]

• On December 7, 2007, Jefferson co-authored an article in the Austin American-Statesman titled Think Like A Pakistani Lawyer^[9]. Jefferson praised the actions of Pakistani lawyers and judges who as "custodians of a constitution that has been shelved and intimates of a constitutional judiciary that has been purged" by President Musharraf took to the streets to defend the rule of law. Justice Jefferson applies the Pakistani to example to America citing "Not-so-veiled threats to, and attacks upon, members of the judiciary" through salary freezing and restricting access to the federal judiciary.

• On October 5th, 2005, Rick Casey wrote an article for the Houston Chronicle titled The Essence of Judicial Temperament^[10] regarding Justice Jefferson. Casey lauded Justice Jefferson for not succumbing to mere ideology by supporting or not supporting fast-track legislation the Congress was debating that would limit the powers of federal courts to reverse state convictions in death-penalty and other major cases. Justice Jefferson originally was the sole dissenter to a resolution by the Conference of Chief Justices in condemning the legislation. His decision, though, was not to cater to the views of Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, but to weigh the issue for himself. Jefferson finally decided to criticize the fast-track legislation as it would "create unreasonable obstacles through a stringent system of forfeitures of federal constitutional claims".

Click here for the audio of Justice Wallace's interview with AJP's Kristyn Shayon about the role of the judiciary and the Supreme Court.

On the Issues

On Criminal Justice

Issue: Is violation of the no-knock entry rule a basis to suppress evidence?

Factual and Procedural History: Defendant was charged with the second degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. Before trial, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence contending that the tactical team's no-knock entry to the house was unreasonable, which the trial judge denied. However, a majority of the court of appeals reversed the trial judge's decision, and the State filed a petition for discretionary review.

Summary: Judge Wallace Jefferson joined the unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Keasler, which ruled that discovery of a controlled substance by a police tactical team that failed to follow the knock-and-announce rule should not be suppressed because the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require the suppression of evidence discovered during a search ^[12].

Quotes from the opinion: "Because Wright challenged the trial judge's refusal to grant his motion to suppress exclusively under the Fourth Amendment in the court of appeals and the court of appeals did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Hudson when rendering its decision, we reverse and remand case for reconsideration in light of Hudson."

For additional no-knock commentary, see Additional Reading below

On Property Rights

Issue: Does a amended condemnation petition "dismiss the proceeding" for the purpose of awarding attorneys fees, even if the condemnor does not compeltely dismiss or abandon the proceeding? Yes.

Factual and Procedural History: University filed condemnation action after owner of land refused to sell a parcel of land needed to establish a more architecturally and aesthetically desirable eastern border to its campus. After litigation ensues, the University amends is petition to reduce the amount of property it sought.

Summary: Justice Jefferson concurred with Justice Johnson, writing for the majority of the court, and over the dissent of Justice Willett, that an amended condemnation petition dismisses the proceeding within the meaning of section 21.019(b) (awards attorney’s fees and expenses for dismissed condemnation actions) even if the condemnor does not completely dismiss or abandon the proceedings. The Court held: (1) a trial court’s de novo proceeding is not limited to the facts and issues presented to a commissioner of a condemnation action (2) a condemnor may amend its petition to reduce the amount of property it seeks and such a change does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction (3) an administrative condemnation petition should proceed in the same manner as other civil causes (4) the amended pleadings effected a voluntary dismissal of the University’s prior claim (5) dismissals, even if not absolute, are subject to a section 21.19(b) attorney’s fee and expenses award.

• ON PROTECTING LAND OWNERS: "We believe that incorporating such flexible and just procedures is what the legislature intended by requiring condemnation cases to be tried as other civil cases, and by providing protection for landowners against the burden of fees and expenses when an entity lodges a condemnation proceeding against it and then abandons the action.

• ON THE STANDARD FOR REVIEWING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING: We have also recognized that the protections given in the statutory scheme regulating condemnation proceedings must be 'liberally construed for the benefit of the landowner.'"

• ON THE REASONING FOR GRANTING FEES FOR NON-ABSOLUTE DISMISSALS: "To hold otherwise would mean that a condemning authority could artfully amend its petition to condemn only an extremely small fraction of the original area sought and avoid liability for fees and expenses under section 21.019(b)"

Additional reading

No-Knock Commentary:

1. No Swat, by Radley Balko

External links

• Dallas Morning News Voter Guide
• Supreme Court Profile: Wallace Jefferson
• Wallace B. Jefferson's Election Page
• DNA-Evidence Exoneration
• Think Like A Pakistani Lawyer
• The Essence of Judicial Temperament
• State Bar of Texas: Interview
• Texas Supreme Court: Orders and Opinions
• Justice Jefferson bio from Project Vote Smart
• Wikipedia: Wallace Jefferson
• Justice Jefferson's profile from Texas Courts website
• Jefferson's 2004 Appointment
• University of Texas Press Release on Jefferson's Appointment
• Justice Jefferson's Op-Ed in the Dallas Morning News
• Justice Jefferson's 2005 UT address

References