Sharon Keller hearing justified

Friday, February 20, 2009

Sharon Keller, the state's head criminal appeals judge, embarrassed 
Texas with her "we close at 5" rejection of a death penalty appeal in 
2007. The execution was carried out a few hours later, magnifying 
this state's image as cavalier about putting people to death.

It's fitting that Judge Keller will have to defend her actions – and 
her job – in a rare hearing before the State Commission on Judicial 
Conduct. Texas must have courts that are dispassionate, fair and 
soberly mindful of their life-and-death authority. Judge Keller's 
actions cast doubt about whether she measures up, and her opportunity 
to address that will clarify her level of commitment to justice over 
vengeance.

Judge Keller has made other injudicious comments, such as a campaign 
statement that she is a "pro-prosecution" jurist. Properly applying 
the law rules out being "pro" anything aside from "pro" justice. That 
boils down to a matter of competence, one area of inquiry before the 
commission.

Charges against Judge Keller don't question whether an innocent man 
was executed. There has been no indication that convicted killer 
Michael Richard was anything but a murderer. But that's not the 
question. The state Constitution guarantees access to the courts, and 
any abrogation of that right – especially with an execution pending – 
is an outrage.

As if admitting a deadline blunder, the Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals later adopted a written policy about taking appeals on 
pending executions. For example, defense lawyers may now deliver 
filings via e-mail, a practice already used in other appeals courts.

The charges against Judge Keller come at an opportune time. With the 
Legislature meeting in Austin, lawmakers will be sorting through 
proposals to heighten the level of scrutiny in capital cases. One of 
them, filed by Sen. Rodney Ellis of Houston, would give a condemned 
inmate the right to attend, either in person or by telephone, a 
clemency hearing by the parole board.

That is the level of access a defendant should be afforded, and the 
level of attention that the justice system must pay, when the state 
is about to end a person's life.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/
stories/DN-keller_23edi.State.Edition1.2a04dc6.html