Candidates for District Judge Wrangle Over Legal Prowess

Last night, two local attorneys wrangled over their legal experience and how each is uniquely qualified to take the reins as the judge of a state district court in Tom Green County.

The race for 341^st District Judge is between attorneys Brad Goodwin and Carmen Dusek. Both presented their cases to the San Angelo Tea Party’s bi-monthly meeting last night. The event was billed as a candidates’ forum.

Dusek began her presentation apologizing to Goodwin for the campaign sign flap on Monday. “Some of you may have seen a news story that said I am accusing my opponent of breaking campaign laws,” she said. 

San Angelo LIVE! wrote a story that attributed allegations regarding the size of the letters spelling the word “for” on opponent Brad Goodwin’s signs as not being in compliance with state law. Dusek said the information for the story originated from her ad agency and that she had not authorized it. Turning to the Goodwin family, she said, “I want to publicly take the opportunity to share with all three of you that this is not my style.”

Dusek, a San Angelo Central High graduate and Texas Tech alumnus, described her résumé. She has 20 years of experience representing individuals throughout west and central Texas, focusing primarily on civil and family law, but also has experience in juvenile and criminal cases.

“What this gives me is an understanding of how our courts function, and the challenges facing our courts,” she said. Quoting the late Judge Curt Steib, senior judge of the district courts in the county, Dusek said, “The wheels of justice are often like a sewer plant. It’s important to keep it running along smoothly, because when it backs up, it’s all bad. When courts don’t work efficiently, families have delays in custody decisions. Businesses cannot make decisions because of a lawsuit pending, or jail gets overcrowded.” 

Dusek was about to describe how she’d keep the court running efficiently, but her time ran out and was interrupted by the moderator before she could finish.

Brad Goodwin began his presentation by stressing his roots in San Angelo.

“I grew up in San Angelo,” he said. “I’m running to be your judge of your 391^st District Court, and I say it’s yours because it doesn’t belong to (outgoing) Judge (Tom) Gossett. It belongs to all of us.”

Goodwin then led a spirited rundown of what the 341^st District Court does. He said that the court hears two types of cases, criminal and civil.

Goodwin said that his experience as a felony prosecutor in El Paso makes him qualified to sit as a judge on those types of cases.

“I prosecuted murderers, drug dealers, [and] drive-by shooters. The worst that El Paso had on both sides of the border,” he said. Goodwin also said he handled over 1,000 criminal cases in El Paso. He stressed his experience is exactly what it takes to be a criminal district judge the 391^st needs. He stressed the word criminal, perhaps as a poke at his opponent's less experience in prosecuting criminal cases compared to his.

“I am the only candidate with felony criminal trial experience,” he said.

A subset of the 391^st docket is all of the juvenile cases in the region, Goodwin said.

“These are not juvenile victims, such as CPS cases,” he added. “This court hears juvenile offender cases,” which was another subtle reference to his opponent who has gained notoriety representing children in CPS cases where the child is the victim, not the offender. 

Goodwin served as Division Chief of the Juvenile and Gang Prosecution Unit for the Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney’s Office. “I am the only candidate with experience prosecuting juvenile offenders, such as murderers,” he said.

Goodwin then turned to his civil experience when he worked as an attorney in Dallas. He defended commercial businesses against civil lawsuits, arguing cases in many courts across the state.

The candidate returned to San Angelo in 2004 to go into business with his father, Ronnie, at Goodwin and Goodwin. His father retired in 2009, and Goodwin’s firm is now Goodwin and Scott.

In a series of questions and answers, the judge candidates disagreed on the most impactful caseloads the 391^st hears, each pointing towards the 391^st’s challenges and how they match their experience. For example, Goodwin, who laid out his résumé as having more depth of criminal cases than his opponent, stressed that every jury trial that the 391^st has heard since 2010 has been a felony criminal jury trial.

Dusek countered.

“That may be the number on jury trials, but this court hears on a regular basis divorces, child custody cases, and civil cases," she stated. "It is extraordinarily rare in Tom Green County to have a family law matter go to a jury trial. It’s not palatable, and citizens don’t want to sit on those juries and make those decisions; and families don’t really want to leave those decisions in the hands of 12 people who bring their own experiences. If you go to our courthouse on any given day, any week, and you will find people sitting on the benches, waiting under subpoena and anguishing about having to go testify about where their grandchild should live, about who should have custody of the baby, about whether or not a restraining order ought to be put in place. It’s the judges, not a jury, who make those types of decisions. That’s why experience in the family law docket is so significant. That’s because those are decisions that impact the lives of individuals for the next 10, 20, or 30 years.

Dusek added that this court also hears civil cases, and quite frankly, those cases fail to go to jury trial in Tom Green County.

“My opponent is right," she said. "Jury trials are predominantly criminal. Civil cases involve judges making decisions (on lawsuits), and (outgoing 391^st) Judge (Tom) Gossett has heard a lot of them over the last several years, because I’ve argued a lot of them (as an attorney representing a client). Just because Joe Hyde and San Angelo LIVE! cover all of the criminal cases, but no one comes to court to cover the civil trials and family law cases, does not mean those cases aren’t going on every day; and [that] doesn’t mean they are not on the docket.”

We asked each attorney what their current experience is in the legal field and how does it prepare each to be the 391^st District Judge? The candidates narrowed the timeframe down to the last 10 years.

Dusek went first.

“What I’ve done over the last decade is represent clients who get sued," she answered. "I represent people who get dragged into court by personal injury lawyers. I represent businesses in that same situation. I also represent families. I represent children. Some people may misunderstand and think I only represent children on the Child Protective Services docket. That’s not right. Our judges trust me to step in and give a best interest decision and judgment to the courts in child custody cases that are private matters." 

For example, Dusek said she is involved in helping the courts make decisions over child custody in repeat divorce cases where, every 15 months or so, a couple will return to court to fight over custody and child support. “I work on those cases,” she said.

In Mason, Dusek said she has recently worked as an entry-level prosecutor part time for the 452^nd District Attorney Tonya Ahlschwede. There, she said she is working on asset seizure cases and has tried a felony drug case within the last couple of months. She said she was supposed to try another drug case today, but legal maneuvers by the defendant’s attorney delayed the trial.

“In the last 10 years, I have also represented quite a few kids who were on the CPS docket,” she said. Her CPS experience includes cases in Houston, Brownwood and San Angelo, including the 391^st District Court.

Goodwin responded by reading off a long list of the types of people and businesses he has represented over the past 10 years. His list included ranchers, farmers, landowners, hospital doctors, heath care workers, financial institutions, real estate professionals, small and large businesses, judges, pastors and churches.

“I’ve represented the very fabric of what makes up Tom Green County,” he said. “And whether that’s in a boardroom, or in a courtroom, I’ve done that continuously,” he said. Goodwin also mentioned his success as a mediator. “I have a broad range of experience, and this was just a small part of what I do.”

The debate between the candidates was about what the 391^st District Court actually does and how each candidate is positioning their experience to match their description of the court’s primary duties. Goodwin stresses criminal cases because he has more experience in prosecuting criminals, and those cases have more impact to public safety. Dusek points out the other everyday tasks of the court stressing in particular how most of the cases presented to the court are decided by the judge, not a jury. She argues that her breadth of experience is more suited to a courtroom where the main challenge is running the cases through court efficiently without getting backed-up.

Photo: Candidate for district judge Carmen Dusek tries to get the flap over campaign signs behind her. (LIVE! Photo/Joe Hyde)