The Candid Review: A Blog About Appeals

Attorney Bruce Anderson Sues Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez

An Appeal to the First Amendment

When someone is accused of criminal conduct the Constitution guarantees that the accused is entitled to the protection of an attorney. In fact, arresting officers are required to inform the accused of their right to an attorney. Colloquially we refer to this warning as the accused’s Miranda rights and thanks, in large part to criminal investigation television shows, many people can recite these warnings from memory. The purpose of entitling an accused with the right to secure a lawyer is that lawyers know the law. This means they can protect the accused from wrongdoing by law enforcement and ensure that the justice system is used correctly. Unfortunately, it does not always play out in such an ideal fashion. Even more unfortunately, attorneys themselves are sometimes found to not only fail to protect against constitutional violations, but actually violate provisions of the Constitution themselves. One such instance in Texas has two attorneys headed for the U.S Court of Appeals.

Retaliation or Travel Expenses?

The case is headed for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The matter will involve a former Thirteenth Court of Appeals attorney named Bruce Anderson and Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez. In October of 2014 Anderson filed a lawsuit against Valdez in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. That matter was a federal civil lawsuit alleging that Valdez blocked Anderson’s appointment to staff attorney with the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. Anderson claims that Valdez blocked this appointment simply because Anderson exercised his constitutionally protected right to free speech. The speech Anderson claims was protected involved his complaint to Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson about Valdez’s potential misuse and/or abuse of appellate court funds. Essentially Anderson believed that Valdez was charging to separate accounts for the same travel expenses. Anderson’s attorney claims that he noted at least ten times where the separate accounts were charged for the same expenses.

The Appeal for Rogelio Valdez

Valdez immediately gave notice that he intended to file an appeal of all of the claims for relief. Anderson sought relief for monetary damages, attorney’s fees and an injunction ordering that he be hired for the position with the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. U.S. District Judge Randy Crane previously denied Valdez’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Valdez claimed that due to his position on the court he had an immunity from this type of suit; Judge Crane disagreed. Valdez has also defended himself claiming that Anderson was passed over for the position due to concerns that both justices and staff attorneys expressed about his performance and demeanor. “Significant decisions such as the hiring and firing of court personnel are generally accomplished through consultation, and reflect the collective opinions of the justices,” Valdez stated in court.
This matter illustrates that truly anyone can have a run-in with the law and anyone can require the protections of the appellate process. If you or someone you love is in need of a skilled, experienced appellate team to help tackle the appeals process, contact our team at Brownstone Law today.