Judge Keller Responds

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller responds to the charges filed against her by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Of particular interest, her response contains additional facts she claims were omitted in the commission's Notice of Formal Proceedings, including:

• Details of the executed man's crime from an Texas Attorney General media advisory.
• An assertion that the defendant "was not seeking on September 25, 2007, 'to avoid execution.' ... He merely wanted Texas not to 'include chemicals that are unnecessary to the effectuation of his death.'"
• The fact that the defendant "insisted on a trial but did not testify."
• A claim that the motion to stay the execution based on a new Supreme Court decision "was a simple document" that could have been filed as a four-sentence handwritten paragraph.
• The statement that "Judge Keller did not have a duty to do anything other than what she did, which was to answer a question about whether the clerk's office closes at 5 p.m."

Something else I found interesting: The judge says she is being denied her right to counsel because the Commission on Judicial Conduct won't pay her legal bills and the Texas Ethics Commission won't rule on whether she could get free or reduced-fee legal services from the hotshot lawyer who's defending her--especially when the CJC is paying an outside law firm $1 to prosecute her case.

(Note that another high ranking judge got in trouble for not reporting discounted legal services as campaign contributions.)

This puts Judge Keller between a rock and a hard place: "either defend herself pro se or risk a financially ruinous legal bill to defend against these charges which are without merit."

Commission on Judicial Conduct Begins Proceedings on Keller

It looks like the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a notice of formal proceedings against Criminal Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller for disregarding execution day procedures in the Michael Richard case. Keller is already the target of an impeachment effort by a Texas House Democrat.

EDIT: The Notice of Formal Proceedings is available online here and here.

The notice contains five charges, including "willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties as Presiding Judge" [Charge I and Charge III]; "that casts public discredit on the judiciary" [Charge II and Charge IV]; and "incompetence in the performance of duties of office" [Charge V].

The charges mention violation of the standards set forth in Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution; Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution; Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; and Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

Via commenter and public document uploader Scott Cobb in this comments thread on Grits for Breakfast.

ADDENDUM: The Austin American-Statesman coverage mentions that Keller's lawyer is Chip Babcock of Dallas. I wonder if he's this Chip Babcock--named one of Texas' "Top-Notch Lawyers" and Oprah's attorney.

Also, the Associated Press coverage quotes Texas Civil Rights Project director Jim Harrington: "I'm impressed that the people on this commission took it serious enough, they decided even if you're the presiding judge of the highest criminal court in the state that you're still subjected to justice."

So how will this get handled? Again, from the AP, noting that it could take 18 months:

Seana Willing, executive director of the judicial conduct commission, said the Texas Supreme Court will appoint a special master — a sitting or retired district or appeals judge — to hear the matter, which will be conducted like a trial. Keller has the right to a lawyer, to confront her accusser, introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

After the proceedings, the commission may adopt, change or reject the special master's findings. The panel could decide to clear Keller of the charges, issue a public censure or recommend she be removed from the bench.

The action to remove Keller would be up to a special tribunal appointed by the Supreme Court. If ordered to leave the bench, Keller could appeal to the Supreme Court.

Impeachment Bill Filed Against CCA Judge

A San Antonio state lawmaker has signed onto a bill creating an impeachment committee to address the actions of Presiding Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Sharon Keller, who drew criticism in 2007 for closing the courthouse at 5 p.m. when attorneys were trying to file a last-minute death penalty appeal.

Grits for Breakfast drew my attention to Fort Worth Rep. Lon Burnam's bill that would get the ball rolling on impeachment. The Grits post doesn't mention it, but the co-author of the bill is former San Antonio City Council member Rep. Roland Gutierrez, who now represents parts of San Antonio, Converse, and Schertz in the Texas House. According to the state Legislature website, he signed on to the bill today.

The legislation directs the House to "consider the impeachment of Judge Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, for gross neglect of duty and conducting her official duties with willful disregard for human life."

No telling if this bill will see the light of day, it still has to get past a lot of hurdles before the House can vote on it, and even if legislators do consider impeachment, no telling if they will actually convict.