The official warning to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller (pictured) last week was critical to restoring respect for the state's legal system.
Commission's conclusions:
• "Judge Keller's conduct on Sept. 25, 2007, interfered with Richard's and his counsel's opportunity to be heard by the judge assigned to Richard's execution."
• "Judge Keller's conduct constitutes willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties."
• "Judge Keller's conduct ... casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice."
• "The commission takes the action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system."
In deciding to rebuke Keller, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct went beyond recommendations from a special master who heard evidence in the case. "Public humiliation" was enough, the master had said in January, despite a finding that Keller's actions thwarting an 11th-hour death-penalty appeal were "not exemplary of a public servant."
It's a relief that the Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded that humiliation indeed was not enough. Keller's infamous words "We close at 5" – her response to a request for an after-hours filing – required the official condemnation meted out by the commission last week.
The commission could have voted to remove Keller from office, which would have been an extreme step, considering that bumbling and confusion by court personnel and the defense team also played roles in cutting off the appeal.
Another option open to the commission – dismissing the complaint against Keller – would have sent a disastrous signal about the openness of Texas courts, and it's fortunate the panel recognized that. The appearance of callousness in a life-or-death matter could not go unaddressed.
The censure of Keller is not the last chapter we'd like to see in this open-courts drama. State lawmakers can and should pass their own resolution condemning Keller's actions as unbecoming of the state's highest-ranking criminal appeals judge.
The matter involves an appeal being prepared on behalf of convicted killer Michael Richard (pictured) hours before his scheduled execution Sept. 25, 2007. His lawyers were scrambling to get the filing together in light of a late-breaking Supreme Court ruling and didn't make the court's usual closing time of 5 p.m. The execution went forward about an hour later.
The court has last-minute procedures in death cases, but Keller failed to follow them or to make sure that court personnel followed them. The result, the commission found, cut off Richard's "access to open courts" in violation of the Texas Constitution and brought "discredit on the judiciary."
If Keller is interested in rehabilitating her image, she's going about it in a strange way. The judge's lawyer says she wants to appeal the commission's official warning. Last year, she testified in her case that if she had it to do all over again, she wouldn't change a thing.
Maybe that's good politics in a tough-on-crime state. Maybe Keller wants to hew to the campaign statement she once made about being "pro-prosecutor."
But it would do everyone else a favor if Keller backed out of defensive mode and took her medicine. She should also heed the advice of the judicial commission to "reflect on the importance" of canons of conduct that stress "open communication, congeniality and collegiality" among judges.
Source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News, July 20, 2010

Comments
Post a Comment
Pro-DP comments will not be published.