Episode 15: A research-based approach to criminal justice

[0:00:00 Speaker 1] This’ll is Policy on Purpose, a podcast produced by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Way Take you behind the scenes of policy with the people who help shape it For more. Visit LBJ dot utexas Study Teoh. Hello,

[0:00:20 Speaker 2] everyone. This is Angela Evans and this is policy and purpose and I am so, so pleased today to be having some time to spend with the honorable John Cruise. Oh, when I asked him what he should be called the animal, whatever’s you just call me John and it’s that I can’t do that because the office is, ah, very high office. So John, which I will do it. This podcast is now serving as the district attorney for Dallas County but has an incredible public service. History is D A and as a judge and has done enormous amount of work in terms of understanding the prison population, understanding people who get caught up in crime and what to do with them when they meet when they come into a court. Um, and I’m very pleased to have him here. I have some questions and I think what we’re gonna be doing is having a conversation because before this podcast we talked. He has a lot to say. He’s an enormously talented a man with a lot of different ideas. So I’m so pleased to have you here

[0:01:17 Speaker 0] today to be here.

[0:01:19 Speaker 2] So we talked a little bit when we were meeting and one of the things that we talked about his When you get into an organization in the past, when you’re soloing it or you have one other colleague, it’s one thing to do your own work. Be independent. Do your do your investigations, etcetera and prepare your own arguments. But now you’re running an entire agency with hundreds of people with different perspectives. So talk to us a little bit about how the work you did. Uh, building up to that has really helped you in terms of how you’re going to run Or are you running right now? The the office?

[0:01:51 Speaker 0] Well, first of all, going from a private practice to 400 plus employees is overwhelming, and I spent well, I’ve only been there two months, so I certainly spent the first Yes, the 1st 2 to 3 weeks. Just trying to get a grip on what was there and who was in a certain place. And, um, it became obvious to me over this two month period that there needs to be a culture change and that the vast majority of people there are prosecutors, the upper staff. That’s what they’ve spent their lives doing. They have. Maybe some of them have some criminal defense experience, but not many. And even if so, they’ve still dedicated their lives to being a prosecutor. And what I’ve learned is is that prosecutors are like many of the lawyers, we decide how to go forward by looking back, right? It’s called precedent, and so we don’t progress very quickly

[0:02:51 Speaker 2] part of your culture,

[0:02:52 Speaker 0] part of my culture right on. But they on the other hand, here I am where I’ve looked at different things and tried different things and look that research and try to put together a research based approach to criminal justice. And so the challenges with ease 400 people 270 so who are lawyers is to get them to stop thinking about doing things a certain way just because they did it that way and instead think about what is the goal and has your decision, um, afforded yourself towards the goal. If we’re trying to reduce crime, reduce recidivism? The reflexive action of putting someone in jail just because they violated their probation is not going to do that. Ah, this idea that jail is our default or prison is our default posture and criminal justice has to stop. We ruin a lot of people’s lives. We create recidivism. And in doing that ah, we create mass incarceration. We create disparities and sentencing. And we’re just not smart. And when when we have decided in the state of Texas to get smart on crime. Back in 2005 that legislative session in 7 2009 and 11 legislative sessions when we focused on assessments and we focused on treatment, we actually reduced our prison population from 150,000 to today. It’s about 141,000 now, mind you. Back in 2005 it was projected that we would need 17,000 more prison beds up to 167. So that’s quite a different

[0:04:37 Speaker 2] dropping. Yes,

[0:04:38 Speaker 0] why does savings to the taxpayers? So the main thing that that that that’s not my main challenges. I think the changing of the culture and trying to help them understand that what we are all complicit in creating this system, the police air, complicity by their arrest and they’re charging we’re complicit by accepting the cases and moving forward with, um, the judges air complicity, Mother way. They handle the cases, the defense lawyers, air complicity and the way they handle their clients. And the defendants are complicity in a way they make decisions about their cases often. So it’s kind of, ah, system where everybody’s got a piece of this action that has gone in the wrong direction, and trying to correct that is my mission.

[0:05:26 Speaker 2] Well, when you were talking about this earlier, it made me think about some of the very things we all were all challenged within. When you’re dealing with the public agency, it’s like a big eco system, and you’ve got different components and is trying to bring that all together at once. But you have to look at individual needs and like you say, individual precedent because most people want to do a good job. So what happens is they come in and they get into a rut or a pattern, and they don’t often think the way you’re thinking. So what is your? What do you think is you’re going to be your biggest challenge. You’ve only been two months since. So it’s kind of an unfair question because you really haven’t had a chance to do, you know, a really deep dive into all of these. But going in, what do you think is going to be your biggest challenges and moving them away from sort of this typical way of looking at things versus looking at evidence and and looking at individual cases and think about the principles upon what you’re gonna

[0:06:18 Speaker 0] think you just named it? I mean, looking at individual cases, thinking what? Thinking about principles that makes sense. They’re create public safety as opposed to just a reflexive. You know, you violated your probation, you go to prison. Um, I have found that even though we we conduct the probation department conducts risk needs assessments, nobody reads thumb and they don’t know what they mean,

[0:06:45 Speaker 2] are they? They don’t read them because they’re not forced to are there to longer. They’re not in plain English or there has never been an expectation.

[0:06:53 Speaker 0] Well, when I was a judge, I did some training back many years ago with the D. A’s on what is a pre sentence report? One of the components of it? What can you you know, what kind of decisions can you make off of this? But that was many prosecutors in many years ago. We now have an entire generation that has no relationship to that. The other thing is, is we no longer in the state of Texas to my knowledge trained judges on evidence based sentencing practices? And I did that for a number of years, not only for the college of new judges but also an individual settings. We would do that that’s no longer done. So the judges, I’m not sure, really understand and appreciate the other thing that

[0:07:35 Speaker 2] the

[0:07:35 Speaker 0] component is the probation department. They’re the ones who are conducting these assessments. If they’re not well trained, and if they’re not doing a good job, you know it’s garbage in garbage out. And I’ve seen a lot of that. I’ve seen a lot of that, not just on the risk assessments, but on psychological assessments where they’ve made some pretty drastic conclusions about people that’s not supported by any evidence whatsoever. They just decided to do that and then won’t back down. And so you know, the other component of this that’s complicity in in where we are and that lifted out is the probation department. And because they’re doing all this for the judges, the other thing is big issue. Um, that we’ve discussed is when should the judge read the presentence report? And one of the practices that we fell into for many, many years is putting a person on probation, then having the risk needs assessment done and screening and possible assessment. Yeah, well, you’ve already put him on probation, and it lets say they’re a drug addicted person. They’re not likely to come in any time soon to get this done. Okay, so we changed in Dallas back in the mid two thousands. Ah, where we require before the plea before the sentencing that all of these assessments be done and we would not allow the lawyers to plea bargain because they have no understanding of different levels of treatment and they have no understanding of risk needs. And so we would fashion the terms and conditions of probation, according to the assessments. And what we found was we had a 59% drop and technical violations when we did it that way. Well, now I don’t even know which judges are doing risk assessments and all the other assessments prior to placing a police person on probation. Because, as we talked about earlier, I’ve yet to have a meeting with the judges. Even though I’ve requested the District judges, even though I’ve requested twice to meet with them, have gotten no response. So, um, I’m not really certain what’s going on, but it may get to the point and they don’t have to talk to me. That’s fine. But it may get to a point where I just we’re not going to sign any plea papers until we have that. Yeah, and I’m sure that will be quite controversial. And I don’t know whether or

[0:10:00 Speaker 2] not you. I mean, you get engaged and do it from the ground up and have people enrolling it and agreed to it and see it

[0:10:07 Speaker 0] well. So when everything works better collaboratively as long as you doing the right thing, if you moving in the right direction. If you have to fight somebody to do it. Then it becomes a turf battle. And judges, um um have their turf. I don’t care who they are, what their background is when they get elected and they become a judge of a court, that’s their turf. And whether they understand these principles or not, it’s still their turf. And you find yourself getting sometimes and battles that spill over into trials and this and that and you get, you know, different rulings because they’re mad at you about something else. And

[0:10:47 Speaker 2] it’s like human nature and the system, human nature. This is a high risk environment because it’s alum and we assure the rule of law. I think one of the things that I’m interested in target you because I think a lot of people in public service, one leadership that worry about this is like you have a personnel, you have a dynamic approach. The thing is new. Once you get that done, how do you sustain it? I mean, how do you stand beyond you? Because part of it is you get some really great people in there and they got a lot of they’ve got a lot of motivation a lot of energy, lots of great ideas. And then they leave. And then people go back or settle into a different way. You know, not that different isn’t better, but they’ll sometimes they just outlast him or her. And then when he goes or she goes, we go back to the way. That was easier for me. So do you thinking about how you can sustain this type of approach Their

[0:11:37 Speaker 0] numbers? Number one, you show you one of the things we don’t have that was told. Oh, we have this robust, you know, data system. Will you start asking questions? And no, we don’t do that. No, we don’t do this. And, well, it’s not so robust after a and and then it was an article in the paper, whether they’re so frustrated with it, that they’re gonna trash it. So there that goes with start all over

[0:12:02 Speaker 2] you be an idea, though, to start all over in terms of what you know, Dallas

[0:12:06 Speaker 0] County, it’s not a good idea. Dallas County has a history of deciding that Aziz faras data in moving people in cases and, you know, even who’s in jail and who’s not they they have a long history of deciding to create a system rather than purchase a system. Adjust it. And this is not the first time that we have gone along and spent 1,000,000 is a millions of dollars and decided, Oh, we messed up. This doesn’t work. The company has gone bankrupt or this that or the other. But anyway, back to your question. Um, so one of the things that I’m trying to communicate to the staff is that they are the leaders, that I’m not the leader and that this is about their future, that they are the future leaders that have been licensed since 1982. And I’ve done all these various and sundry things and had, ah, success, national success and national recognition. But that doesn’t have anything to do with their decision making today and that my goal is to create new leaders from them. You know, each and every one of them will be a leader because this just not the way it works. But there are some who want to be leaders, and so I am willing to spend time with them individually to give them assignments so that they can can become leaders. I mean, if I look back at at the whole group of lawyers that I was with, you know, I’m probably the only one who well, not the only one but one of few who’s really become a leader. In a sense, the vast majority or still practicing law may be about to retire. Whatever, but, um, so leadership is not for everyone. Um, but I’m trying to provide a new environment where those who want to be leaders can become leaders and, um, and and do so, um, with the right idea that number one we’ve over incarcerated gain number two. We’ve incarcerated the wrong people based on race and based on wealth, the lack of wealth, and number three, this default position that everybody needs to go to jail iss false and wrong and often creates more problems for the individual and for the community, and we need to get off of it now. Part of that is also communicating that to the police departments in the police chief is because they want to take people to jail a lot of times, and that’s not always the best answer, especially on low level offenses. So it’s a challenge across the board, not just to the staff of other stakeholders and probation officers. You know, trying t communicate that to them so

[0:14:50 Speaker 2] well, It seems like you one of the things that I think is really important when you’re dealing with a big sea change and when you’re dealing with the bureaucracy and you’re dealing with a lot of different folks on the bureaucracy, is the leader has you know, the principles these air, the principles upon which we’re going to operate, and if it supports the principles were in, if it’s neutral, will think about it. If it’s not, we’re not doing it. And I think sometimes we think that’s just such common sense. We know why verbalize it. But I’ve come to believe that there is so important that people get it and he having succession planning where you’re giving people who are the next generation of leaders opportunities to be with you or be with other leaders so they can learn how to do that. It’s really important, and it’s higher because you’re operating your operating. An agency that has to, you know, have a product history of a service history do well at the same time, you’re trying to move it into a different place, and I think that’s a big challenge. People in your position face. Yeah,

[0:15:47 Speaker 0] it is a simple with a simple way to start it off and it’s called the mission statement. So we had a mission statement for divert Court, which was the first diversion court in the state of Texas, and it was quite successful we actually brought in. S M u. I

[0:16:01 Speaker 2] saw that that you ask them to actually study this from an analytic objective perspective. Yes.

[0:16:07 Speaker 0] So we had some students in the psychology department do the thesis and they did a recidivism study and we had a 68% reduction or recidivism that hadn’t been seen in the state of Texas. Nobody’d ever if they did it, nobody knew about it. And then we had, um, the economics department come in and some students did a cost benefit analysis and and actually their numbers of small. So it’s for every dollar spent. There were $9.34 and avoided criminal justice costs. That didn’t just avoided criminal justice costs that that’s not talking about not going to the hospital. That’s not talking about supporting having a job, supporting your kids, paying taxes, etcetera. So, you know, if you put all those numbers in, it would have meant even more impressive. Um, So, um, you know, a mission statement guides the principles of the entity and we had a mission statement that we developed for divert court. And there were times when there were questions that came up is you know, which way should we go? And I would pull off the mission statement and said, OK, here’s our mission statement. We’ve agreed a problem. This and this is our operating principal. Your question. Does it accomplish what’s in the mission statement? And that very often answered the question. And if it if if we were consistent with that, then you’re then you know what the answer is. If it’s inconsistent with that, you know what that answer is, and we need to come up with another solution is consistent with the mission statement. So the mission statement is the first thing in my mind to guide the direction of the of the enterprise.

[0:17:50 Speaker 2] Well, it’s the it’s the anchor. It’s the keystone.

[0:17:52 Speaker 0] Yes, it a lot of it.

[0:17:54 Speaker 2] Did you find One of the things when you talk to our students is when we’re talking about evidence. Because evidence is really important. Evidence based decision making. How you collect data, how you use data, how you tell someone the data isn’t good. What the assumptions air All of that. Have you found a willing audience toe? Listen to that. Because you are students there in this arena now, where it’s well, don’t believe that. Or don’t believe that our people shop toe what they want to believe in. Uh, so when you have something that’s evidence based and especially with this the divert court and what you did there, do you find that people accept that? Oh, are you have to do extra work to try to convince them that what this data really means

[0:18:34 Speaker 0] depends on the person. If somebody’s philosophically opposed to what you’re doing, yes, they will come up in their minds with a reason to not believe it. For example, we had a county commissioner at the time who, um, this is hard to express it. It’s kind of shocking. We were going to the commissioner scored giving him periodic updates on these studies, and he

[0:18:58 Speaker 2] studies for the divert.

[0:18:59 Speaker 0] Creative? Yes. And so that the kids who were doing the students who would do in the recidivism study went to kind of given update. And he just attacked them And the students? Yes, and he and another one just attack them. And, um, I felt so sorry for them because when they left and went and aside home where they just burst into tears and you know that it’s OK, so that

[0:19:27 Speaker 2] was he questioning their methodology or are just so the reason they did it? Or do you remember what they see At

[0:19:35 Speaker 0] some nonsense? I don’t remember. Yeah, just nonsense. In fact, that I think I told him You just you know what? We need to go and cut it short. Yeah. Got you know, there’s no need and and us doing this because this is not productive. And even though they were county commissioners and I was a state district judge, I had no problem in cutting them off. Um, in fact, one of them got to the point. Why wouldn’t even answer his questions? He would ask me a question and I just wouldn’t say anything. And

[0:20:04 Speaker 2] finally, one of

[0:20:05 Speaker 0] the one of the others next to him said He’s not gonna answer your question and had to get him off of it because there was just nonsense. I mean, they weren’t they weren’t designed to to, to illicit something useful. It was an attack, and the tone and the questions were attacks and and I wasn’t the only one he treated that way, treated most people that way. So the whole audience understood what was going on. Those

[0:20:32 Speaker 2] are people that are students are going to have to work at the media that really well, maybe not, but not him. But I’m thinking in the policy arena, when you’re thinking about your you’re having evidence, you’ve done work, you’ve got an option and a way to approach a problem. There’s going to be those who right away are willing to talk to them. There’s gonna be those in the middle kind of waiting to see what you have to say.

[0:20:53 Speaker 0] A lot of those

[0:20:54 Speaker 2] and then there’s gonna be those who will never listen to you. And so those are the things of how we approach those different.

[0:21:00 Speaker 0] Well, let me tell you about one of those who will never Listen. So one of those Attackers that day retired and became a state rep, and I was in a meeting in the legislature back then. I was here all the time in Austin when we were trying to figure out how not to build those 17,000 prisons and prison beds. And, um, we were in a meeting and he spoke up and I was like, This didn’t gonna you go well And he started by saying, You know, I was very skeptical about all this in the beginning and I said some things that, uh, showed it. He said, But I thought about it. I’ve looked at it and, uh, John and I want to tell everybody here that what he’s done is good work, and it’s what we need to continue to do. And hey, may have even I don’t He may have said I apologize or something, but the bottom line was, it was a 180 degree turn for him. And so he started off in extreme sceptic infection. He would describe himself, is the most conservative person on, you know, in the United States, And, um so, you know, he would accuse us of cherry picking, Uh, so we could create success. I said No, it’s based on a clinical assessment and Onley those who need clinical intervention or put into the program. If you if you if you walking around with your cousins jacket that you just put on and it’s got drugs in it, you don’t know that there. You can’t get into this program because you don’t need treatment. And so you know this is a drug treatment court with the emphasis on treatment has said. And if you think that we’re cherry picking and thes people are easy, why don’t you just come spend some time with us and go through the staff ings and come to court and see that we sometimes have to sanction people and we have to do various and sundry things. We have to take them out of outpatient and put them into inpatient because that was inadequate. And so it’s not cherry picking. But you know, at that point in time, that’s all he wanted to believe was that we were somehow some, you know, liberal bunch of knuckleheads coming around, trying to fool everybody just so we could get money to continue doing something, but he changed.

[0:23:22 Speaker 2] We’ll dance it. I mean, that’s a good story. Yes, a good outcome. Because sometimes when you’re talking to people, you really don’t know how they’re taking that information and storing it on whether it will come out again. So the fact is just having the faith that if you can talk to some people and talk to people objectively using objective things that eventually some may never get it. But eventually some here, other stories like this and reinforces that. So that’s this a really good outcome. The

[0:23:47 Speaker 0] story about him,

[0:23:49 Speaker 2] it ISS. And I was just going to say that to that. You have somebody who recognises that. Wow. You know, maybe I wasn’t totally right on this, and I need to think about it. So I think fundamentally, we have to have faith that this is the type of thing that works. Um, we could talk for a long time, but I kept it. Really Want one? Why did you go into law? Why did you choose law? That’s a good question. You stayed in it. So you been persistent. You been in the legal arena. First you is a young man. Why did you decide? This is what I want to do. You

[0:24:21 Speaker 0] know, I really don’t remember. My mother tells me that I went to a court with a friend who was a lawyer and saw what was going on and somehow, like, did I thought I liked it. Um, you know, I don’t mean to to speak down about the philosophy degree, but when you get a degree in philosophy, there’s not a whole lot you can’t with that. So I want up in law school. But I always had this idea that I wanted to go, but I can’t. It’s been so long. 1,000,000

[0:24:48 Speaker 2] have

[0:24:48 Speaker 0] been licensed almost 33 years, so

[0:24:50 Speaker 2] that you have you stayed in it through

[0:24:53 Speaker 0] almost 37 years.

[0:24:55 Speaker 2] You’ve been in all the different levels that you could be the high level now in the district attorney. So staying in the law and having faith in the rule of law part of

[0:25:05 Speaker 0] yeah, The other thing that helps is ah, with successful as a prosecutor. I mean, in less than seven years, I was a supervisor and trying death penalty cases, and that didn’t happen back in that era. And then I was for 18 months. A criminal defense lawyer and I did fairly well at that for short. You know, you can’t really get things going in 18 months. But then I became a judge, and then, with all the programs and the changed Mount interchange about how to look at the law and how to look at outcomes and understand outcomes, you know, we’re

[0:25:39 Speaker 2] not taught

[0:25:39 Speaker 0] that you’re not taught that in law school, and you know, not that as a judge. But I did get it through the drug court trainings, and then I became a trainer.

[0:25:48 Speaker 2] I saw there, too. They’re trying to take your experiences in your knowledge, next, producing, putting him in different settings, yes, and

[0:25:54 Speaker 0] so it helped me. And when I had to work with different groups of individuals from different parts of the country, I learned a lot, so you would have seven or eight people brought in who were going to be the drug court team. And if you think that all of them are on board, that’s rarely the case. It could be the defense attorney who’s not on board. It could be the treatment provider who’s not on board or a lot of times the judge, because who’s gonna Nobody’s telling me what to do and what this is a collaborative effort. We’re going to get assessments, and we expect you to read the assessment and make a decision. Um, so there were You know, I was successful at that and had success at it and then

[0:26:39 Speaker 2] and made differences, and they had to see that the outcomes were

[0:26:42 Speaker 0] good. Eso I remember when I brought the studies to Peak Diego’s in Austin in early two thousands, and the reason that I went to Pete was because somebody says he’s a mover and a shaker and he worked on both sides and he’s the guy to talk to. So I remember, you know, caught him and, you know, got his attention. I said, I’m John Chorizo in a district judge in Dallas and we have this program and we have these outcomes. I had to executive summaries, and so he kind of looked at him and and he said,

[0:27:14 Speaker 2] Tell me that again. And

[0:27:15 Speaker 0] I said, Well, with 68% reduction and re splittism and the cost benefit analysis and hey cases and tell

[0:27:23 Speaker 2] me your name again, I said

[0:27:25 Speaker 0] I’m John Chorizo and you’re a

[0:27:26 Speaker 2] district judge in Dallas and I don’t know

[0:27:29 Speaker 0] you said Nana that but how

[0:27:31 Speaker 2] did you

[0:27:31 Speaker 0] mean? So I told him whatever it was why I picked him and, um, he’s he’s like, Come with me. And so he’s taking me around the inner corridors of the Capitol and and said,

[0:27:45 Speaker 2] Hey, so and so come here, want you

[0:27:46 Speaker 0] to meet this judge from Dallas and he’s got this program and he starts talking about the numbers and said,

[0:27:51 Speaker 2] We need

[0:27:51 Speaker 0] to look into this.

[0:27:52 Speaker 2] He becomes your lobbyist Well, and so we did

[0:27:55 Speaker 0] this five or six times and and so we stop somewhere and he says, Um, let me tell you what I’m doing he says, Um, I’m trying to explain to people, and we’ll go into this. I’ll study this and have this staff study. That’s a more detail, he said. But we’ve never had a judge come toe Austin and want to talk about something other than a pay raise or increasing benefits. And you’ve come here to talk about something that reduces crime and saves money, and nobody’s ever done that, and especially not with these numbers. This is amazing. And so if you’ve got that going, we we need to do this. So even within the state of Texas, you know, I became kind of famous and we came down and, um, I was on the Judicial Advisory Council for the Board of Criminal Justice. And so at that time, Benita White was the director. She’s retired and she was very proactive and having us. I say us, Ah, handful of judges go before the Legislature and explain what we need it to reduce prison population to not build those 17,000 beds. And so you develop that, too. And then I was teaching around the United States. And then and then we developed this this this whole module teaching module for evidence based sentencing practices for judges. And so we did that. We did it in Texas. We did it in other states, and but it then it got to be 22 years in, and and I’m like, OK, I can run again. I can. I’ll be elected. I won’t have an opponent, But it’s time to move on and let somebody else do the Oh, yeah, I don’t I don’t You know, um, you know I wouldn’t mind term limits for judges, and, um, I think term limits might be a good thing. I’m not saying that it has to be a short period of time, but at some point in time, we need new blood and our public policy positions. And, um And so anyway, I believe that about myself. And the other thing was, I had a son who was in high school than and, um, you know, it’s pay for college. Then it’s hard to pay for college when your divorce, you lose money and then also trying to pay for college on that salary because I wanted him to be able to go to the best school, he could get in wherever that was. And so I decided that it was time to move on, and I went into private practice for six years. And so my private practice, um, was successful also because I I treated my clients the same way I treated anybody else. And so the vast majority of my clients, um, had a full psychological assessment. They had a risk assessment, had needs assessment, and whatever the recommendations were, we follow them and we put them in there. And so in Tech in Dallas, a lot of the drug cases there’s a big lag between arrest and the testing, and it’s going to the grand jury. So what I did was I took advantage of that. Lag that several my flag to get this done, get the assessments done, put him into treatment.

[0:31:16 Speaker 2] So by the time they got to that grand jury, yeah,

[0:31:20 Speaker 0] I had somebody who had completed treatment and that right

[0:31:23 Speaker 2] there on the roll, nice

[0:31:24 Speaker 0] letter to the grand jury saying, Look, mission accomplished. We don’t need the criminal justice system to accomplish the goal and they’d be no build. So I got a reputation for doing that. And then I got hired on four murder cases. I got all of them. They’ll build. So there were a lot of different cases that I was able to keep from going to court. And so D magazine does the best lawyer thing. Every

[0:31:49 Speaker 2] I saw that, Yes, I have,

[0:31:50 Speaker 0] like, four years in a row, and so that helps. And so it really helped me because I didn’t have to do court appointments and so I didn’t have to be beholden to the judges or the prosecutors and didn’t get mixed up in all that mess that goes on down there with that. And I was able to not have a slew of clients where you’ve just running all over the place and having to compromise your time in your abilities and really focus on what was needed for the case and investigate the case properly, etcetera. So I was really a one man show. I mean, it was my computer in May, and, um, it was a digital practice. I didn’t have files I did at first. And then I got away from that and I could take my phone to the courthouse. And if somebody asked me a question about a case of needed a document, I could open up Dropbox or I could open up my mail and attach it from Dropbox and send it to them. And so it was quite easy for me to practice law in that way. And then I just decided that looking at the district attorney’s office and the State of criminal justice in the state of Texas, that, um, I wanted to make a change. And the only way to do that at the next level was to be the district attorney of Dallas County. And so that Syria last my motivation. And here I am today.

[0:33:10 Speaker 2] Well, I think Dallas counties and store for a really interesting the next few years. And they have a They have a great no, you know, you’re just Ah, very thoughtful. Ah, very accomplished individual and trying to take those accomplishments and take him to the next level. So I really appreciate you taking time to share your experience, your thoughts, your ambitions with us. And I hope you come back any time when you’re here. Teoh, come visit us. Thank you so much.

[0:33:43 Speaker 1] You’re welcome. Thistles. Policy on Purpose, A podcast produced by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. We take you behind the scenes of policy with the people who help shape it. To learn more, visit LBJ dot utexas dot edu and follow us on Twitter or Facebook at the LBJ School. Thank you for