Jessica Caird was kind enough to sit down and discuss her race for the First Court of
Appeals, Place 5. Caird currently serves as the Chief of the Harris County District
Attorney’s Office Appellate Division, where she oversees both criminal and civil
appellate matters.
Why Run
Caird explained that she is running because the Court of Appeals issues the decisions
that shape the law, and she believes “we can do better.” Her answer carried a
philosophical tone, emphasizing that the court should be “effective, efficient, and
accurate.” She also reflected that “justice isn’t the same to everyone,” but that the
appellate process brings closure—and that improving the Court’s efficiency helps
litigants find closure more quickly.
The Role of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals serves as the front-line appellate court reviewing decision from
the trial courts. As we have seen nationally in recent years, Courts of Appeals wield
significant power to constrain judicial activism at the trial-court level.
These courts are also, with few exceptions, the main avenue of relief for criminal
defendants. Any defendant convicted at trial has a right to appeal and seek remedy
before the Court of Appeals. Depending on the outcome of the upcoming Constitutional
Amendment election in November, the Court may also face an increasing caseload
involving bail and bond disputes.
Bail and Bond Issues
Caird said the Court of Appeals should treat bond issues as a check-and-balance
function and utilize a de novo review process. She noted that crime victims currently
have no direct means to challenge bond decisions that affect them, making it all the
more important for the state to be able to petition for redress.
Judicial Oversight and Reversal Standards
When asked about the Court’s role in regulating judicial behavior, Caird pointed to the
availability of both writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition as tools to ensure
compliance with the law. In simple terms, a writ of mandamus compels a trial court to
act, while a writ of prohibition forbids it from acting. Both are mechanisms the appellate
courts can employ to ensure trial judges remain within legal bounds.
In terms of when the appellate court should render or remand, Caird explained
that rendered judgments should be rare, but necessary to make the judgment
speak the truth of what occurred at the trial level. For example, when legally
insufficient evidence supported the verdict, the appellate court has no choice but
to render a judgment in favor of the defendant, whether that is an acquittal in a
criminal case or, in a civil case, a judgment rendered for the defendant due to the
lack of evidence provided to support the plaintiff’s claim. The appellate court
remands, on the other hand, when something must be done or redone at the trial
court level, such as a retrial. This is by far more common but should be done only
when the record and the law require it.
Why Choose You?
“I am asking the voters to choose me because my level of experience means I will hit the ground
running on day one ready to see justice done effectively, efficiently, and accurately on every case.”
Turning to what makes her the best candidate for the position, Caird noted that
the Harris County District Attorney’s Office Appellate Division handles both civil
and criminal matters, providing her with broad and balanced experience across
multiple areas of law. Caird personally wrote over 440 briefs for the appellate
courts on civil and criminal matters and continues to write for the appellate
courts. She has presented oral arguments before the local appellate courts 30
times, and argued 4 times before the Court of Criminal Appeals. She has an
affirmance rate of approximately 97 percent, showing her ability to effectively
understand and apply to the law to the facts. She has written briefs for the United
States Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court of Criminal
Appeals. Lastly, she has spent 22 years specializing in juvenile law having acted
as a chief in Harris County juvenile courts for over 3 years, having handled
numerous juvenile appeals, and she continues to study and speak statewide on
juvenile law.
Campaign Approach
When asked about her path to victory, Caird said her focus is on meeting as many
voters as possible across the ten counties within the Court’s jurisdiction. She has
already visited nine of the ten counties and plans to continue attending Republican
events to share her message. Republicans are “all about seeing justice done,” she
said, noting that this is a ten-county race and that issues such as crime have spread
beyond Harris County into surrounding communities.
Civility and Public Discourse
As with other interviews this cycle, I asked about civility and public discourse. Between
the assassination attempts on President Trump and the successful assassination of
Charlie Kirk, it seems that society has reached a tipping point where some now view
political violence as acceptable.
This has broader political ramifications. Primaries tend to amplify the most extreme
voices in each party, making it harder for candidates to return to the center in the
general election. While judicial races are typically less partisan, the issue of tone and
civility still matters.
Caird believes that confronting inflammatory rhetoric should begin in the primaries but
that corrective conversations are often more productive when handled privately rather
than publicly. She observed that, as a society, “we need to meet people where they are”
and then “work toward common ground.”
Closing Thoughts
Caird’s responses blended technical precision with philosophical reflection,
demonstrating a broad foundation for serving effectively on the Court. Individual justices
may hold differing judicial philosophies, but the law benefits when decisions are clear
and provide unambiguous guidance to the attorneys who must follow them. Caird
appears well-suited to engage from both a technical and philosophical standpoint,
helping to craft consensus opinions that reduce ambiguity and strengthen the
predictability of appellate law.