This blog is dedicated to shedding light on the abuses and injustices of the Texas criminal justice system, and there’s plenty of media stories pertaining to that theme each week. 

It seems almost redundant to sacrifice delving into a new story, just to return yet again to the Continuing Saga of Sharon Keller. 

And yet, we must: how can we ignore the latest chapter in the trial of the chief justice of our state’s highest criminal court? 

When last we visited the life and times of Chief Justice Keller, she had received a public reprimand from the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct — the TCJC technically issued Justice Keller a “public warning.” (Read the TCJC’s Order in its entirety here.)

Not many were happy with this result.  Heck. lots of folk wanted (and still want) Sharon Keller to be removed from office for her actions on the day that the State of Texas executed Michael Richard. 

And, obviously Sharon Keller was not happy with this “public warning” - she appealed the decision of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct.  Keller argued that the TCJC not only exceeded its authority but it also violated the Texas Constitution.  Apparently, the Court of Review agreed. 

Keller Wins

According to the Special Court of Review, the TCJC only had three options, and issuing a “public warning” wasn’t one of them.  Oops. 

(The Court of review found that the TCJC could (1) dismiss the case outright; (2) issue a public censure; or (3) issue a recommendation for either (a) removal or (b) retirement.   They viewed the public warning as distinctive different than any of these three alternatives. )

Did they give any explanation here for giving Justice Keller such a big win?  Well,  the court of review did expressly state that its ruling should not be considered as an opinion on the underlying case.  They weren’t going there…except that they did. 

In its ruling, the Court of Review noted that long ago, an appointed special master’s investigation into that underlying case found that the attorneys for Executed Man (Michael Richard)  were ”the bulk of fault for what occurred” — as they were found not to have taken enough time preparing his appeal in case the United States Supreme Court came down favorably for them (which it did, of course).

Defense Attorneys Blamed

So, reading between the lines … the defense attorneys are being blamed, not Chief Justice Keller, for Michael Richard’s loss of about six months of life (or more).  

Is no one remembering that another Justice or two (Justice Cheryl Johnson, for example) was sitting there at the Court of Criminal Appeals, awaiting the after-hours filing by Richard?  The court didn’t expect those attorneys to get the filing done before five. 

Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle calls this ironic.  Guess that’s one word for it. 

The hurricane hitting South Texas today is the least of La Joya Municipal Court Judge Joe Henry Garza’s problems. At 55 years old, he’s been busted. Arrested, arraigned, the whole nines yards when you’re charged with a felony.

And, yes, this South Texas municipal judge is facing felony theft charges. Judge Garza stands accused of putting his hand in the traffic fine till — the moneys collected as traffic fines from those who appeared before him for traffic violations — and using the fine money to pay off his personal credit card.

McAllen Judge Garza Has Pled Not Guilty to Theft of Traffic Fines

The La Joya Municipal Court is about 15 minutes drive from downtown McAllen, very close to the Texas-Mexico border. Judge Joe Henry Garza lives in the area, and today he’s out on a $10,000 bond.  He’s pled not guilty to a third-degree felony charge of theft by a public servant.

His position? He isn’t the one wo receives the money that comes into the city coffers.

Evidence Against Judge Garza

According to the probable cause documentation on file, the sheriff investigated and found three (3) separate examples of people (Mexican nationals) paying their traffic fines with money orders in Garza’s court, and this money then being used to pay Judge Garza’s personal credit card.  The Sheriff’s office became involved after an internal audit discovered $6500 missing from the municipal accounts.  Sheriff’s investigators purportedly traced the stubs from the money orders to Judge Garza. 

Wonder what happened when they paid their traffic fines in cash?

Set back in March, the time has come. This Friday, June 18, 2010, in Austin, Texas, the hearing begins for Chief Justice Sharon Keller before the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Sharon Keller Following the Best Defense is a Good Offense Approach

Keller’s response can be read online in two parts (Part One; Part Two) thanks to the Texas Lawyer.  Her latest salvo? A request that the Commission dismiss the matter in its entirety.

Immediately. The whole thing. That’s right. (She’s also appealing that $100,000 ethics fine that she’s been told to pay – the highest ethics fine in the State’s history).

Justice Keller: Allegations are Fiction

Apparently, Justice Keller believes that the charges she will be facing on Friday are “fiction” and that we should all just pooh-pooh everything that’s been filed thus far.

Even Judge David Berchelmann didn’t go so far as to write that the allegations were fictional when he basically let the Chief Justice off the hook in his findings from his fact-finding hearing last August.

Public Hearing – Standing Room Only

So, the hearing on Friday should be very, very interesting. It will be public. The examiners and Justice Keller’s attorney will present oral argument. We can bet it will be to a packed house.

After the argument, the 13 Commissioners will go behind doors to discuss and decide their decision. They will have three options: (1) remove her from elected office; (2) dismiss the charges against her; or (3) reprimand her (she gets cited as doing something bad, but keeps her job).

It’s Only the Most Powerful Criminal Judge in Texas, After All

Think of it. We’re only talking about the Chief Justice of the state’s highest criminal court here.  Is anyone else out there thinking Lady MacBeth (although the line’s really from Hamlet)?

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
–W. Shakespeare, Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

Late last week, the Texas Ethics Commission officially fined the Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals $100,000 — making history as the highest fine ever issued by the TEC since it began.   Seems the TEC found that Justice Keller’s omissions from her disclosure statements were pretty darn serious.

The basis of this big, fat fine? 

Almost a year ago to the day of her TEC fine, Chief Justice Sharon Keller amended her financial statements, to add $2.4 million in income and property.  Things kinda take on a different perspective when you realize that the $100K fine is about equal to one year’s investment income on the properties that Justice Keller added to her financial statements last year.  (She gets about that in annual salary ($110,000) from the State of Texas for presiding over the CCA, too.) 

What about Justice Keller’s other problems ? 

The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct is still deciding her fate – whether to  (1) remove her from elected office; (2) dismiss the charges against her; or (3) reprimand her (she gets cited as doing something bad, but keeps her job).  The public hearing in that matter is set for June 18, 2010 in Austin. 

It’s scheduled to start at 9:00 am in Room 140 of the John H. Reagan State Office Building, 105 W. 15th, Austin, Texas, 78701, if you’re interested in attending.

It was really early on Saturday morning after an obviously long Friday night when Mercedes municipal judge Rogelio Garcia was pulled over by a DPS Trooper in Harlingen (near the Valle Vista Mall, if you know the place).  The usual procedure followed.

Perceiving the driver to be “highly intoxicated,” the Trooper requested the driver to perform a field sobriety test or two.  He failed them.  Then, the Trooper asked the driver to take a breath test.  The driver declined. 

And, before you know it, Judge Garcia is down at the Police Department at 5:30 in the morning, facing charges of driving drunk and getting his blood tested under the new Texas law that allows law enforcement to draw blood to find a BAC (blood alcohol content) when a driver doesn’t take the breath test. 

Judge Garcia posted his $5000 bond and left the building.  He knows, and we know, it’s not over. 

Judge Garcia had already been busted twice before for driving while intoxicated.  This was his THIRD bust.  Which makes this a felony charge, and the possibility of 10 years imprisonment and a hefty fine ($10,000). 

Already, he’s on a leave of absence from the bench.  Hopefully, Judge Garcia’s family and friends are talking with him about this — his drunk driving arrests go back to February 1984, over twenty-five years ago. 

This lawyer and judge obviously has a problem and it’s time a solution was found.

Last week, over in Houston, a state district court judge (read that, trial judge) who’s still pretty new to the job, ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional.  This got lots and lots and LOTS of media coverage.

This week, Judge Kevin Fine changed his mind.  He’s rescinded that ruling and he’s set the matter for an evidentiary hearing next month.  No typo there, not next WEEK but next MONTH. 

Evidence on a law issue?  Right.  Whether or not the death penalty is constitutional isn’t really a legal conundrum in this country.  Whether or not a particular individual should be punished by death is a fact battle.  Aggravating factors, mitigating circumstances. 

Let’s take a moment.  Right now, the Texas Judicial System has the following stories in the national spotlight:

The Chief Justice of the highest criminal court in Texas, Sharon Keller, carries the label “Killer Keller” and her removal from office is still a possibility; and  

The New York Times is having a field day with its recent coverage of the Texas judge (and former Court of Criminal Appeals justice) who had a long-term love affair with the prosecutor — and the U.S. Supreme Court possibly hearing the case brought to it by the defendant setting on Texas Death Row after getting tried and convicted (and sentenced) in this Courtroom of Love.

Maybe it’s not the best time for a state trial judge to be doing this sort of thing, especially when the media’s already having such fun with all his tattoos.   Really.

Last September, everyone in Kerrville was surprised when District Judge Karl Prohl suddenly resigned from the bench, with more than a year left in his term.  The Kerrville Daily Times reported on how Judge Prohl’s letter of resignation — effective immediately — shocked the courthouse.  One staffer supposed that at the age of 69, and after serving as judge for almost 19 years, Judge Prohl was simply ready to retire. 

We can assume that the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas could have enlightened the Kerrville folk, should they have chosen to do so.  Because last Friday, the AG’s Office obtained an indictment against retired judge Karl Prohl, and the jurist was arrested that evening.

Retired Kerrville Judge Karl Prohl was indicted on a felony charge of theft by a public servant that involves $34,706 purportedly received from public monies tagged for travel-related expenses. Within the indictment is a tally of seventeen (17) different payments made to Prohl by four different sources:  Kerr County, two probation departments, and the district attorney’s office. 

Right now, Karl Prohl is out on a personal recognizance bond.  He’s hired a lawyer and he’s offered to pay restitution. 

We’ll see if defense negotiations work here — there’s lots of rumors (there were, even back in September 2009) that Prohl’s case is intertwined with the indictment of former Kerr County District Attorney Ron Sutton for various bad acts.  That may well complicate Prohl’s defense and the easy exit that he has obviously desired.

Late last week, a federal jury came back with their verdict in the case of the United States v. Manny Barraza over in El Paso.  The verdict? 

Former Criminal District Court Judge Manuel Joseph Barraza was guilty of two (2) counts of wire fraud and the deprivation of honest services and one (1) count of making false statements. They split the baby, somewhat, acquitting the former Texas Judge of one count of mail fraud.

What happens now? There Goes the Judge … Directly to Jail, Sentencing in April 2010.

Today, Manuel Barraza is a free man.  He’s out on bond.

However, that’s gonna change on April 28, 2010, when he returns to federal court for his sentencing hearing before U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo.  We already know that the federal judge will enter a judgment of criminal forfeiture that day, since Barraza’s already negotiated a deal to return the $ 5100 he got as a bribe.  However, we don’t know how much time behind bars the former judge will have to spend, or how much money he’s gonna have to pay in fines.  Except in both instances, it’s gonna be a lot. 

At sentencing, former Judge Barraza faces a possible sentence of 23 years in prison and $750,000 in fines:

• 20 years in prison on the wire fraud
• 3 years in prison on the count of making false statements
• $250,000 fine on each of the fraud counts, or $500,000 maximum fine
• $250,000 fine on the false statements charge.

Don’t Remember the Backstory on Judge Manuel Barraza’s Fall from Grace?

Formerly an El Paso criminal district court judge, Manny Barraza was caught taking bribes from criminal defendants in exchange for his help in felony cases coming before him.  He’d take either cash or sexual favors from individuals appearing before him — and he was smooth enough to even get cases transfered to his court if the price was right. 

How did he get caught?  You guessed it.  An undercover (pardon the pun) FBI Agent tape-recorded the Judge during one of his bribe negotiations.

While the chief justice of the highest criminal court in the State of Texas continues her work from the bench, it appears that lots of other folk are working hard behind the scenes, too — especially now that we’ve got the findings from Judge David Berchelmann for everyone to view.

Tomorrow would have been the deadline for the “examiners” (those in the role of prosecutor when the proceedings are involving a setting judge being investigating for possible removal by the Judicial Commission) to file any challenges that they might have to Judge Berchelmann’s determinations.  They could have quietly let that deadline just float on by, letting their silence speak. 

But noooooo.  The examiners have formally requested an extension of time within which to file their response, and they’ve been given a new deadline of February 17, 2010.  (The Commission’s short, one page order doesn’t provide any details, just the new date.) 

What does this mean?  It means that the examiners/prosecutors are preparing some objections to Judge Berchelmann’s findings.  There’s simply no other good reason to ask for more time. 

Even more telling, it’s been told to the media that Chip Babcock, attorney for Justice Keller, is going to be filing responses to Berchelmann’s work (under this new deadline, he requested an extension as well) on behalf of Justice Keller.

Paper Fight! Paper Fight!

Which boils down to this:  lots is happening behind closed doors regarding the fate of Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.   When will the public get a glimpse into all this?  Well, the filings that are due on February 17th will be made public, and all the arguments in the paper fight will be made known.  (Everything filed of record with the Commission is placed online, in .pdf format.)

Public Hearing

As for a public hearing of the Commission’s efforts, that is required under the law and should be held before the Commissioners with both the examiners and Chip Babcock making their oral arguments (as already identified in their paperwork).  Judge Berchelmann remains the fact finder, if the Commissioners want more fact-finding, things will go back down to San Antonio (where he presides over a state district court in Bexar County). 

Otherwise, things will go back behind closed doors after that public hearing as the Commissioners debate what to do about Justice Keller.  They will have three options:  (1) remove her from elected office; (2) dismiss the charges against her; or (3) reprimand her (she gets cited as doing something bad, but keeps her job).

And, just so you know, these 13 Commissioners that will be judging the Chief Justice are:

Chair
Mr. Jorge C. Rangel
Attorney
Corpus Christi
Appointed by State Bar of Texas
Term Expires: 11/19/2011

Vice-Chair
Hon. Jan P. Patterson
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals
Austin
Appointed by Texas Supreme Court
Term Expires: 11/19/2013

Secretary
Ms. Janelle Shepard
Public Member
Weatherford
Appointed by Governor
Term Expires: 11/19/2011

Members
Hon. Sid Harle
Judge, 226th District Court
San Antonio
Appointed by Texas Supreme Court
Term Expires: 11/19/2011

Ms. Ann Appling Bradford
Public Member, Midland
Appointed by Governor
Term Expires: 11/19/2009

Hon. Michael R. Fields
Judge, County Criminal Court at Law #4
Houston
Appointed by Texas Supreme Court
Term Expires: 11/19/2009

Hon. Tom Lawrence
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4
Humble
Appointed by Texas Supreme Court
Term Expires: 11/19/2009

Mr. Tom Cunningham
Attorney, Houston
Appointed by State Bar of Texas
Term Expires: 11/19/2013

Mr. William “Bill” Lawrence
Public Member
Highland Village
Appointed by Governor
Term Expires: 11/19/2009

Ms. Karry K. Matson
Public Member, Georgetown
Appointed by Governor
Term Expires: 11/19/2013

Ms. Patti H. Johnson
Public Member, Canyon Lake
Appointed by Governor
Term Expires: 11/19/2011

Hon. Joel Baker
Judge, Smith County Court, Tyler
Appointed by Texas Supreme Court
Term Expires: 11/19/2011

Hon. Edward J. Spillane, III
Judge, College Station Municipal Court
Appointed by Texas Supreme Court
Term Expires: 11/19/2015