Biography

Name: Kenneth R. (Kenn) Carr

Age: 66

Occupation: Justice, 8th Court of Appeals

Website: www.keepjusticecarr.com

Residence: West Side

Relevant Experience:  Incumbent Justice; 41 years’ law practice. Honors graduate, Rice University. University of Texas Law School; editor, Texas Law Review. 5th highest score among 521 applicants on 1966 Texas Bar Exam. Successfully argued case before US Supreme Court at age 32.  Listed in Best Lawyers in America annually since 1989. Named “Texas Super Lawyer” by Texas Monthly Magazine annually since inception of award. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law since 1975. Note:  Labor/employment law is rapidly growing and highly specialized; of the 98 appellate judges in Texas, I am the only one who is Board Certified in that field.

1.      

When I joined the Eighth Court of Appeals in 2006, it was well respected, both locally and by appellate attorneys across Texas. I hope and believe that my efforts have helped the court to continue to enjoy that reputation. To retain that respect, my colleagues’ and my collective goals must be to strive to continue to prepare prompt, well-reasoned, and well-written opinions on the cases that come before us.

2.      

Our Court plays a crucial – and not generally well-understood – role in affecting the development of law throughout Texas. In each case that comes before us, my colleagues and I are obligated to study the case, decide it, and then write an opinion explaining how and why we have reached our conclusion. Those written opinions then become legal precedent, not just for El Paso, but also throughout the State of Texas. Conversely, trial court decisions have no precedential effect in Texas; a trial judge’s order is important to the parties directly before him or her, but it does not generally affect anyone else.

3.      

I respectfully disagree with your premise. During the seven years immediately before I joined the court, the Supreme Court had reversed only 1 percent of the El Paso Court of Appeals decisions, a rate which I would not describe as “often.” As of the date I prepared this response, the Supreme Court has not reversed a single decision in which I have participated.

4.      

No, there is no justification for adding a fourth justice at this time. In 2005, the legislature reduced our court’s jurisdiction from 22 counties to 17. The loss of Midland, Ector (Odessa), and three other counties reduced our population base by 28 percent, so the loss of one justice (25 percent) was appropriate. Chief Justice Chew, Justice McClure, and I are able to keep up with our workload. The addition of a fourth justice to our court at this time would be an unwarranted expense to the taxpayers.

5.    

Thanks to the growth of institutions such as El Paso’s excellent Public Defender’s Office and the El Paso Plan, indigent defendants have far better access to justice today than they did, even a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is, and will continue to be, room for improvement. When appropriate, our court can and does return cases to the trial court for the appointment of counsel, but this is primarily a function of the trial judges. Ironically, our court cannot, however, address the public defender’s biggest need, which is more money, so that she may, among other things, hire more attorneys, conduct more investigations and consult and retain expert witnesses.