judge sharon keller should resign immediately [updated]

April 07, 2009 @ 01:19 pm Blogged, Current Events, Politics, Texas,
Tagged as: texas,politics,news

update 04/07/2009: judge keller’s trial begins august 17th.  no plea deal likely, as neither side appears ready to compromise.

sharon keller, the judge facing charges of judicial misconduct for blocking the last minute appeals of death row inmate michael wayne richard in 2007, is busy proving how irrational she really is. 

Richard’s lawyers had wanted a stay because the U.S. Supreme Court on the morning of his scheduled Sept. 25, 2007, execution had agreed to hear a case questioning whether lethal injection amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Richard’s lawyers called the court’s general counsel to say computer problems would prevent them from filing before the court clerk’s office closed at 5 p.m. and asked if they could have more time. The counsel called Keller at home; the judge said no.

He was put to death about three hours later. Richard had been convicted for the 1986 sexual assault and shooting death of nurse Marguerite Lucille Dixon in Harris County.

apparently, she’s now suing the state of texas for violating her constitutional rights by not providing a lawyer to defend her against the charges.  LOL, that’s right.  the state of texas is *violating HER rights*.  rick casey, from the houston chronicle says Let’s give Judge Keller a free lawyer:

...this taxpayer would be willing to provide an attorney for her.

After all, we provide attorneys for accused criminals.

True, we don’t hire lawyers for accused criminals who make $152,500 a year, as Judge Keller does.

And we provide lawyers only for indigents in danger of losing their freedom or their lives, not simply their jobs like Judge Keller.

And we don’t allow indigent defendants to choose their own free lawyers, particularly the highly regarded likes of Mr. Babcock.

Keller wants the taxpayers to pick up the “usual and customary fees” of Babcock’s firm, despite the fact that, according to the filing prepared by Babcock, hiring him is to “risk a financially ruinous legal bill to defend against these charges which are without merit.”

The judge should know better, especially in these tough times, than to ask us taxpayers to agree to a lawyer whose usual and customary fees can lead to a ruinous legal bill. However, I personally would be willing to chip in for the kind of lawyers whom Keller has found acceptable for people whose lives were at stake. Lawyers like:

• Robert McGlohon, who was appointed by Keller’s court to represent a death row inmate shortly after the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a law requiring for the first time that indigent condemned men and women be provided tax-paid attorneys for the automatic habeas corpus appeal.

McGlohon had been a lawyer less than three years, had never even assisted on a death penalty case, and was suffering serious health problems. The appeal he filed was so inadequate that it didn’t raise any issues that are required in habeas filings. McGlohon, apparently aware of his failings, didn’t even file a bill on the case.

When later lawyers filed a competent habeas appeal, Keller joined in the majority in ruling it improper because a defendant got only one shot at the target.

In a dissent, then-Judge Morris Overstreet called the decision “a farce and travesty,” and a federal judge called it “a cynical and reprehensible attempt to expedite petitioner’s execution at the expense of all semblance of fairness and integrity.”

• David K. Chapman, who was also appointed by Keller’s court and also was inexperienced in death penalty cases. The State Bar had suspended him twice before the appointment and once shortly after, but probated the suspensions. He was bipolar and admitted it affected his performance. Among other things, Chapman forfeited his client’s right to take the case into federal court by missing a deadline.

Three fellow judges found the attorney to have been incompetent, but Keller, in the majority, wrote that he must be competent only at the time he was appointed, and the fact the bar gave him probation showed it “still found counsel to be competent to practice law.”

• Any lawyer with serious narcolepsy. Keller has joined in opinions ruling that a sleeping defense lawyer is not necessarily ineffective, including an opinion that suggested it may be a strategy to win sympathy from the jury.

It didn’t work for those late defendants, but maybe it would for Keller.

seems more than fair to me.  provide her an attorney on par with those she’s argued were “competent”!  we could save poor judge keller, who is being denied her constitutional rights from being *forced* to use an attorney that would ruin her financially… wait… whut?

A liberal watchdog group filed two complaints Tuesday accusing Judge Sharon Keller, head of the state’s highest criminal court, of failing to list at least $2 million worth of properties on her annual financial disclosure forms.

The complaints by Texans for Public Justice to the Texas Ethics Commission and to Travis County Attorney David Escamilla also say Keller did not disclose ties to several family companies and a family trust.

Failure to file a complete disclosure statement could be a Class B misdemeanor, subject to a maximum of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. It also can lead to fines from the ethics commission.

“ethics” - i’m not sure that judge keller has any grasp of the meaning of the word.  i suspect that “hypocrisy” isn’t a word she’s familiar with, either.

it should be noted: no one is arguing michael wayne richard’s innocence.  the appeal was a “procedural move that followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier that morning that raised doubts about the constitutionality of lethal injection. That gave Richard’s lawyers an opening to stay their client’s execution until the Supreme Court revisited the issue.”  convicted criminals have rights, like it or not.  those same rights of which judge keller is now suddenly so fond.  richard’s attorneys had a right to file their appeal.  instead, judge keller ignored the court’s own unwritten policies, broke sharply from tradition, and defied the supreme court’s decision, which had resulted in a moratorium on capital punishment.

judge keller has a history of baffling rulings, which make it clear that she believes “rights” are important when they are her’s, but not necessarily when they’re someone else’s.  in addition to the cases listed by rick casey:

in 1996, judge keller ruled that a defendent had received a fair trial, even after it was shown that his confession had been tortured out of him.  her reasoning?  even though the man’s rights were violated, the outcome of the trial would not have changed.

in 1998, judge keller rejected calls for a new trial after dna showed that the man who had been convicted was innocent.  her reasoning?  dna evidence was immaterial.  the defendant had no proof he was innocent.

not only is judge keller dishonest - lacking in ethics entirely - but she clearly has no understanding of the law.  it’s easy to sit back and say that someone like richards was guilty and therefore deserved what he got; however… it could be you.  it could be a family member.  you could be wrongfully convicted and denied your right to appeal or denied your new trial based on new evidence.  as a jurist, it is her duty to remain *objective* and *impartial*, rather than vindictive and “prosecution-oriented”.  judge sharon keller should be removed from the bench (or forced to resign). 

it’s not just sharon keller who has a problem with ethics and dishonesty either:  richard’s attorneys, after being denied their ability to file by judge keller, filed an appeal with the supreme court.  after being rejected, the harris county prosecutor who handled the case for the state, said that they had no right to complain about how the case was handled by judge keller.  it was the supreme court who denied the stay of execution… even though the supreme court denied the stay *because* they were unable to file because judge keller had blocked their ability to file.

read more about Texas’ Judge Dread.

On 04/05/09, Carol said...

It’s mind boggling that individuals such as herself are allowed to laugh in the face of the law over and over and over again.

On 04/05/09, arin721 said...

it is.  it’s hard to fathom that she could have remained on the bench this long… hopefully, maybe they can get rid of her this time.

Check out arin721's latest entry: ed brayton on rachel maddow show

Next entry: the face of modern conservatism, ctd

Previous entry: ~what i'm listening to~, a mix