Cleophus “Cleo” Marshall III, 54, is a trial attorney with nearly thirty years of experience practicing law in federal courts and state courts. He is one of two Democrats seeking the party’s nomination to replace retiring Judge Mary Roman.
Hear from the candidate
1. Please tell voters about yourself.
I am Cleophus “Cleo” Marshall III, a lifelong resident of Bexar County and a San Antonio
native. I have spent my entire adult life serving this community both professionally and personally. I live in San Antonio with my family, and I am a proud husband of more than two decades and the father of three children.
My roots in public service run deep. I was raised in a family committed to service—my grandfather pastored in San Antonio for more than fifty years, my father is a disabled veteran who devoted his career to public housing administration, and my mother served as a public-school educator. That legacy shaped my commitment to fairness, accountability, and compassion.
Beyond the courtroom, I have served for more than twenty-seven years as a pastor, counseling individuals and families through addiction, domestic violence, trauma, poverty, and loss. My ministry and legal practice have consistently placed me in direct contact with people at their most vulnerable moments. Those experiences have reinforced my belief that justice must be firm, fair, and humane. As judge, I would continue to serve the community with integrity, respect, and a deep understanding of the real-life impact of court decisions.
2. Describe your educational background.
I am a graduate of Texas Tech University in 1993, where I completed my undergraduate studies before returning home to San Antonio to pursue a legal career. I earned my Juris Doctor Degree from North Carolina Central University and was licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1996. I am also admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and previously before the Southern District of Texas.
In addition to my formal legal education, my professional development has been shaped by nearly three decades of courtroom practice in both state and federal courts. I have also pursued continuing legal education throughout my career to remain current on changes in criminal law, civil procedure, and evidence. My education is further informed by decades of pastoral training and leadership, which has strengthened my ability to listen carefully, evaluate complex issues, and exercise sound judgment—skills that are essential for effective service on the bench.
3. Describe your professional experience, what type of law you’ve practiced and noteworthy accomplishments.
I am an accomplished trial attorney with nearly thirty years of experience practicing law in federal courts and state courts, to include Bexar County. I have served as a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, civil litigator, and neutral decision-maker. As a former prosecutor, I handled serious felony matters and worked closely with law enforcement to protect public safety. As a defense attorney, I have represented individuals charged with offenses ranging from misdemeanors to complex federal and felony cases, including capital murder, ensuring that constitutional rights are protected at every stage of the process.
I am a Federal Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panel Attorney, appointed by federal judges to represent indigent defendants in serious federal criminal cases, including organized crime and drug trafficking matters. I have also been appointed by the Bexar County judiciary to serve as a Special Commissioner in eminent domain/condemnation proceedings, where I preside over formal hearings, evaluate expert testimony, and issue findings as a neutral arbiter.
These appointments reflect the judiciary’s trust in my judgment, professionalism, and ability to be fair and impartial—qualities I would bring to the bench as judge.
4. Philosophically, how do you balance the public’s desire for restitution in all types of crimes, while also providing a productive path forward for offenders who don’t pose a danger to the public?
The justice system must balance accountability with fairness and long-term public safety. Restitution and accountability are essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring that victims are heard and made whole to the extent possible. At the same time, not every offender presents an ongoing danger to the community, and justice is not served by ignoring opportunities for rehabilitation when appropriate.
My approach is grounded in proportionality and individual assessment. Courts should distinguish between those who pose a genuine threat to public safety and those whose conduct is driven by underlying issues such as substance abuse, mental health challenges, or instability. For nonviolent offenders, structured alternatives—such as treatment programs, supervision, and clear performance expectations—can promote accountability while reducing recidivism.
Having served as both a prosecutor and defense attorney, and having counseled individuals for decades as a pastor, I understand that meaningful change occurs when people are held responsible and given a realistic opportunity to succeed. A judge must apply the law firmly but thoughtfully, ensuring consequences are appropriate, victims are respected, and the broader community benefits from safer, more effective outcomes.
In that same spirit, I am motivated to explore expanding County Court at Law No. 8 to include specialized court initiatives for distinct populations whose offenses may be closely tied to unique life circumstances. This includes the possibility of a specialty docket for first responders—such as police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel — whose nonviolent offenses may stem from post-traumatic stress or cumulative occupational trauma.
I am also interested in examining whether a tailored court approach could better serve elderly individuals whose conduct may result from exploitation, coercion, or mistreatment by those seeking to take advantage of their vulnerability. Any such efforts would be pursued thoughtfully, within the bounds of the law, and with careful attention to accountability, public safety, and dignity.
5. Why are you seeking this office, and why did you decide to be a candidate in the political party you chose?
I am seeking the office of Judge of Bexar County Court at Law No. 8 because I have a deep respect for the rule of law and the critical role courts play in protecting individual rights, ensuring public safety, and maintaining confidence in our justice system. After nearly thirty years in the courtroom, I have seen the system from every angle—as a prosecutor, defense attorney, civil practitioner, and neutral decision-maker. That breadth of experience uniquely prepares me on day one to preside fairly and efficiently.
I chose to run as a Democrat because I believe in equal access to justice, due process, and the principle that courts must treat every person with dignity and respect, regardless of background or resources. My career has been defined by service to the community and a commitment to fairness rather than ideology. As judge, my decisions would be guided by the law, the facts, and the pursuit of justice—not politics. I am running to bring thirty years of experience, balance, and integrity to the bench, and to serve the people of Bexar County with professionalism, compassion, and a respect for the rule of law.
