At The Hawk’s Eye we view the district attorney’s office as an important office associated with government accountability. How that office engages with the public, law enforcement, the courts, and the justice system, as a whole, provides important insight into what is considered acceptable and unacceptable within the community it serves. Decisions made by the district attorney shape how cases are prosecuted, how transparency is handled, and how accountability is maintained across the criminal justice system. Because of that influence, understanding how candidates intend to exercise that authority is critical for voters in Hays County.

Earlier this election cycle, The Hawk’s Eye sent a questionnaire to the candidates running in the Democratic primary for Hays County Criminal District Attorney, as well as to the independent candidate expected to face the primary winner in the general election. The questions were designed to focus on prosecutorial accountability, transparency, and how the office should approach difficult decisions involving public officials, law enforcement credibility, and internal oversight. Responses were published as they were received so voters could review each candidate’s positions ahead of casting ballots.

Following the March primary election, Alfonso Salazar secured the Democratic nomination after defeating Landon Bryan Campbell, receiving 16,349 votes compared to Campbell’s 13,647. According to the results, Salazar received approximately 54.5 percent of the vote, while Campbell received 45.5 percent across absentee, early, and Election Day voting. The outcome sets the stage for a general election contest between Salazar and independent candidate Kirsta Melton.

Melton also submitted responses to The Hawk’s Eye questionnaire earlier in the election cycle. However, those responses were held until after the Democratic primary concluded so voters could first evaluate the positions of the candidates competing for the party nomination. Melton, who is running as an independent candidate, outlined her views on prosecutorial independence, transparency, law enforcement accountability, and how the district attorney’s office should measure its success in serving the community. Her full responses are provided below so voters can review her stated policies and decision-making approach ahead of the general election.

Melton maintains a presence on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Additional information about her campaign and policy positions can also be found on her campaign website.

The following are the questions presented by The Hawk’s Eye and Melton’s complete responses.

What written policies would you implement to ensure prosecutorial decisions remain insulated from political influence by donors, party leaders, or elected officials?

One of the reasons I am running as an independent is because I believe justice decisions should be based solely on an analysis of the facts of the case and the applicable law. I have made that principle a cornerstone of my campaign. It will continue to be a priority in my administration and will be reflected in the office’s core values which will be written and shared with all employees. We will also be implementing a public dashboard which will provide public accountability through unprecedented transparency into how the office is resolving cases.

While the district attorney is an elected position, our duties are strictly professional and bound by our ethical obligation to see that justice is done. As an independent I owe no allegiance to party platforms or other party leaders. My only duty is to the people of Hays County.

Have you ever faced pressure-political, institutional, or internal- to handle a case a certain way, and how did you respond?

Over my 25 years of felony prosecution, I faced pressure on several occasions to resolve cases in a manner I did not believe was just. Because prosecutors deal with matters that have significant life consequences for victims, defendants and the community it is always worth taking a moment to make sure we have all the information before making a decision. When I am sure of the facts and therefore the basis of my decision I stand my ground, but take time to discuss that decision with the affected party and listen to what they have to say.

Would you publicly disclose meetings or communications with elected officials regarding pending criminal matters?

By law, members of the District Attorney’s Office have no authority to discuss pending criminal matters with anyone but the law enforcement agency that filed the case, the witnesses needed to prove the conduct, the victim or victims of the conduct and the attorney representing the accused. I would follow the law.

My administration would need to meet with Commissioner’s Court about the size of our dockets, personnel needs, funding, and our interrelationships with other county offices. Those formal policy meetings are governed by our state’s open meeting laws with which we will comply.

How would you ensure independent and unbiased investigations or prosecutions involving high-profile public officials in Hays County, particularly if those individuals supported or donated to your campaign? Would you commit to requesting an outside prosecutor in cases involving political supporters or county leadership, and what objective standard would trigger that decision?

No one is above the law and no one is below it. I and my team will evaluate each case on the facts and the law regardless of who the defendant is. Simply because a defendant is well-known or part of county leadership does not create an automatic conflict of interest for the District Attorney’s Office or require the office to recuse itself. The District Attorney’s Office has an obligation to see that justice is done in the cases of high-profile defendants in the same way it does in cases involving other defendants. That is our statutory responsibility and abdicating “hard” or potentially divisive cases is a shirking of our responsibility when a conflict does not exist.

If a defendant contributed to my campaign, I would disclose that relationship to opposing counsel so they can make a determination of whether they will seek to recuse the office. If I believe an actual conflict exists or the appearance of impropriety is significant, regardless of what opposing counsel chooses to do, our office will recuse itself and petition the presiding court to appoint an outside prosecutor from another jurisdiction to handle the matter. This use of a “Pro Tem” prevents any actual bias from impacting a fair prosecution.

Should campaign-finance relationships ever require mandatory recusal by a district attorney?

It is the responsibility of the District Attorney to recuse herself from a case to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety.

Will you publish declination decisions, Brady disclosures, or disciplinary findings involving prosecutors?

As part of my pledge to rebuild Trust through Transparency I will provide de-identified data on declinations or rejections of cases. I will not publicly publish Brady disclosures. That information is provided by law to defendants and their defense counsel to ensure due process and a fair trial. It, like individual case facts, is not appropriate for public dissemination unless it becomes part of a bench or jury trial and open to public viewing. Disciplinary findings involving prosecutors are published by the State Bar of Texas.

How should the District Attorney’s Office handle public information requests that could expose internal mistakes or misconduct?

The District Attorney’s Office should be as open and transparent as the law permits and be prepared to own up to internal mistakes or misconduct.

What safeguards prevent plea deal disparities between represented and unrepresented defendants?

Because our law guarantees anyone accused of an offense that could result in incarceration (Class B misdemeanors to capital murder) with the right to legal representation even if they can’t afford it, it should be a rare occurrence for a defendant to represent him or herself. However, if an accused insists on representing themselves and knowingly waives the right to counsel, the prosecutor negotiating with the accused is still duty-bound to seek justice by offering a fair plea bargain appropriate for the facts and circumstances of the case.

What evidentiary threshold should apply when considering criminal charges against a peace officer for on-duty conduct.

The same threshold applied to any accused individual: probable cause to arrest and beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. No person or profession is above the law.

How would you address credibility issues involving repeat law enforcement witnesses?

Under our caselaw and statutes, a District Attorney’s Office is obligated to disclose to the defense any and all information in our possession or in the possession of the law enforcement agency that raises questions about an officer’s credibility as a witness, whether that information is admissible in court. That is absolutely the right thing to do. Unfortunately, that sometimes includes information that may not be true but was shared in some way with the office. This is a broad rule that is intended to make sure defendants have every opportunity to discover facts that may help them when preparing a defense.  

We disclose because of our ethical obligation, but we may fight the admission of that information at trial for the same reason. Our ethical obligation is to see that justice is done. False or misleading evidence does not help the fact finder reach the truth. The District Attorney’s Office should and will fight to exclude information that is not true or violates the rules of evidence.

Which three measurable metrics best determine whether a District Attorney’s Office is succeeding?

Community Safety: Are people feel safe in their neighborhoods? Do victims of crime feel they have been heard and made whole? Are people seeking vigilante justice because they have given up on the justice system?

Law Enforcement Partnership: Does law enforcement feel that the District Attorney’s Office is rejecting too many worthwhile cases? Have they stopped investigating certain types of criminal conduct because the District Attorney’s Office refuses to take those charges? Does law enforcement view the District Attorney as a partner in their fight against crime, or an obstacle?

The Numbers for Declinations, Post-Indictment/Information Dismissals, and Trial Record:

• When law enforcement files a case with the District Attorney’s Office, they are stating that probable cause existed to believe an individual committed a crime. How many of those submissions were rejected by the District Attorney’s Office?
• If the District Attorney’s office accepts the submission and formally charges a person with an offense by filing an information in a misdemeanor case or securing an indictment in a felony case, then a prosecutor, and grand jury in a felony case, should have carefully reviewed the evidence and found it had merit before allowing it to proceed. How many of the cases that were formally charged in Hays County were then dismissed? And for what reasons?
• On those cases where a prosecutor evaluated the case and brought it to trial, how many of those trials resulted in “guilty” verdicts and how many defendants were acquitted?

The answers to those questions will reveal whether the District Attorney’s Office is properly training its lawyers on how to evaluate and try cases as well as whether they are committed to public safety, or simply a bureaucratic agency more interested in moving cases than in justice.

What backlog level is unacceptable, and what structural reform would you implement within six months to prevent recurrence?

The elimination of backlog and the speed of disposition are important aspects of securing justice, but they don’t tell the full justice story. The reality is that today prosecutors are called upon to obtain, share, and review more data on criminal cases than ever before. The proliferation of surveillance videos, law enforcement body-worn and vehicle camera recordings, video-taped witness and suspect recordings, computer generated diagrams, forensic testing data, social media and  cell phone records, have overwhelmed prosecutors who are regularly tasked with identifying what exists, collecting the data, sharing it with the defense attorney, and examining the items before they make a charging decision and again when preparing for trial. Failure to take these steps subjects prosecutors to allegations of discovery violations and may also harm defendants in their preparation of a defense.

Because of the complexity and scope of the work, District Attorney’s Offices from across the country are having great difficulty recruiting and retaining experienced prosecutors. The fewer experienced prosecutors an office has, the more likely it is to fall behind in the evaluation and preparation of its cases. To recruit and maintain experienced prosecutors an office needs leadership that has been in the trenches, Prosecutors with 10 or more years felony experience are not going to want to work with an elected DA who has far less.

The best way to manage backlog is to have sufficient numbers of experienced prosecutors to evaluate the cases and make a proper judgment on them. That takes time. While there are ways to increase systemic efficiency, that cannot be at the expense of justice. Policies that focus solely on the speed of the process send the message to prosecutors that they should avoid confrontations, give in to defense attorneys, and move cases along rather than doing what is right in each case for the victim, the defendant, and the community.

How should diversion program success be measured beyond completion rates?

While completing a diversion program is a necessary first step for defendants placed in those programs, it is only the first step. The critical measure of a diversion program’s success is whether the defendant has no further contact with the criminal justice system, remains sober and stable post-graduation and successfully reintegrates into family, work and the community. To evaluate this type of success would require a university research partner, the willingness to evaluate the long-term impact of the program and program rules requiring defendant participation in a longitudinal study as a condition for participation in the program.

When does mercy become unequal justice?

Victims of crime deserve justice. They deserve the community to acknowledge what was done, call out the violation of the rule of law, and impose the agreed upon penalty for that harm. Defendants also benefit from consistent accountability. When we fail to seek that justice whether from a lack of will, a failure of competency, or a misplaced sense of mercy we enable, encourage, and fortify exploiters and abusers. That’s not justice.

What is one prosecution decision you believe most District Attorneys get wrong?

The idea that District Attorney’s Offices have to choose between prosecuting violent crime and other crimes in our community is a false dichotomy. While violent crimes should always remain a priority for the District Attorney’s Office, we should not turn away from the opportunity to prevent future crime by holding people accountable for drug and property crimes they are committing today. Criminal behavior is not typically a single isolated event but part of a network. Many of those abusing illegal drugs are selling them to others and committing property crimes to support their addiction. We regularly see violence result in transactions between buyers and sellers of narcotics and against property owners trying to prevent the theft of their property. Human trafficking is similar, operating in networks tied to other forms of criminality, including theft, money laundering, drugs, physical violence, visa fraud and smuggling. To ensure the safety of Hays County as we continue to grow, we need the experience and perspective to understand the interrelationships and interactions between “violent” and “non-violent” offenses and the importance of holistic enforcement.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---