Perez Conflict Issue Goes to CA Office

Sources at the County indicate that in a meeting of the Council of Judges yesterday the judges decided to ask County Attorney Joanne Bernal for a legal opinion regarding fill-in magistrate Judge Alyssa Perez.

At issue is whether there is a conflict for Perez to serve as a magistrate, represent law enforcement personnel as the staff attorney for CLEAT, and take appointments as council to indigent defendants.

The sources also indicate that Perez will not be assigned until the issue is resolved with the County Attorney's office.

The sources were unclear whether that means that Perez won't be a magistrate or represent defendants as a court-appointed attorney until such time as the County Attorney has rendered a decision.

However another source familiar with the situation says, "The issue will likely mean they err on the side of caution in situations like this and its likely that Perez will not be able to fulfill either role until the County Attorney comes back with a legal opinion."

I questioned a potential conflict based on something Perez said at the Eastside Democrats endorsement meeting. In the video below, which is an excerpt from her comments that day, she mentions being in private practice and being an attorney for law enforcement.



Some county officials have expressed concerns over potential lawsuits against the County of El Paso, in which case the County Attorney's Office would have to defend the County, so I'm not certain if they also are asking the Attorney General's Office for an opinion as well, which would make sense.

What I'm not understanding is why a room full of judges with all kinds of legal specialities of the law is asking for a legal opinion for in the first place. They are elected to interpret the law in the first place, so I can't for the life of me understand why they aren't addressing and ruling whether or not their is a conflict, or appearance of a conflict that might undermine confidence in the system, of a lawyer who represents law enforcement also representing defendants.

It defies logic that they aren't addressing that issue.

To bring you up to speed, here is the question at hand. Alyssa Perez who is a candidate for a judicial seat that is being vacated by her uncle who waited until the very last minute to not file for reelection in what looks like an attempt to bequeath his seat to his niece, represents law enforcement as the attorney for CLEAT.

She apparently is also on "the wheel" at the court house to take appointments to represent indigent clients. And she serves as a part time magistrate, which is why she includes the word "Judge" on her campaign materials. But hey, if you work part time at Subway, I guess technically you are a "sandwich artist".

A magistrate can sign warrants, admonish people who are arrested, and set bail for them. So she's sometimes a magistrate, always represents law enforcement, and is assigned cases to defend people who cannot afford an attorney.

See how that works? Now to you, me, and voters who are not lawyers, that obviously doesn't seem fair to the defendant when the lawyer assigned to defend you, also represents the law enforcement agency that investigated you, sought and obtained a warrant for your arrest, and arrested you.

So in the same month, Perez is cashing in a check from the tax payers for being a part-time fill-in judge, and a check from the tax payers for defending someone who can't afford an attorney.

The big problem isn't just the fact that she represents The Fuzz and the defendants, which seriously, who is that fair, but there is a big fat whole in policy.

Real jail magistrates aren't allowed to be appointed to cases. Judicial appointments used to be a real racket too until recent reforms. There was a real problem with a certain class of lawyers being assigned the lion's share of the cases of indigent defense. It was problematic for poor defendants because there were some pretty egregious incidents of clients meeting a lawyer once for a few minutes and taking a plea just so they could get out of jail and back to work.

Anywho, real jail magistrates can't take those cases. So if it is recognized that the real jail magistrates can't take those cases, why is it okay for the fill-ins to do so?

The policy fix for that seems simple, either don't be a fill-in magistrate, or don't be on the wheel to take cases.

So for someone like Ruben Nuñez, who is also a candidate for a judicial seat and a part-time magistrate, this could potentially impact him as well. He's facing Ruth Reyes who is running for one of the County Court at Law seats.

But for Alyssa Perez, the bigger issue is representing law enforcement and the indigent accused of a crime at the same time.