By Chilo Alaniz
District Attorney in Webb & Zapata Counties
Chinggis Khan (sometimes spelled Genghis Khan), the first leader of the Mongolian Empire, is the person most Westerners think of when talking about Mongolia. He reigned over the Mongol Empire from 1206 to 1227 and conquered expansive lands in Asia, eventually ruling over a territory larger than the continent of Africa.
For about two weeks in May, I joined a group of 18 members of the Spurlock Judicial Fund (SJF) on a training program to Mongolia. The SJF, which was formerly known as the Asian Judicial Institute, and the state of Texas have been steadfast partners with Mongolia for the past 30 years. The Spurlock Fund has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Mongolian Lawyer Support Center NGO (non-governmental organization), Mongolian Judicial Association, and Mongolian Advocates Association to provide training on judicial independence, adversarial trials, protection of human rights, and court procedures. The SFJ also has MOUs with the Mongolian Parliament Research Center and the Chimid Foundation.
The SJF founder, Judge Joe Spurlock II, was a member of the Texas House of Representatives, a district court judge, an appellate judge, and, perhaps most importantly, one of the three founders of the Texas A&M School of Law. In 1998 he was approached by Judge Ganzorig Gombosuren to help the Mongolian people in their move from single-party Communist rule to democracy. Since 1998, the SJF has worked with the Mongolian Supreme Court, Office of the Prosecutor General, and various ministries and NGOs to build democracy through judicial independence, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. Mongolia chose to model its newly created judicial system after the United States and specifically Texas, and these days, Mongolians consider the United States its third neighbor (with Russia and China as the other two).
Our delegation was led by Spurlock Director and State Bar Criminal Justice Section Member Judge Matthew Wright, and 66th Judicial District Judge Justin Lewis. Other Texas attorneys who served as lecturers were State Bar of Texas President Elect Sarah Keathley, Sharon Corsentino, Kristina Voorhies Legan, Karen Washington, and David Morrison. Our group also included eight students from Texas A&M Law School and Baylor University: two Spurlock Scholar recipients, Texas A&M Law School student Natasha Ferrerira and Baylor graduate Landon Lehane; plus Jeziah Cherian, Holly Enkhtsetseg, Sarabeth Jarratt, Nate Lovas, Claire Nguyen, and Mallory Vickers. The students played critical roles in our presentations and a mock trial we conducted.
The invitation
On February 1, I received the invitation to travel to Ulaanbaatar, the Mongolian capital, to serve as the lead attorney representing prosecutors during the 2026 training delegation. The invitation was extended by Judge Gombosuren, retired Justice of the Mongolian Supreme Court; Judge Matthew Wright; and the board of directors of the SJF. Our delegation mission consisted of the following:
• train Mongolian lawyers in Texas adversarial trial procedures;
• provide expert consultation to Mongolian officials on U.S. and Texas constitutional law;
• train Mongolian judges on Texas discovery, witnesses, and rules of evidence;
• participate in panels and discussions with government officials on the rule of law and separation of powers;
• engage in cultural exchanges with the Mongolian people; and
• conduct a criminal mock trial with a Texas district court judge, criminal defense attorney and prosecutor (me!).
Preparation
The preparation for Mongolia was intense. From February through May we reported to Zoom planning workshops, language courses, and mock trial prep meetings. I learned that Mongolia is the world’s most sparsely populated country. Horses outnumber humans 13 to 1 and livestock 35 to 1. Ulaanbaatar, a city of 1.7 million, is the coldest capital in the world. (While we were there in May, morning temperatures were in the 30s and 40s, and afternoon highs got into the 70s.) It is also home to the Gobi Desert, one of the coldest deserts in the world with the largest dinosaur fossil reserve on earth.
I also studied the Mongolian legal system. The democratic constitution was adopted in 1992. It created legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative consists of the Parliament with representatives of five political parties; the executive consists of the President and Prime Minister; and the judiciary consists of the Supreme Court and constitutional courts. The Supreme Court has three chambers, one each for criminal, civil, and administrative law. The provincial courts handle appeals from district courts, felony criminal cases, and civil cases. District courts handle misdemeanor-type offenses and minor civil disputes. Recently established are a structure of specialty courts. Administrative courts handle disputes between citizens and public authorities; constitutional courts handle cases involving constitutional laws and applicability, and the Judicial Council oversees judicial appointments and personnel matters. The key features of Mongolia’s criminal justice system are the abolishment of the death penalty in 2017, no jury system but a court-appointed group of one to three citizens who give recommendations to the court, and a maximum sentence of 25 years’ confinement for felonies.
The prosecution power is immense. The Prosecutor General oversees criminal investigations and prosecutions. There is very limited court oversight over search and arrest warrants. Discovery is virtually nonexistent, and there is little opportunity for the defense to suppress evidence. The Prosecutor General must approve any evidence gathered by the defense and can appeal acquittals. As you can see, the pathway from Communism to a democratic system is not an easy one.
Arriving in Mongolia
As I studied the blueprint designed by Judge Joe to make this transition possible, I saw three critical elements in play: trust, humility, and vision. With these three elements in mind, my adventure to Mongolia began on May 13. The flight from Dallas to Incheon, Korea, was 16 hours long. From Incheon to Ulaanbatar was another three hours. We arrived in the early afternoon on May 15. Our Mongolian hosts, led by Judge Ganzorig and members from the Mongolia Bar Association, welcomed us with smiles, gift bags, and warm handshakes. It did not take long to immerse ourselves in the culture. The first traditional dinner included mutton stomach stuffed with broth and meat. Other dishes included huushuur (empanadas) and tusivan (noodles). Dinner was capped off with a toast (or “salud” as we call it in South Texas).
The rest of the weekend consisted of cultural tours to the Chinggis Khan statue, which is the largest equestrian statue in the world (40 meters tall!)—see the photo on the opposite page, far left. An excursion outside Ulaanbaatar found us in the open country with blue skies and surrounding mountain peaks. Here we experienced Mongolian horse rides, double hump camel rides, and an introduction to the majestic Mongolian golden eagle. The Chinggis Khan Museum transported us to the 12th-Century origins of the nation itself. The artifacts, artwork, weapons, horse tack, and early writings were an incredible view into early civilizations.
Monday was the first day of training. We broke up into two teams: a judicial team and one for family law. The entire day was dedicated to an overview of the two systems in Texas. The criminal justice audience consisted of district and appellate judges from Mongolia. The main objective in this presentation was the importance of the separation of powers; the exchange of discovery; the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments; and an emphasis of the judicial branch’s involvement in the warrant process. As a district attorney for 18 years, I stressed that the integrity of the criminal justice system in Texas relied on the court’s review of a prosecutor’s warrant and the defendant’s right to challenge unconstitutional actions by the police. The Mongolian judges were engaged, receptive, and enthusiastic about moving toward a more balanced approach.
On May 19, the delegation visited the Mongolian Parliament where the delegation leadership testified on family law policies and practices. Another critical meeting that I, along with Judge Wright and Judge Lewis, had on this day was with the Prosecutor General’s Office. During this meeting we shared the mission objectives of our training and highlighted the differences between prosecutions in Texas and Mongolia. The Deputy Prosecutor General expressed interest in examining the strengths and weaknesses of the procedural processes in Texas. A commitment to training was made.
The next day, our delegation visited the U.S. ambassador’s residence, where we met with the Deputy Chief of Mission Neal Vermillion and members of his team. The U.S. Embassy thanked the delegation and recognized the critical contributions by the Spurlock Fund. The delegation then visited Shihihutug University Law School. This visit cemented the future of the Spurlock Fund with an MOU to continue the mission of future trainings and exchange trips. The same day, we met with Chief Justice Khosbayar of the Supreme Court and other justices of the court. We discussed topics such as the importance of the constitutional rights of the accused, the discovery process, and the judicial branch’s involvement in the review of arrest and search warrants.
A criminal mock trial
The highlight of the training for me finally arrived a couple days later. For the first time in the 30-year partnership between the Spurlock Fund and the Mongolian judicial leadership, we conducted a criminal mock trial. The work for this trial began in early January with attorney David Morrison. He researched and designed a (mock) murder case that had the makings of a challenging fight. The style of the case was the State of Texas v. Tobie Clark.
Every case needs a theme, so we entitled this one “A Million Reasons to Kill.” My team of prosecutors included lawyers Sharon Corsentino and Karen Washington. That Thursday morning, we entered the converted auditorium at the Cultural Center in Ulaanbaatar locked and loaded. With trial notebook prepared, witnesses assigned, State exhibit posters labeled, PowerPoint slides primed for display, and opposing counsel Steve Keathley and his defense team ready, we kicked things off. District Judge Justin Lewis began the trial with the familiar phrase. “Is the State ready? Defense ready? “The State will read the indictment. … How does the defendant plead?” “Not guilty, Your Honor.”
For the next two days, the audience of Mongolian law students and practicing Mongolian attorneys witnessed an adversarial trial as done in Texas. Mongolian translators kept the audience on track with opening statements, direct and cross examination, a Daubert hearing, expert testimony, Rules of Evidence, objections, predicate questions, demonstrative evidence, introduction of evidence, directed verdict, and closing arguments. One aspect of trial that was surprising to the audience was the in-depth examinations of witnesses on direct and cross examinations.
On day two of the trial, both Steve Keathley and I were presented with traditional robes worn by prosecutors and defense. Although the court reserved its verdict, both sides claimed the victory! After the trial, I gifted my trial notebook to members of the Nomadix Law Firm and two TDCAA manuals to the Prosecutor General’s Office.
The last weekend concluded with a traditional Mongolian celebration called a naadam, where we were treated to a Mongolian feast and the “three games of men”: wrestling, horse racing, and archery. We wore the traditional deels (robes), toasted to democracy, and celebrated freedom.
Coming home
As the wheels on the plane lifted, taking me back to South Texas, I began to reflect on this amazing experience. I was encouraged by the enthusiasm, energy, and vision of the Mongolian judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law school students. They chose democracy for a reason. Judge Joe put it best when he stated, “The ultimate goal of a democratic society should not be for subjects to exalt the state but for the state to protect individual citizens’ rights.”