Jesse McClure III

Judge Jesse McClure has served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals since being appointed by Governor Greg Abbott in 2020. Before that, he served as a judge on the 339th District Court in Harris County, Texas and as a special prosecutor for the Texas Department of Insurance for over 7 years.

From His Campaign Website:

• When appointing him in 2020, Governor Abbott said, "He’s a top legal mind who applies the rule of law."
• Judge McClure concluded a letter to voters that, "My duty in each and every case is to ensure the law is followed and justice is done in accordance with the Texas Constitution. On the Court of Criminal Appeals, I have an opportunity to serve the great State of Texas and our justice system with the dedication, real-world experience, perspective on the law, and kind of work ethic that Texans deserve."

Notable Cases:

• Watkins v. State (2021): Signed Judge 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).

• State v. Stephens (2021): Wrote 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).

• 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 unauthorized 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).

• Ex parte Charles Barton (2022): Dissented without opinion from a decision in which the majority said that a statute prohibiting electronic harassment was constitutional because it regulated conduct and not speech. The other dissent argued that the statute was plainly focused on speech and was overbroad because it criminalize speech protected under the First Amendment.

Info from Other Sources:

• Posted on Facebook, "Pleased to vote today for at least one judge who strives to follow the U.S. and Texas constitutions no matter what... Votejudgejesse.com"
• Posted on Facebook, "A great evening, a great speech by the First Lady of Texas, and a timely reminder that we must pass our faith on to our children..."