• Simons has been a practicing lawyer for only 5 years and is not a Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist

  • Simons was recruited by the special interest “so called” pay-to-play slates which were condemned by the Executive Committee of the Harris County Republican Party in 2014, 2015, and 2017

  • Simons has engaged in instances of judicial disrespect, misrepresentation, and coercion to “win at all costs” during his short legal career

  • Simons was not promoted to Felony #2 Prosecutor at the District Attorney’s Office in a timely manner. His supervisors raised serious questions regarding his judgment in 2016

  • Simons is a Republican In Name Only: he was a registered Democrat in 2005

  • Simons has shown a lack of personal responsibility by being delinquent in child support payments for over 2 years (2003-2006)

Dan Simons’ Boss is Actively Campaigning Against Him


State of Texas v Hightower–while serving as a prosecutor for the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, Simons knowingly violated a court order during trial. The order he violated was intended to prevent witnesses from talking to each other about their testimony to make their stories match. The judge chastised Simons on the record for putting two police witnesses together to discuss their testimony, in violation of her order.

State of Texas v Sanchez—Prosecutor Simons was caught attempting to deceive the court in a family assault trial. Simons marked as evidence a photoshopped photograph of the victim that made her look more injured than in the original Sheriff’s photograph. The defense attorney caught Simons in the act after his consulting expert witness confirmed Simons’ scheme to offer the doctored photograph into evidence. When confronted with this by defense counsel, Simons attempted to conceal his deception by refusing to give the defense attorney the requested photographic metadata. After being confronted with defense counsel’s evidence regarding the doctored photo, Simons withdrew the doctored photo during trial and did not offer the tainted “evidence” into the trial record. In this same case, Simons also misrepresented to the court during a hearing that the defendant was not in custody while making incriminating statements. This misrepresentation was revealed when the arresting officer testified that the defendant was in fact in custody when making the incriminating statements. This was a legally critical fact that led the Court to suppress the defendant’s statements from coming into evidence. The United States Constitution and the 5th Amendment as well as United States Supreme Court precedent allow such incriminating statements admitted into evidence only if they are made after the suspect is given Miranda warnings while in police custody. Additionally, in this same case, Simons also misrepresented facts in court stating that the victim was willing to testify in support of her initial accusation, when in fact she had withdrawn or “recanted” her accusation against the defendant. Simons also tried to influence the victim of the alleged crime in this case to falsely testify at trial that the injury she received caused her pain (legally necessary to prove the charge) and that she believed the defendant intended to hit her (also legally necessary to prove the charge). In truth and in fact the victim maintained she never felt pain from the minor injury, and that the defendant did not intend to hit her. After hearing the litany of facts behind this tortured prosecution, the trial judge instructed the jury to find the defendant “not guilty” – an exceptionally rare ruling in criminal cases.

State of Texas v Goudeau—Prosecutor Simons was brought before a District Attorney’s disciplinary committee because he was alleged to have unethically ordered his subordinate to lie to the defense attorney in an effort to obtain a plea bargain in the case under false pretense. Simons knew that the victim, whose testimony was necessary to prove guilt in the case, was not present at the start of the trial. Nevertheless, he allegedly sent his subordinate to untruthfully tell the defense attorney that the victim was present, and to seek a plea bargain at a time when the case was not winnable. Simons’ plan and instructions to his subordinate were a clear violation of Rules 3.09 and 4.01 of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The subordinate correctly refused to to follow Simons’ unethical order. She instead reported Simons’ actions to her supervisors and then to the District Attorney’s disciplinary committee. Even though the disciplinary committee took no action in the matter, Simons left his employment with the District Attorney’s Office six months later.

Simons’ conduct in these cases could constitute a violation of Title 1, Article 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that the “primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys…is not to convict, but to see that justice is done”.

Not Promoted to felony #2 prosecutor at the District Attorney’s Office

Misdemeanor Division Chief raises questions about Simons’ managerial skills, preparation, knowledge of the law, judgment, professional demeanor, and availability during work hours.

Prosecuting Supervisor raises questions about Simons’ knowledge of the law and judgment.

Prosecuting Supervisor raises questions about Simons’ judgment, overzealousness and trouble admitting to problems with his cases.

Simons’ Exit Interview demonstrates his supervisor issues and his failure to be promoted in a timely manner in the District Attorney’s Office.

Republican or Democrat?

Dan Simons was a  registered Democrat in Utah as early as 2005 . Why should we believe him when he states that his “views have always been Republican”? Simons may be a Republican In Name Only, with a political philosophy that appears to be flexible.

“I have defended citizens accused of criminal offenses in Harris County for more than twenty years. [Dan Simons] is not to be trusted. His ethics fall far short of the usual high standard [of the District Attorney’s Office].” -Norman Silverman, Criminal Defense Attorney


Delinquent child support—From November 2003 to March 2006 Dan Simons was under the direct supervision of the Utah Child Support Services, Office of Recovery Services, due to delinquent child support payments.


Vote in Early Primary Voting beginning Tuesday February 20, 2018, and in the Primary Election Tuesday, March 6, 2018, and tell your friends to vote too!


Start typing and press Enter to search