Texas judge Keller should stand trial for rejecting an appeal filed after hours



Sunday, February 22, 2009

Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals, is scheduled to stand trial for her egregious decision to 
refuse an after-hours appeal from an inmate scheduled to die that 
evening.
And rightly so. Keller's decision — made by her alone — was grossly 
insensitive, unjust and discredited her court in the eyes of the 
world. The inmate, Michael Richard, was executed Sept. 25, 2007, a 
few hours after Keller refused his appeal without informing the other 
judges, including the one assigned to Richard's case.
Since then, there have been numerous calls for Keller to resign, and 
a resolution has been introduced in the state Legislature to start 
impeachment proceedings against her. Last week, the State Commission 
on Judicial Conduct charged Keller with five counts of violating her 
duty and discrediting the court in the Richard case.
Facing such withering criticism, Keller, 55, may retire or resign 
rather than stand trial. She has until March 5 to answer the charges 
from the commission, and her attorney, Chip Babcock, has said she 
could win the case on the facts.
Though Keller should be removed from a court widely ridiculed for its 
heartless approach to justice, a trial is a better way to accomplish 
that than resignation. At trial, the sordid events of Sept. 25 would 
be aired before Texas and the world. Keller's cold-blooded and 
process-centered approach to justice would be on vivid display.
The all-Republican Court of Criminal Appeals is this state's court of 
last resort in criminal cases, and its reputation for rubber-stamping 
convictions was well-established before Richard's appeal was 
rejected. Putting the most important criminal judge in Texas on trial 
for misconduct is an opportunity to expose the court's long record of 
callous and reckless disregard for defendants' rights.
The allegations against Keller in the judicial conduct commission's 
findings are devastating. She and the other judges knew Richard's 
attorneys likely would appeal his sentence after the U.S. Supreme 
Court had said that morning it would hear arguments that death by 
lethal injection is unconstitutional. Richard was set to die by 
lethal injection that evening.
Judge Cheryl Johnson had been assigned to the Richard case and was 
ready to receive an appeal. But his attorneys had computer problems 
and asked the court's general counsel, Edward Marty, if they could 
file their petition a little late.
Keller was at home when Marty called to ask her if the court clerk's 
office could remain open after 5 p.m. to receive Richard's petition. 
Keller said no. She now says that she told Marty the clerk's office, 
not the court, would close at 5 p.m. As if that made a difference.
Keller's defense is a distinction without a difference. And it 
perfectly illustrates her focus on process over justice. Keller did 
not tell the other judges that she refused to accept the appeal nor 
did she refer Richard's plea to Judge Johnson. Every one of those 
missteps and others would be intensely examined in a trial and should 
result in her removal from office.
This issue has never been about Richard's guilt or innocence, but 
about the lack of common decency in refusing his appeal because it 
would arrive after 5 p.m. Keller should answer for her actions in a 
public trial.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/
02/22/0222keller_edit.html