Text of Opinion Issued by Special Review Panel in Sharon Keller "We close at 5" Case

Final Opinion in Sharon Keller "We close at 5" Case Issued by Special Review Panel October 11, 2010

Final Judgment in Sharon Keller Case Issued by Special Review Panel

October 11, 2010 statement by Scott Cobb, president of Texas Moratorium Network, which filed one of the judicial complaints against Sharon Keller in 2007:
"It is not surprising that an all-Republican review panel would let Sharon Keller off on a technicality instead of holding her responsible for her judicial misconduct. Sharon Keller may have got off on a technicality, but a majority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that she did not accord a person about to be executed with access to open courts or the right to be heard according to law. Sharon Keller's actions were not in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of her profession as a judge. It is now up to the Texas Legislature to restore the harm done by Sharon Keller to the integrity of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by impeaching Keller for judicial misconduct. The voters of Texas will likely throw her out of office if she decides to run for re-election in 2012, but it would be better for the quality of justice in Texas if the Legislature impeaches and removes her from office".

Charging Documents Filed with Review Panel in Sharon Keller's Appeal

The Austin American Statesman reports on the latest news in the ongoing saga of Judge Sharon Keller, who is appealing her sanction of a "Public Warning" for judicial misconduct for her actions on the day of the execution of Michael Richard, when she said "we close at 5".  You can read the latest charging documents here, filed by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with the three-judge review panel appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to hear Keller's appeal. All three judges on the review panel are Republicans, as is Keller.

From the Statesman:

The special counsel for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct this morning filed charges accusing Judge Sharon Keller of violating her duty as a judge during a botched 2007 death penalty appeal.

It’s the next step in Keller’s appeal challenging the commission’s public warning, issued in July. The warning said Keller acted improperly by choosing to close the Court of Criminal Appeals clerk’s office at 5 p.m. despite knowing that defense lawyers wanted to file an appeal in a pending execution.

The charges lay out, point by point, the commission’s version of what happened on Sept. 25, 2007, when lawyers for murderer Michael Richard requested extra time to file an appeal. The points were compiled from sworn testimony by Keller and others.

The charging document was filed with a three-judge special court of review, which now has 30 days — with a 30-day extension available — to schedule a hearing on the charges.

After the hearing, the review court has 60 days to render a decision about whether Keller was properly reprimanded by the commission, an independent agency that investigates allegations of wrongdoing by Texas judges.

Charging Document Against Judge Sharon Keller

Sharon Keller Compares State Commission on Judicial Conduct to Soviet Bloc Authorities

 "This course of events would not seem out of place in the old Soviet bloc, where show trials were not really trials, but were degredation ceremonies staged to depose officials who deviated from party doctrine," reads Sharon Keller's latest brief. "Things should be different in this country." (Page 16,PDF)


Part one of Keller's latest filing. Part two of Keller's latest filing.


Sharon Keller could be suspended from office if the Travis County Attorney files misdemeanor charges against Keller for her violation of state law in failing to report millions of dollars in property and income to the Texas Ethics Commission, which already assessed her a $100,000 civil fine. 


The TEC found that there is "credible evidence of violations of section 572.023 of the Government Code", so it is appropriate that criminal charges are filed in addition to the civil penalty assessed by the TEC.

The criminal offense for a violation of section 572.023 of the Government Code is a Class B misdemeanor.

Click here to ask the Travis County Attorney to file charges against Keller since the TEC has said that there is credibile evidence that she violated the law.


The Austin Chronicle has more on Sharon Keller's bombastic rants against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct:

But the bombast doesn't stop there – hells no! Keller goes on to charge that the real motivation behind her persecution is a fundamental disagreement that TDS has with Keller's views on the death penalty. The objections of the SCJC's lawyers "amount to nothing more than an attempt to re-write history simply because" the lawyers don't "like 'Judge Keller's attitude'" and disagree with "Judge Keller's 'viewpoint' about the death penalty," Keller's brief reads. "Judge Keller is not – or at least should not be – on trial because of her beliefs, but because the [lawyers] charged her with denying Mr. Richard access to the CCA on the evening of his execution." Indeed, though for many CCA watchers it might be difficult to separate Keller's feelings about the death penalty from the way she presents in court – need we bring up Keller's amazing performance in the Roy Criner case, on stage for all to see in the infamous Frontline interview? And that's just one example. (There are plenty of other examples out there – just a few can be found here.)

Considering that impartial attitude is one of the canons of judicial ethics, it's not surprising that Keller's opinions about capital punishment have made many attorneys scratch their chins in wonder at some of the opinions Keller has expressed over the years, while sitting on the state's highest criminal bench. (Full list of canons is here.)

Regardless, it seems quite unlikely that the SCJC will derail the Keller hearing process that is already in motion. Indeed, Keller is slated to have her day in court before the Commission nextFriday, June 18, beginning at 9a in the John H. Reagan State Office Building.

Texas Lawyer's Mary Alice Robbins reports:

The judicial conduct commission's executive director and examiner, Seana Willing, and the commission's special counsel John J. "Mike" McKetta, a shareholder in Austin's Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, argue in their objections that Berchelmann's findings are irrelevant and erroneous. They contend that Berchelmann improperly turned the hearing on Keller's conduct into something resembling a tort case or other similar proceeding in which comparative responsibility or fault is an issue.

The judicial conduct commission will consider both sides' objections in In Re Sharon Keller at a June 18 hearing in Austin.

In her response, Keller argues that the special master correctly found that she did not break any rule, law or canon of conduct. Keller also argues that "this proceeding continues to taint her name and drain her resources," despite the fact that the special master found she violated no laws or rules. She urges the commission to adopt the special master's findings of fact.

Keller argues in her response that the commission's examiner "plays fast and loose with the record" by arguing in her objections that one of Keller's duties was the performance of the CCA's mandatory execution-day protocol. On Sept. 25, 2007, the CCA had an "oral tradition" that communications from outside the court on execution days were expected to be directed to the judge assigned to the case, but there were no court rules governing execution procedures, Keller contends in the response. [See Keller's response: Part 1 and Part 2.]

In the examiner's objection, Willing and McKetta argue that Keller knew and had known for years the details of the execution-day procedures.

The state executed Richard on Sept. 25, 2007. Richard died by lethal injection after Texas Defender Service (TDS), which represented Richard, did not file a motion for stay and an application for writ of prohibition on his behalf in the CCA. On the morning of Richard's execution day, the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to consider whether the combination of chemicals used in lethal injections constitute cruel and unusual punishment — an issue that Richard's attorneys were trying to address. However, Richard's attorneys did not file Richard's pleadings in the CCA prior to 5 p.m.

Public Hearing Scheduled in Sharon Keller Case for June 18 in Austin

A public hearing before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct on the matter of Sharon Keller is set for June 18, 2010 at 9 AM Room 140 of the John H. Reagan State Office Building in Austin, Texas at 105 W. 15th Street. June 18 is a Friday. 

Here is the notice of the hearing before the Commission:

http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/skeller/NoticeOfObjectionsHearing.pdf

Texas Moratorium Network filed a judicial complaint against Keller in 2007 and that was co-signed by about 1900 people.  



On Sept. 25, 2007, Michael Richard’s lawyers called the court clerk’s office to say they were running late in delivering the papers for his appeal. The Supreme Court had unexpectedly issued an order in another death penalty case that they believed provided grounds for putting off his execution. When the request to keep the office open reached Judge Keller, she insisted it would close promptly at 5 p.m. The appeal was not filed with her court, and Mr. Richard was executed hours later.

Judge Keller is now facing five counts of judicial misconduct and a possible recommendation that the state judicial system remove her from the bench.

Prosecution Files Objections to Findings of Special Master in Sharon Keller Case: Says Keller Deserves Punishment

The Austin American-Statesman is reporting that the prosecution, representing the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, has filed a document objecting to the findings issued by the Special Master Judge David Berchelmann.

Texas Moratorium Network filed a complain against Sharon Keller in 2007 that was signed by about 1900 people. For more information on the case visit www.SharonKiller.com.

From the Statesman:

Seeking to revive their case against Judge Sharon Keller, prosecutors argued Wednesday that Keller deserves to be reprimanded or removed from office for refusing to accept a late execution-day appeal in 2007.

In documents filed Wednesday with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which will weigh Keller’s fate, prosecutors objected to a special master’s conclusion that Keller was not to blame for failures that resulted in death row inmate Michael Richard being executed without his final appeal being heard in court.

Dismissing the findings by Special Master David Berchelmann Jr. as irrelevant and misguided, prosecutors said Keller’s conduct in Richard’s case “was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties … and cast public discredit on the judiciary.”

Keller’s lawyer, Chip Babcock, also filed objections to Berchelmann’s findings, issued last month after he heard four days of testimony in August.

Though emphatically in Keller’s favor, Berchelmann’s findings also criticized Keller for questionable judgment when she refused to keep the court clerk’s office open past 5 p.m. Richard’s lawyers had requested extra time to file an appeal based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that morning.

Babcock urged the commission to disregard Berchelmann’s criticism as irrelevant, noting that Keller was charged with violating the code of judicial ethics and the Texas Constitution — not with exhibiting poor judgment or making questionable decisions.

“The special master explicitly found, based on a thorough and careful review of the evidence, that Judge Keller ‘did not violate any written or unwritten rules or laws,’” Babcock wrote. “The special master’s findings of fact plainly absolve Judge Keller of all of the charges leveled against her … (and) can only be read as an exoneration of her conduct.”

Babcock said he plans to file a formal response to prosecutors’ objections in the near future, and both sides will get a chance to argue their objections before the commission during an as-yet unscheduled meeting.

After that meeting, the 13-member commission will meet in private to decide whether to drop the charges, reprimand Keller or recommend her removal from office. That decision could take weeks, perhaps months, and a removal recommendation would kick off a new inquiry by a specially created seven-member panel of appellate court judges.

In Wednesday’s filings, prosecutors attacked Berchelmann’s two main conclusions:

• That Keller violated no rule or law when she declined to accept the appeal after 5 p.m.
• That lawyers with the Texas Defender Service, or TDS, were to blame for the missed appeal by failing to diligently prepare Richard’s court briefs and declining to pursue available options to file them with the Court of Criminal Appeals after 5 p.m.

Prosecutors argued that Berchelmann improperly portioned out blame as if he were presiding over a negligence lawsuit instead of charges of judicial misconduct.

“The issue here is not TDS’s conduct, but Judge Keller’s conduct,” prosecutors said. “Judge Keller’s conduct on Sept. 25, 2007 should be examined based on what she knew, heard, thought, said, did, decided and failed to do — and not on things that she did not know.”

Read more in print or on line tomorrow.

Dallas Morning News: "Judge Keller shouldn't get a pass"

Last week, the San Antonio Express-News called for Judge Sharon Keller's removal from office. Now, the Dallas Morning News has become the second newspaper to call for a harsher punishment than was recommended by the special master Judge David Berchelmann, Jr.

On this we agree with a special master's finding on Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller: She could have and should have done more to make clear her court's willingness to receive last-minute pleas before a September 2007 execution.

On this we disagree with the special master: that public humiliation Keller has endured since the celebrated fiasco is punishment enough.

Yet that's what state District Judge David A. Berchelmann Jr. is recommending to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct – essentially to let bygones be bygones, despite a royal screw-up.

Instead, when it acts on the Berchelmann report, the commission should focus on the communication breakdowns within the court and the key finding that Keller's conduct "was not exemplary of a public servant."

That degree of failure in a death penalty case merits an official reprimand by the commission, and we hope that's the way the last chapter is written in this judicial comedy of errors.

Let's set the scene from that evening of Sept. 25, 2007, as documented in a trial before Berchelmann last year: The life of convicted murderer Michael Richard was at stake, and appellate attorneys were working on an appeal that probably would not be ready until after regular business hours.

Yet confusion reigned among frontline staffers in the state's highest criminal court over the significance of "closing time" and whether court personnel could or would accept that appeal after 5 p.m.

Representatives of the attorneys got the message "We close at 5," even though a duty judge could have handled the matter. The lawyer for the Court of Appeals reached Keller at home for a clarification, but her involvement may very well have added to the fog.

Said the special master's report: "Judge Keller certainly did not exhibit a model of open communication."

Texans deserve better out of the top criminal appeals judge, especially in light of the state's nation-leading record on capital punishment, including more than 200 executions since Keller became presiding judge in 2001. It's a grisly business and one that demands everyone be alert until the executioner's needle goes in the arm of the condemned.

Berchelmann didn't let the appellate attorneys off the hook, suggesting they should have been smart enough or experienced enough to find a last-minute workaround in light of their tardy filing. The report contends they bear "the bulk of fault," as if that calculation helps us grapple with the matter at hand – Keller's leadership on the court.

Since the Richard case, her court has written down – for the first time – procedures to be followed in the hours before an execution nears. That in itself appears to be an admission that the court fell short in the Richard affair.

The judicial commission could find that Keller's shortcomings are so egregious to justify her removal from office, but that's not the way the proceedings seem to be headed. In any case, voters will have the chance to decide the question in two years

Sign the petition to remove Judge Sharon Keller from office.


You can view the signatures by clicking here.

In addition to signing the petition, contact the State Commission on Judicial Conduct by phone or email and tell them not to let Sharon Keller off the hook. The Republican judge at her trial has recommended that she not be further punished, but the state commission can still punish her for saying "we close at 5" and refusing to accept a late appeal on the day of a person's execution.

Send an email to: seana.willing@scjc.state.tx.us.

In polite, professional language, tell Executive Director Ms Willing that Sharon Keller has brought discredit on the Texas judiciary and if they let Keller off the hook, the discredit will only get worse. Restore Integrity, Remove Keller, at least punish her with a formal reprimand.

http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/

Your communication to the State Commission will serve as support that Keller has discredited the Texas judiciary.

You can call, but they only answer the phone during business hours.

State Commission on Judicial Conduct • P. O. Box 12265 • Austin, TX 78711 Telephone: (512) 463-5533 • Toll Free: (877) 228-5750 • Fax: (512) 463-0511 • TDD: (800)-RELAY-TX

Letter from Ethicists to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct Calling for Sharon Keller's Removal

Ethicists Call for Sharon Keller's Removal

Text of Sharon "Killer" Keller's Response to Charges of Misconduct and Incompetence

Scott Cobb has uploaded the text of Sharon "Killer" Keller's response to Charges of Misconduct and Incompetence online.
Judge Keller Answer

Weekend Editorials on Sharon Keller

The Austin American-Statesman's editorial says that Sharon Keller should not resign and should stand trial, because "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. A trial would expose Keller's heartless missteps to a fascinated world."

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.

...

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.

The San Antonio Express-News in its Sunday editorial called the the misconduct charges against Texas Court of Criminal Appeals President Judge Sharon Keller a "welcome development."

Keller's actions drew an immediate outcry. Even the most passionate death penalty advocates want the judicial system to operate fairly, and Keller denied Richard reasonable access to the court.

The Hearst Austin Bureau reported that the charges against Keller mark “the first case that could result in a public trial and possible removal of a statewide judge.”

Keller has 15 days to file a response, and the case could lead to trial before a special master, Hearst reported.

While Keller's actions in the Richard case violate our sense of justice, she deserves her day in court on the charges.

Regardless of the outcome, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct deserves kudos for having the courage to act in this situation. Public confidence in the system's ability to police itself should be bolstered by the commission's action.

The Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey explains the trial process and Sharon Keller's options. "If Keller doesn’t like what these judges decide she can appeal to the state Supreme Court — if her lawyers get their filings in on time."

Based on the evidence it heard during these “informal hearings,” the court could have gone so far as to publicly reprimand Keller. Instead, at least seven members voted in December to initiate a process that could lead to Keller’s removal. Willing cautioned that the vote doesn’t signal that the commission thinks Keller should be removed. It may be that they seek more information that may result from the more adversarial process to come.

It will begin with the appointment of a “special master” by Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson of the state Supreme Court. The master could be from a district court or an intermediate court.

That judge will conduct in public what will look very much like a civil trial, with John McKetta III, an Austin lawyer who will serve without pay as the lead “prosecutor” for the commission, and a lawyer for Keller putting on witnesses for examination and cross-examination.

The special master will then issue a “finding of facts,” but will not decide Keller’s fate. Instead his or her findings will be returned to the commission, which will hear from both sides and possibly take new evidence in a public hearing, and then retire to decide whether to recommend Keller’s removal. That’s right: recommend.

A judge, it seems, must be judged by judges.

So Chief Justice Jefferson will pick by lot a seven-member “review tribunal” from a pool consisting of one member chosen by each of the state’s 14 intermediate courts of appeal. The first picked will be chairman.

The tribunal will hold yet another hearing and possibly take more new evidence, then decide whether to accept the commission’s recommendation or impose a tougher or more lenient sanction.

If Keller doesn’t like what these judges decide she can appeal to the state Supreme Court — if her lawyers get their filings in on time.

Texas judge faces public hearing for conduct over 2007 death-penalty appeal

That's Diane Jennings latest article at the Dallas Morning News. You can read the notice of formal proceedings here.

The top judge of Texas' highest criminal court was told Thursday that she'll have to publicly defend her 2007 decision to close the court at 5 p.m. rather than allow a last-minute appeal in the case of a man executed later that night.

Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, will have to justify her conduct – and possibly fight for her job – in a rare public hearing ordered by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The commission ordered an inquiry into whether her behavior "constitutes incompetence in the performance of duties of office" and "casts public discredit on the judiciary."

The hearing could result in a recommendation that the Republican be removed from the court she was first elected to in 1994.

Keller has 15 days to formally respond to the charges. The process, including the hearing and the decision, could take more than a year and a half, The Associated Press reported.

Unusual move

The move "is rare as can be," said Larry Fox, former chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. "A once-in-a-decade event."

Fox said the hearing offered a chance "to restore the reputation of the Texas judiciary" after Keller's decision sent shockwaves across the nation.

Keller declined to comment. Her attorney, Chip Babcock, told The Associated Press that she "absolutely and totally denies these accusations."

The "notice of formal proceedings" issued by the commission comes after more than a year of orchestrated public outrage over the handling of Michael Richard's case.

Richard, convicted in the 1986 rape and murder of a woman in Hockley, was slated for execution at 6 p.m. on Sept. 25, 2007, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a case on the constitutionality of lethal injection.

Richard's lawyers planned to file an appeal on those grounds but had computer problems. When they called the Court of Criminal Appeals to explain the delay, Keller told court officials that the court would close at 5 p.m.

Richard was executed that evening after attorneys were unable to file the appeal to the closed court. Legal experts say it is common practice for courts to accept filings after the close of business, particularly in death-penalty cases.

Scores of complaints

The allegations against Keller state that she was at home, meeting a repairman, when court officials called her with the late-filing request.

They also say she disregarded court procedures by not referring defense requests to file the appeal after hours to the Court of Criminal Appeals judge who was supposed to be handling the case that day.

After Richard was executed, a massive number of complaints were filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, said its executive director, Seana Willing.

Willing said a public hearing was more appropriate than the commission's typical confidential hearing.

"The result of what happened was very serious," Willing said. "We can't discount that."

Unlike a private proceeding, a public hearing is "a real adversarial process," she said. Keller now has "this opportunity for due process, to cross-examine and confront witnesses"

Willing said there are three possible outcomes. The charges could be dismissed; Keller could be censured; or a recommendation could be made to the Texas Supreme Court for her removal from office.

Damaged reputation

Brian Wice, a defense attorney and legal analyst for NBC in Houston, said removing Keller is "a very real possibility."

Wice, who clerked at the court before Keller took the bench, counts himself as Keller's friend. He called her actions "knuckleheaded" but said she is a hard worker who "cares deeply about doing her job."

"Her reputation's already been damaged," he said. "I'm glad for Sharon that she'll have the opportunity to be in a public forum where she finally gets to come out swinging."

Keller, a former assistant district attorney in Dallas, was the first woman to serve on the court. She has been controversial for several years, with a tough stance on crime earning her the nickname "Killer Keller."

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who organized a petition drive for complaints, said the hearing is "a great step towards rehabilitating the criminal justice system and the Court of Criminal Appeals."

The handling of the Richard case was a blot on Texas justice, he said.

After the initial uproar, the court quickly changed its rules to allow for electronic filings.

Keller's actions also are under scrutiny in the state legislature. Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, has filed a bill seeking her impeachment.

Keller has served as presiding judge since 2000. Her term expires in 2012.

Notice of Formal Proceedings Against Sharon Keller

In 2007 Texas Moratorium Network was one of several groups that filed a judicial complaint against Sharon Keller. Our complaint was co-signed by almost 1900 people. In 2007, we also talked to several legislators who also subsequently signed on to a complaint or filed their own complaints against Keller: Reps Dutton, Olivo, Coleman, Farrar and Burnam.

Last December, TMN approached Lon Burnam and asked him to file a resolution to impeach Keller. Today, the New York Times wrote an editorial supporting Burnam's resolution.

Today, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct formally charged Keller with misconduct.

State Commission on Judicial Conduct Notice of Formal Proceedings

Please be advised that on December 2-4, 2008, following three informal hearings that took place before it on June 18-20, 2008, August 13-15, 2008, and October 15-17, 2008, the Commission voted to initiate formal proceedings against the judge who was the subject of your complaint. This process involves a public trial before a Special Master appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, after which findings of fact will be presented to the Commission. You will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of this trial. Based on the Report from the Special Master, the Commission may vote to dismiss the case, issue a public censure, or recommend to the Supreme Court that the judge be removed from office.

In the event that removal is recommended, a seven-member Review Tribunal of appellate justices, also appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, will review the record of the public trial and the hearing before the Commission to determine if the judge should be removed from office. The Review Tribunal could also dismiss the case or issue a public censure against the judge. Be advised that this process is lengthy and could take anywhere from six (6) to eighteen (18) months or more to complete.

Thank you for your continued patience and cooperation as we continue with this process. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the complaint, as well as for our failure to communicate with you more often and in more detail regarding the status of the investigation. Due to confidentiality rules, we were greatly restricted as to what information we could provide and were concerned that any information we provided would be leaked to the media.

We appreciate that this case is very important to you. Like all cases filed with our agency, this matter was handled carefully and thoroughly investigated. Because the factual allegations and legal issues presented proved to be more complicated than most cases presented to the Commission, it simply required more time to resolve. In addition, please keep in mind that our Commission holds hearings only six (6) times per year, and handles hundreds of cases at each of those meetings. The thirteen volunteers who serve on the Commission take their responsibilities seriously and provide each case and decision the consideration it deserves. The members did not arrive at their decision in this matter lightly or prematurely.

We would also point out that we have a small, but dedicated staff that includes five lawyers and three investigators, who handle over 1,000 cases each year. Because of the significance of this matter, the investigation and presentation of the case was handled exclusively by the agency’s Executive Director and the Chief Investigator. It should be clear from a review of the Notice of Formal Proceedings how much time and effort has gone into this case so far.

On a final note, we are honored to have the services of John J. “Mike” McKetta, III, Michelle Alcala, and their firm, Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, P.C., supporting the Commission as Special Counsel in this matter.

Let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this process.

Seana Willing

Executive Director

State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Rep. Lon Burnam files a complaint against Judge Sharon Keller

Lon Burnam is the second state legislator that has filed a complaint against judge Sharon Keller. Rep. Harod Dutton was the first person to file a complaint last week.

LON BURNAM
DISTRICT 90 • FORT WORTH

October 15, 2007
State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PO Box 12265
Austin, TX 78711
Dear Members of the Commission:

I am writing to file a complaint with the Commission concerning the actions of Judge Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on the evening of September 25. According to several news accounts, Judge Keller refused to keep her office open later than 5pm to receive the pleading of Michael Richard who was killed by lethal injection later that night. It is my opinion that her actions were unprofessional and unethical and constitute judicial misconduct. I urge you to take prompt and appropriate disciplinary action against Judge Keller, which should include serious consideration of removal from office.

Judge Keller’s actions resulted in the loss of constitutional rights of Mr. Richard. Further, her actions have embarrassed the state of Texas and cast severe doubt on the impartiality of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The public’s perception of the fairness of the courts is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law. If disciplinary action is not taken against Judge Keller, thisperception will be irreparably harmed.

It is simply unconscionable and unacceptable for any officer of the court to close the doors of the court when a pleading for a man’s life is known to be on the way. I urge you to take swift and decisive action to repair the damage done by Judge Keller to the integrity of Texas courts.

Sincerely,

Lon Burnam

Sign on to the general public members' Judicial Complaint Against Judge Sharon Keller

If you are as shocked as we were by the refusal of Judge Sharon Keller to accept an appeal 20 minutes after 5 PM by lawyers representing a man about to be executed, then sign on to this complaint. We will submit this complaint to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct on October 30, 2007. In order for your name to count on the complaint for the submission, you must provide all the requested contact information, including your phone number and occupation. Anyone can sign on to the complaint. It is intended as a means for regular members of the public to express their outrage at Keller's action.

We must also have your signature, so download the signature form PDF version , MS Word version and fax it to +15124028428 or mail it to Scott Cobb at 3616 Far West Blvd, Suite 117, Box 251, Austin, Texas 78731. If you would like to download a copy of the complaint for your records, click here

Texas Civil Rights Project might also file a complaint against Judge Sharon Keller

According to today's Houston Chronicle, Jim Harrington of Texas Civil Rights Project might join other Texas groups such as Texas Moratorium Network and file a complaint against Judge Sharon keller. Any concerned Texan can file a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct by going to: www.scjc.state.tx.us

David Dow, an attorney in the case who runs the Texas Innocence Network at the University of Houston Law Center, called her statement "outrageous," noting that lawyers had to decide legal strategy and then craft a filing about why the case before the U.S. Supreme Court applied to Richard's arguments.

The reason behind the request for the delay was a severe computer problem, Dow said. He said he told the court clerk about the problem. Keller said the lawyers didn't give a reason.

Dow also said the court will not accept a filing by e-mail. If it did, he said, lawyers could have met the 5 p.m. deadline once they beat their computer problem, because printing the filing took extra time. The lawyers needed about another 20 minutes.

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said he was thinking about filing a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct about Keller.

"When I saw that, I think I would just describe my reaction as 'stunningly unconscionable,' " Harrington said of her refusal. "There has to be some kind of accountability for this."

Seana Willing, executive director of the Texas commission, said she isn't sure Keller could be sanctioned, were a complaint to be filed, because she isn't aware of anything in the Code of Judicial Conduct that would cover her decision to close the clerk's office while a death penalty case was pending. She indicated she looked through the code after learning of the dispute but could find "nothing specific" dealing with it.

Keller, who was re-elected last year to a six-year term, and Cochran also said they couldn't think of a provision that Keller's action would violate. Judge Mike Keasler, noting he teaches judicial ethics, said he knows of no violation related to such an administrative action by the court's presiding judge.

Harrington said, "I think you'd take the totality of it and have to make some sort of argument this was a gross miscarriage of justice."

Lawyers said that without a ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Richard's appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't consider it. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed another man's execution the same week, after his appeal was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals.