Page 108 - The First Fifty Years

Do Not Delete 1/8/2015 10:15 AM

102 HOUSTON LAW REVIEW

96. See Joyce, Driven, supra, at 8.
97. See Joyce & Hoffman, Boldly, supra, at 51–53.
98. For the next iteration of the continuing saga of HLR’s always interesting
finances, see the Decade 4 installment of these essays, coming shortly in a law review
near you!
99. Decade 3 Oral History, supra note 86.
100. See Joyce & Hoffman, Boldly, supra, at 71.
101. Decade 3 Oral History, supra note 86. In yet another fitting all-in-the-family
hand-off, the latest revision of the Handbook—Texas Rules of Evidence 2013 Edition—
was authored by Hon. Jeff Brown of the 14th Court of Appeals and Reece Rondon of Hall
Maines Lugrin, PC (and formerly of the 234th Civil District Court), who were second-year
members of Houston Law Review when Cochran published her first revision in 1994.

Judge Cochran herself plans to retire upon completion of her current term on
the Court of Criminal Appeals. She will be missed.

Her former law partner, Rusty Hardin, provides a telling vignette that captures
a glimpse of the future judge’s knowledge, skill, and determination:

Cathy is one of the most incredible self-starters I have ever known. As an
example, in 1986, when we were both still prosecutors, a celebrated capital
murder prosecution in Houston had to be dismissed because of a pre-trial
evidentiary ruling that could not be appealed. At that time, the State had no
right to appeal pre-trial or post-trial legal rulings. I thought that was
tremendously unfair, and as I got ready to leave on a family vacation, I asked
Cathy to research while I was gone the state’s right to appeal in other states. I
suggested we ought to try and get the law changed in Texas. I also mentioned in
passing that we might need some type of article about the subject to serve as an
intellectual underpinning for any argument we ought to make for changing the
law.

When I returned two weeks later there was a fully researched memo on the
subject on my desk, a proposed bill giving the State the right to appeal for
presentation to the legislature, and a fully prepared law review article setting
out an indisputably persuasive argument for why the state should have the right
to appeal pre-trial and post-trial legal rulings. Cathy’s research had revealed
Texas was the only jurisdiction in the country which did not allow the
prosecution to appeal pre-trial and post-trial legal rulings. We used her research
and proposed a bill as a basis for lobbying the legislature to change the law in
Texas. At the end of the 1987 legislative session Cathy’s bill was passed and
then adopted as a constitutional amendment by the voters in the next election.
E-mail from Rusty Hardin, Founder, Rusty Hardin & Assocs., LLP, to Hon. Jeff Brown,
14th Court of Appeals (Jan. 25, 2013) (on file with Houston Law Review).

And then there is Cochran’s storied use of the language. Hardin observes:
From the moment she became a lawyer she was the most articulate and
entertaining writer I have ever had the pleasure to read. Her writing has always
been infused with a strong and intense drive to explain the law and its meaning
in language the average person could understand. She has always wanted the
public to understand why the law was the way it was and to walk away from the
issue at hand with the same respect for the law that has been the hallmark of
her career.
Id.
The Honorable Elsa Alcala, Judge Cochran’s colleague on the Court of Criminal
Appeals, has put the matter memorably:
Cochranisms make Cathy’s questions during oral argument not only insightful
and effective, but also entertaining and memorable. Just this week . . . her
questions referred to a court’s order as including “helpful hints from Heloise,” to
Skype as a “modern miracle,” to a person taking pictures as “Ansel Adams,” and