Archive for the ‘Judge Watch’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

June 29th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Corpus Christi Judge Banales Asked to Be Removed From Case of Big Campaign Supporter

Just last week, we pointed to the new U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with campaign contributions and judges across the country – with a warning that the judiciary was to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And we predicted lots of activity based upon this new precedent.

And here it comes ….

Less than a week after Caperton v. Massey came down, Nueces County District Attorney Carlos Valdez has moved for the recusal of Judge Manuel Banales from the pending case of Mauricio Celis. The motion was filed on Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decision came down on Monday.

Seems that Mr. Celis is a well known Democratic fundraiser down in Corpus Christi, and the DA is arguing in his motion to remove Judge Banales that the judge received campaign contributions from some law firms that are somehow connected to Mr. Celis.

Who is Mauricio Celis?

Who is Mr. Celis? Well, he’s interesting. Seems he was convicted last February of pretending to be a lawyer, and he was facing a year in jail, until Judge Banales removed the old trial judge and changed the sentence to 10 years probation. And, he’s still got to face trial on other charges — such as theft, money laundering, and impersonating an officer. (Judge Banales isn’t hearing those charges, he already transferred those matters over to another Nueces County judge.)

Let’s see what happens next week, right?

Posted by Michael Lowe at 3:56 pm

No Comments
Labels: Judge Watch


June 24th, 2009

COURT OPINIONS: US Supreme Court Nixes Judges Accepting Big Campaign Donations Due to Appearance of Bias

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey (read the opinion here) came down yesterday, and we’ll have to see how much it impacts Texas Judges — and how often they recuse themselves from cases.

Texas Judges Run for Office: They Kiss Babies and Take Contributions

In Texas, judges run for office. (The federal judges are appointed.) Running for office is expensive. Judges have to campaign: they shake hands and kiss babies — and take money from contributors.

The Caperton decision is big news because the highest court in the land has warned judges everywhere that if they are elected, then they must not allow even the appearance of bias regarding accepted contributions. They must recuse themselves if there is even the RISK of looking like they are playing favorites (emphasis added):

Although there is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement,the fact remains that Blankenship’s extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the other parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.

Caperton, 556 U.S. ___ 2009 (slip opinion, p. 3).

How This May Impact Texas Judges

In Texas, at first glance this is not that big of a deal because we’ve already got a $5000 cap on campaign contributions to judicial campaigns. (There’s a $30,000 total contribution cap on members of a law firm.)

However, special interest groups don’t fall within that legal cap and Caperton may impact their activities in future campaigns. In criminal law, special interest groups are very active and it will be interesting to watch campaigns in the future to see how this decision from D.C. impacts our state in the future.

Excellent Warning by the Dissenters

In his dissent (joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito), Justice Roberts already warns that “this will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be,” as he criticizes the majority opinion for failing to place clear guidelines for judges on when they should recuse themselves as part of the decision.

Justice Roberts is right. This decision is going to be used to try and push judges off cases – a new kind of forum shopping, sorta. We all know it.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 2:18 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, Judge Watch


June 17th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Houston Judge Caught on Video Allegedly Keying Neighbor’s Car Now Subject of Grand Jury Felony Investigation

Down in Houston, the Grand Jury is watching the video below, as well as other evidence, to decide whether or not felony criminal charges should be filed against retired visiting judge Woody Densen.

Seems Judge Densen may have vandalized his neighbor’s Range Rover (as well as the neighbor’s girlfriend’s Mercedes). And the neighbor was on the lookout: he installed surveillance cameras, which were videotaping the judge as the judge walked past his SUV.

The judge does act suspiciously in the video, but geez. It’s in the middle of the day. And he’s a judge. And he’s 69 years old. Surely the judge — or the Grand Jury — is getting punked?

Neighbor Did His Investigation

Well, maybe not. Apparently, the neighbor has been having problems with the vehicles in his driveway being damaged for awhile now, and he’s done his homework to figure out what’s been going on here. And, the harm does add up: the latest scratch marks on the Range Rover will cost $1500 to repair. That’s a hit. And, over time, those repair bills may really be adding up.

What’s the worst he could get if he did scratch — or “key” — his neighbor’s vehicle? Well, it’s more serious than you might think. Judge Densen could be charged with felony criminal mischief, facing jail time and a $10,000 fine. Additionally, he could face disciplinary proceedings brought by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (which would put his ability to substitute for judges on vacation, medical leave, etc. at risk).

What Can Happen to the Judge?

Given that he’s retired, and 69 years old, if the Commission were to suspense him from taking the bench for a period of time, that probably wouldn’t hurt too bad.

Felony charges, that’s gonna hurt. Ten thousand buck fine plus up to two years in jail is serious punishment.

Seeing this video plastered all over the web? Definitely gotta hurt. You’re a JUDGE, man.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=6866291

Source:

ABC13.com
http://politicalblog.abc13.com/2009/06/visiting-judge-investigated-for-vandalizing-car.html

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6480140.html

Posted by Michael Lowe at 9:00 pm

2 Comments
Labels: Judge Watch


June 3rd, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Judge Samuel Kent Resigns in 2010 (Next Year)

They may say a lot of things about Judge Samuel Kent but no one can say he’s not clever.

As you know from earlier posts, Judge Kent took a plea deal and is set to start serving time next month for obstruction of justice in a case alleging sex crimes by the Judge against court employees. Being under official retirement age, Judge Kent sought special disability stature (he’s claimed bipolar disorder, as well as depression and anxiety) in order to keep benefits coming to him that would otherwise go away with his leaving the bench.

Fifth Circuit’s Edith Jones Letter

Edith Jones, Chief Justice of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, nixed that in a formal letter posted here for your review. Justice Jones unequivocally shut the door on Judge Kent’s disability claim.

Next move, Kent’s. Judge Kent sent a formal letter of his own, resigning his position as a federal judge — and here’s the catch. He’s resigning EFFECTIVE JUNE 2010. That’s right. One year from now.

This keeps Kent’s federal pay and benefits coming in for a full year after he goes to jail. And, by the time that Congress could finalize his impeachment proceedings, that year will have passed anyway.

Which is Kent’s biggest argument and what some say is a clever masterstroke — by sending this letter, Kent has kept his financial position intact for a year and he’s made the impeachment relatively moot.

Except for those that are calling Kent’s 2010 resignation letter “thumbing his nose at Congress,” “outrageous” and something that “… continue[s] to prove that he is unworthy of public service….”

So, what’s next?

Well, Congress is going to go forward with impeachment proceedings. And, let’s not count out serious legal minds like Edith Jones to be thinking of ways to counter Judge Kent’s latest move.

Judge Kent sure is manuevering like a master, especially for someone so overcome by mental conditions that he is to be considered completely disabled, huh?

Sources:

FoxNews
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/02/texas-judge-facing-impeachment-sex-abuse-case-submits-resignation/

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6454143.html

Posted by Michael Lowe at 3:11 pm

1 Comment
Labels: Judge Watch


May 26th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Impeachments of Keller and Kent Advancing Side by Side

Just think. A year ago Christmas, you would have been reading about Sharon Keller, Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and Samuel Kent, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston Branch) with respect. The news reports would have been dealing with some case before them, or maybe some speech they gave at a civic event.

Today, the media coverage for both of them is all about their respective falls from grace.

The Kent – Keller Impeachment Race

We’ve already posted details about Justice Keller and Judge Kent here, no need to go back through those scandalous tales about how the two got to where they are today. However, there are new things on the horizon — things that they now share. In a strange twist of fate, the two are in an Impeachment Race.

On Monday, the U.S. House of Representatives Began Its Impeachment Process Against Judge Kent

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers (D-Michigan) and the Committee’s top Republican, Lamar Smith, are asking that Kent resign. Otherwise, the House is going to proceed with impeachment proceedings.

Why? Conyers and Smith don’t want Judge Kent to get that $169,000 annual retirement pension that he’s manuevering to get … as we posted earlier, Kent is too young to get full retirement benefits based upon his age, so he’s asserting a disability (it’s grown to bipolar disorder since our last post) to keep that income (and assorted benefits) coming in.

Status: On May 12, 2009, HJC Member Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) filed articles of impeachment against Kent. On May 13, 2009, the HJC voted to investigate Judge Kent for possible impeachment. So, the Congressional investigation has begun.

On April 28th, Texas State Rep Lon Burham Promised a Formal Motion to Impeach Keller Will Be Filed Soon with the Texas House

On April 28, 2009, on the steps of the Texas Capitol, State Representative Lon Burham (D-Fort Worth), called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Sharon Keller. Burham has told the media that he will be filing a formal motion to impeach Keller as soon as he collected enough votes to win that motion on a vote.

Status: Burham has already filed a resolution that establishes procedures for articles of impeachment to be created and voted upon, and the Texas House has already begun hearing testimony on the bill to impeach Justice Keller.

Over at Grits For Breakfast, there’s talk that Burham will be able to get this to a record vote before the end of the session — and if he does, and the vote comes down in favor of impeachment, then Justice Keller will be temporarily removed from office until her impeachment trial by the Senate is completed.

Impeachment Race Status: Kent is in the lead, but Keller’s coming around the bend.

Sources:

Houston Chronicle
http://www.newschannel10.com/Global/story.asp?S=10355654

Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/house-starts-impeachment-proceedings-federal-judge-sex-case/

Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/representative-initiates-efforts-for-impeachment-of-sharon-keller-1.1736566

Grits for Breakfast
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/05/sharon-keller-out-by-2010.html

Posted by Michael Lowe at 2:05 pm

No Comments
Labels: Judge Watch


May 11th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Federal Judge Samuel Kent Getting Sentenced Today

This blog first posted about Galveston’s federal judge Samuel Kent back in October, when Judge Kent made history as the first federal judge — EVER — to be indicted for sex crimes. Tidbits from that first post:


Judge Kent has been indicted (formally charged) with three crimes: (1) two counts of abusive sexual contact and (2) one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse. His trial was initially set for the first week of November, in a Houston federal courtroom — now that Ike’s done its damage, the trial has just been moved back to January 2009….

Judge Kent’s former case manager has said that the judge groped her, and tried to force her into a sexual act. The Department of Justice investigated, and these formal charges are the result of that investigation….

His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, isn’t denying that something happen between the judge and the employee; instead, DeGuerin has explained that what happened between them was consensual. “To charge Judge Kent of conduct of which he is absolutely innocent based on this kind of flimsy evidence is inexcusable and we will fight it to the bitter end,” DeGuerin said (quoting the Wall Street Journal).


Then, in January 2009, this blog updated this story, with news that new charges had been added to Judge Kent’s indictment while Judge Kent was still setting on the bench, pending trial:

So, right now, over in the Houston federal courthouse, you’ve got District Judge Samuel Kent working away after being transferred to Houston from his longtime bench in Galveston after becoming this infamous, indicted judge. And, down the hall, you’ve got the very same District Judge Samuel Kent facing trial later this month for these various sex crimes….

And, if that weren’t bizarre enough for you — last Friday, Judge Kent got three new charges added to his indictment which brought in a second female court employee alleging that Judge Kent had performed acts that amount to aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact. Also added, an obstruction of justice charge.

It’s reported that his attorney, Dick DeGuerin, says that these new charges aren’t true but he can’t say more than that, because there is a gag order in place….

By adding this new spin to the indictment, Judge Kent not only has to defend against what two women are saying he did, but he’s got to face off against investigators and the like, who are going to tell a jury that Kent lied to them about things, thwarting their efforts.

As Martha [Stewart] can tell you, under an obstruction charge, you don’t have to be guilty of the crime being investigated to be guilty of obstruction. And you still face a significant punishment: on obstruction alone, Judge Kent could face 20 years imprisonment – and that’s before you begin to consider the ramifications to his legal career….

Charging obstruction is a scary thing — regardless of how horrid the alleged conduct might be, having grand juries tack these charges onto indictments is getting to be pretty Big Brother-y for some: you’ve got the constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, but absent taking the 5th how much leeway does a defendant having these days in dealing with the legal authorities?

Creating criminal liability where there wasn’t any beforehand is a danger to justice, and something we all need to be watching, as many scholars are warning against prosecutors’ “creative interpretation” of the obstruction statutes.

Now, there’s more news. Today, Judge Kent will be sentenced in federal court, after entering into a plea agreement.

Seems that last winter, right as jury selection was beginning for his trial, Judge Kent agreed to a plea bargain and avoided a public trial which promised to contain some very scandalous evidence. (See the January post for details.)

At the time of the plea, Judge Kent admitted sexual contact with the two female complaintants occurred, and was against their will. He also informed the court that he intended to retire based upon a disability (at 59, if he resigns he gets no pension – he’d have to be 65 or older for that), and that he was under the care of both a psychologist and psychiatrist at the time of the plea, as well as being on medication for depression and anxiety.

So, it looks like the deal that was made boils down to this: admit to the guilt regarding the sexual contact, and keep your pension.

Let’s see if the visiting Florida judge goes along with it.

And, let’s see if we ever hear anything more on those obstruction of justice charges — were they merely a prosecutorial tool used to force a plea in a case that would otherwise be one person’s word against the others? Those details should come to light at some point.

Sources:

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6417925.html

Posted by Michael Lowe at 2:36 pm

No Comments
Labels: Judge Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights


April 22nd, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Legal Hotshots From Across the Country Want Keller Removed and Her Attorney’s Response Is Weak

Yesterday, Chip Babcock officially responded to the 24 legal ethicists from across the country — who got together earlier this month and sent their written “declaration” to the Texas Commission of Judicial Conduct, declaring that in their august opinion, Chief Justice Sharon Keller should be removed from her position on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

What did Chip Babcock say?

He was surprised. He thought they would have looked at both sides of the story, but he thinks they’ve only looked at the allegations and the media reports on Justice Keller. He thinks they didn’t look at Justice Keller’s response. And, finally, he thinks they’re doing it for the publicity.

Right. Mike Tigar and Company are such media hounds.

First, here’s what the Declaration says.

1. They aren’t finders of fact, but they believe that her omissions from full financial disclosure are one basis for her removal.

These omissions aren’t a contested issue here. Keller’s attorney, Ed Shack, isn’t denying they exist. Instead, Shack has come forward to argue that Justice Keller didn’t know her father had placed real estate holdings in her name and the omissions are really just a “clerical error.”

2. They aren’t finders of fact, but they beleive that Justice Keller’s ‘lack of impartiality and failure to recuse herself” in the Michael Richard case is another basis for her removal. (Read about the Richard case in our earlier post.)

Who are these legal ethicists?

They are 24 legal scholars from across the country, well-respected among the legal community. Many are law professors. They include Mike Tigar from Duke University (Tigar used to be at UT-Law) and Lawrence Fox, Harvard Law School Lecturer and Former Chair of the ABA Committee of Ethics and Professional Responsibility. (For the full listing of signatories with their credentials, check out the pdf of the Declaration, shown below.)

What are the real estate holdings that were omitted?

According to the Dallas Morning News (link shown below), they included the following holdings:

1. Seven (7) residential and commercial properties totalling in value (according to the county appraisal district records) at approximately $1.9 million. They include 2 houses that together add up to over $1,000,000 in the Keller Family Compound located across from the Dallas Arboretum. Justice Keller is listed as sole owner of these two homes under the name of “Sharon Batjer,” her married name (she divorced Batjer over twenty years ago, in 1982).

2. Two (2) holding that total in value to approximately $823,000. One is a vacant commercial lot in Euless. The other is a commercial property that adjoins Keller’s Drive-In on East Northwest Highway, a landmark in the hamburger restaurant chain which has been operated since 1965 by the judge’s father, Jack Keller.

3. Three (3) pieces of real estate with a total value estimated at $114,000, which are held in the name of Justice Keller’s 27-year-old son, that’s right — 27 — who is going to law school right now. Justice Keller is claiming this adult son as her dependent.

That’s some clerical error.

Sources:

The Declaration
http://standdown.typepad.com/KELLER-CumminsFiling-TCJC.pdf

Dallas Morning News
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/04/ethicists-weigh-in-on-keller-c.html

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/033009dnprokellerasets.3df3149.html

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/25/0325keller.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

Posted by Michael Lowe at 2:43 pm

No Comments
Labels: Judge Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights


March 30th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Court of Criminal Appeals Chief Justice Sharon Keller Wants the State to Pay for Her Attorney

First things first: here is the actual response that Chief Justice Sharon Keller has filed in her defense to the trial proceedings before the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct (for details, see earlier post).

Please, take the time to go read that .pdf document. Heck, you might even want to print it. Why?

Justice Keller is asking that the State of Texas pay for her legal fees.

That’s right. It’s public record that the Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is paid an annual salary of $152,500 – which takes her a long, long way from indigent. So, what’s her argument?

And, remember, this is a woman who graduated Rice University with a degree in philosophy, and went on to become the presiding justice of the highest criminal court in the state.

You’d think she’d have a really, really good reason for this. Right?

Here are her arguments.

1. She argues that she is being forced to choose either to “defend herself pro se or risk a financially ruinous legal bill to defend against these charges which are without merit.”

2. She argues that she cannot take up Charlie Babcock of Jackson Walker’s offer of representing her for the fee of one dollar because the ethical rules prohibit this — judges don’t get to take that kind of help from attorneys.

3. She argues that the Commission should pay her attorney’s fees because they’re doing something that’s unconstitutional anyway.

Here are some things she doesn’t point out.

1. She’s been the presiding judge of the highest court for criminal cases in this state since 2002. Before that, she worked in the appellate section of the Dallas prosecutor’s office. If she has to represent herself, well … she’s not exactly inexperienced in the ways of legal representation here.

2. She’s not just getting that nice salary, public records also reveal that (a) she comes from a wealthy Dallas family (ever had a Keller’s Hamburger?) and (b) she owns a lot (a LOT) of income-producing real estate. Would paying Jackson’s full fees really and truly break her? Really?

3. Lots of poor people have to take the attorney they can get, or can afford, and not the attorney that they would like in a Perfect World. There’s no legal right to the attorney of your choice.

4. This isn’t a criminal case, it’s a civil one. There’s no right to counsel in a civil case.

5. If she really and truly wants to take up Charlie Babcock on his offer to work for free, she can. She just has to resign as judge first. Easy.

Sources:

Keller’s Hamburgers
http://kellershamburgers.com/

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/court/justice_skeller.asp

Judgepedia
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sharon_Keller

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/08judge.html?hp

Texas Observer
http://www.dallasobserver.com/1999-11-18/news/judge-shake-it-baby/

Posted by Michael Lowe at 11:27 am

1 Comment
Labels: Judge Watch


March 11th, 2009

JUDGE WATCH: Montgomery County Judge Sadler Slips Past DWI (For Now)

Judge Alan “Barb” Sadler over in Conroe must have slept well last night, because he’s not been charged with driving drunk. Yet.

He did get himself arrested last week, though.

Seems Judge Sadler was driving his 2008 Chevy Avalache on North Loop 336 over there in Conroe about 8:30 on a Wednesday evening, when he was involved in a car crash. At the scene, police did field sobriety tests on Judge Sadler, and while the Judge initially agreed to a Breath Test, he changed his mind.

So they busted Judge Sadler for suspicion of driving drunk and took him down to the jail.

Once they were there, the cops had to wait for two hours to get a warrant and draw his blood for a blood test of his BAC (blood alcohol content). In Texas, you are guilty of driving drunk, as an adult, if your BAC is .08 or higher. And, you can’t take someone’s blood without a search warrant. That’s constitutionally protected.

Judge Sadler changed his mind about the breath test – hours later.

Almost three hours after the wreck, Judge Sadler changed his mind AGAIN and agreed to the Breath Test. He tested out at .02 … so he was found not to be drunk per the BAC standards and the DA released him.

What about the blood test? It’s still at the lab.

The DA is telling the press that the case isn’t closed. They’ll arrest the Judge for driving drunk if that blood test doesn’t come back in his favor.

And that blood test will show not only intoxication due to alcohol, but any other substances that can cause impaired judgment. Heck, even Nyquil can impair your judgment (as can any of those flu or cold medications that warn “don’t drive heavy machinery while taking this drug”).

Has Judge Sadler Been Following Judge Berry’s DWI Case?

Wonder if Judge Sadler has been following the case of Judge Elizabeth Berry (see earlier post, below), who also refused the breath test at the scene? As you’ll recall, Judge Berry’s blood test later revealed a BAC well over .o8….

Sources:

MSNBC.COM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29537968/

Montgomery County News
http://www.montgomerycountynews.net/index.php?module=article&view=279

Dallas Criminal Lawyer Blog
http://dallaslawyer.blogspot.com/2009/01/judge-watch-district-judge-berry-wins.html

Posted by Michael Lowe at 3:13 pm

3 Comments
Labels: Judge Watch


February 23rd, 2009

20 Minutes and 2 Phone Calls May Be the Death Knell for Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Say what you like, no one who gets a philosophy degree from Rice University can be anything but brilliant.

Justice Sharon Keller got hers back in 1975 (and her law degree from SMU in 1978). So how could someone so smart do something so, so stupid?

It’s All About Twenty Minutes – Just 20 Minutes

Back on September 25, 2007, the United States Supreme Court announced that it was going to consider whether or not lethal injections were a constitutional way to impose the death penalty. (The federal constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment … which is why we don’t have electric chairs for capital punishment anymore.)

That same day, here in Texas, attorneys for a man on death row – name of Michael Richard – worked feverishly to finalize the necessary documents to halt his execution, which was scheduled for that day, September 25, 2007.

They were drafting a Motion to Stay his execution, based upon the announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court — after all, if the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection was unconstitutional, then it shouldn’t be used for Michael Richard.

Imagine the tension in that office that day. The hurry, the pressure. And then the computer screws up. (Of course it did – doesn’t this happen to you, too, when you’re on a deadline?)

So, these zealous defense attorneys call over to the Clerk’s office for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. They ask the Clerk to keep the doors open for twenty minutes — just 20 minutes — so they can file their Motion to Stay.

Justice Keller said no. And, all because of this 20 minute gap in time, Michael Richard died that day, by lethal injection. At 6 p.m.

It’s Also About Two Phone Calls

Well, after word got around that Chief Justice Keller (she is not only on the high court, she is the chief justice for the high court) had said no, and Richard had died – things began happening.

For one thing, the Commission for Judicial Conduct began a year-long investigation. And, it’s from the CJC’s results that we know a little more about what happened that day.

First, everyone at the Court of Criminal Appeals knew that the Motion for Stay was coming, because around two o’clock that afternoon, they got an email that told them it was on its way, based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement earlier that day.

The justices took a little vote amongst themselves, even before they got the Motion, and came down 5-4 that they were going to turn down the stay request when it did turn up. And then, Justice Cheryl Johnson and three other justices worked to prepare for the motion they were expecting … everyone at the court knew this motion was on its way, and that Richard was scheduled to die at six o’clock that day.

Chief Justice Keller went home to meet a repairman.

And here’s the story about the first phone call, from CJC report per the Austin American Statesman:

[Court General Counsel] Marty picked up the phone to relay the request to Keller. … It was a short conversation, but they dispute what was said. Marty recalls saying that Richard’s lawyers “wanted the court to stay open late.” Keller says Marty asked only about keeping the clerk’s office open past 5 p.m. — not the court — and that her answer reflected common practice: All clerks went home at closing time. “No,” she told Marty.

Then, the second phone call:

Shortly after 5 p.m., Keller telephoned Marty to ask whether Richard’s lawyers had filed anything. The answer was no.

It’s not clear when Justice Johnson and the other judges found out about the request for 20 minutes. And, it’s not clear why Marty routed the call to Keller, at home, instead of Justice Johnson, who was on rotation to hear the motion.

The Trial of Justice Sharon Keller

Charges have been filed against Justice Keller with the Commission for Judicial Conduct, although no trial date has been set. She’s accused of five violations of either the Texas Constitution or the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. And her fate (exoneration, reprimand, or removal) will be decided by an as-yet-unknown specially appointed judge. It will be a public proceeding.

The Impeachment of Justice Sharon Keller

Her trial may not happen for over a year, and that’s not soon enough for Fort Worth State Representative Lon Burnam. He’s filed a resolution before the Texas House, asking that the legislative body investigate these events, and if the House finds cause for impeachment, then the Texas Senate will hold an impeachment trial.

An Odd Balance

Somehow, all this seems very, very odd. At the worst, Justice Keller loses her job. She’ll get another one.

Balance that against Michael Richard.

Sources:

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/opinion/19thu2.html?_r=1

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/22/0222keller.html

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022009dnmetkeller.403608f.html

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals – Justice Keller web page
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/court/justice_skeller.asp

Posted by Michael Lowe at 2:58 am

1 Comment
Labels: Death Row, Judge Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights


« Older Entries
Newer Entries »