Michelle Slaughter

Notable Cases:

• Avalos v. State (2021) Signed Yeary's majority opinion. Held that the Fourth Court of Appeals was incorrect to extend Miller, which prohibits automatic life without parole imprisonment for juvenile offenders, to apply to offenders with intellectual disabilities (2-3). Held that mandatory life without parole was a constitutionally acceptable punishment because intellectually disabled offenders do not share all of the same qualities as juvenile offenders (e.g. mitigating qualities are not "transient" as in the case of juveniles) (4). Atkins and Roper both conducted proportionality review (9). Noted that Millers was distinct from Atkins, Roper, and Graham because in Miller the Court did not address the claim that a certain punishment was categorically banned and its Eight Amendment analysis was different (14-15). Cited the Illinois Supreme Court regarding why the transience of mitigating factors was relevant, which argued that "the rehabilitative prospects of youth do not factor into the sentencing calculus..." for the intellectually disabled (19). Held that because the mitigating factors were not transient, the individual represented a continuing threat to society (19).

• Ex Parte Jordan Bartlett Jones (2021) Signed per curiam majority opinion. Held that third parties sharing revenge porn are only subject to Section 21.16(b) when the third party 1) shared the material under circumstances where the subject had a reasonable expectation it would remain private 2) knew there was a substantial or unjustifiable risk he did not have consent to share it 3) knowingly or recklessly identified the depicted person and caused the person harm through the disclosure (1-2). Held that the statute did not violate the First Amendment, properly construed (2). Held that review should be limited only to the offense charged (8). Held that Section 21.16(b) is a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to and satisfies strict scrutiny (11). Reasoned the restriction was content-based because it was limited to sexual media (14). Held that privacy was a compelling interest and the unauthoritzed disclosure of sexual media was a violation of privacy (17-18). Held that the law employed the least restrictive means test by narrowing the scope of the law multiple times throughout the text (31-32). Held that Section 21.16(b) was not overbroad (37). 
  
• State v. Stephens (2021) Signed McClure's majority opinion. Held that Texas Election Code section 273.021 delegated a power properly held by the judicial branch to the Attorney General (AG) and was therefore unconstitutional (1-2). Cited precedent that the AG never had the authority to institute a criminal prosecution (5). Cited that the court had traditionally found a difference in powers between district attorneys and the Attorney General (8). Held that the court of appeals misconstrued the constitutional language empowering the AG to "perform such other duties as may be required by law," since ejusdem generis is limited to things of the same kind, and prosecution was not one of the powers granted to the AG (11-12). Argued that reading "other duties" sections so broadly greatly harms the separation of powers (13). Noted that prosecuting violations of election law was also not "required" as the constitution said, as the plain text said that the AG "may" prosecute violations (16). Held that the TX Const required county and district attorney consent (17).
• Watkins v. State (2021) Signed Newell's majority opinion. Held that documents showing evidence of prior convictions in a criminal prosecution were "material" to the case for the sake of discovery and ought to have been turned over by the prosecution (3). Held that evidence is "material" if it bears “some logical connection to a consequential fact" (3). Found that under Article 39.14(h) the State had a duty to provide any "relevant" evidence that would tend to negate guilt or mitigate punishment (22). Held that the meaning of “material” was plain, unambiguous, and synonymous with “relevant” when considered in context (24). Held that the court lacked clear precedent on this issue (31). Held that, even if "material's" meaning were ambiguous, legislative history did not support any clear meaning (47-48).
• Sims v. State (2019) Signed Hervey's unanimous opinion. Held that supression of evidence was not an available remedy under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) unless the violation also violated the United States Constitution, and that it was not a remedy under Article 18.21 unless the US or TX Constitutions were infringed upon (3). Held that the defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the real-time location stored on his phone (3). Case involved a suspect who was found by pinging his cell phone, which he argued violated his Fourth Amendment rights (4). Noted that the SCA and Article 18.21 contain exclusivity provisions that are only waived in areas of conflict with federal/state constitutions (10). Rejected appellant's argument that the provisions were ambiguous, holding instead that the law did not need to be so specific as to exclude individual state and federal remedies (10-11). Held that the SCA and Article 18.21 were compatible with Article 38.23(a) by applying the “general versus the specific” canon (12). Held that the specific SCA and Article 18.21 prevailed over the general Article 38.23(a) (12-13). Held that SCOTUS' Carpenter precedent applied to both CSLI and real-time location information, and in such situations the precedents of Smith and Knotts were discredited (18-19). Held that whether a government had undertaken a search/seizure turned on whether the amount of information that was seized violated a reasonable expectation of privacy (19). Held that Carpenter indicated there was no bright line for when such an expectation was violated, and therefore it was determined case-by-case (19). Held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in law enforcement pinging his phone fewer than 5 times (20).
  

Judge Michelle Slaughter is running for the Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 8.  Judge Slaughter is married to Ed Walsh and the couple share two children. The Slaughter family attends church at CityMark Church in League City, Texas. 

Employment: 

• Elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2018.  
  • “With more that 4.7 million votes, she received more votes than any Republican on the ballot IN THE NATION for the November 2018 general election!” 

Education: 

• Received J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center 
• Elected to the 405th District Court (Galveston County) in 2013. 

Judicial Philosophy

• “Judge Slaughter is a Constitutional Conservative and Originalist”
  • “Judge Michelle Slaughter is a constitutional conservative judge and an originalist – much like Justice Clarence Thomas. Judge Slaughter believes in applying a strict interpretation of the law as it was intended on the date it was enacted.” 
  • “No need to take her word for it, you can see it yourself in her published opinions. One such example is her [73-page side] opinion on rehearing in State v. Stephens, 664 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), where Judge Slaughter illustrated her originalist position on the meaning of Texas Constitutional provisions by relying on Texas history starting with going back to when Texas as a was still part of Mexico.
    • See also "Judge Slaughter's Originalist Position Explained" 
      • Slaughter wrote, “As an uncompromising constitutional conservative and originalist, I joined that opinion because the Texas Constitution: has an express separation of powers provision;  places the Attorney General in the Executive Dept. and the District Attorneys in the Judicial Branch; does not give any criminal law authority to the AG; provides that the District and County Attorneys 'shall represent the State in all cases in the' trial courts, thereby giving DAs and county attorneys the exclusive authority to prosecute criminal cases.” 
• Judge Slaughter always strictly follows the law and carefully considers the facts of each case, her opinions have included:
  
  • "Protecting and defending an interpretation and application of our Texas Constitution the way the 1876 ratifying voters intended"
    
  • "Protecting and defending the statute that allows law-abiding citizens the right to openly carry a firearm"
  • "Protecting and defending innocent unborn lives"

•  "Judge Slaughter's Conservative Values in Action"
  • “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.”  II Chronicles 19:6-7.
  • "On the bench, Judge Slaughter has displayed her conservative values. She is an unapologetic Constitutional Conservative and Originalist, protecting and defending a strict and original interpretation of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. She has never and will never be an activist or legislate from the bench."

TXJudges.com candidate comparison.