Sharon Keller hearing justified

Sharon Keller, the state's head criminal appeals judge, embarrassed Texas with her "we close at 5" rejection of a death penalty appeal in 2007. The execution was carried out a few hours later, magnifying this state's image as cavalier about putting people to death.

It's fitting that Judge Keller will have to defend her actions and her job in a rare hearing before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Texas must have courts that are dispassionate, fair and soberly mindful of their life-and-death authority. Judge Keller's actions cast doubt about whether she measures up, and her opportunity to address that will clarify her level of commitment to justice over vengeance.

Judge Keller has made other injudicious comments, such as a campaign statement that she is a "pro-prosecution" jurist. Properly applying the law rules out being "pro" anything aside from "pro" justice. That boils down to a matter of competence, one area of inquiry before the commission.

Charges against Judge Keller don't question whether an innocent man was executed. There has been no indication that convicted killer Michael Richard was anything but a murderer. But that's not the question. The state Constitution guarantees access to the courts, and any abrogation of that right especially with an execution pending is an outrage.

As if admitting a deadline blunder, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later adopted a written policy about taking appeals on pending executions. For example, defense lawyers may now deliver filings via e-mail, a practice already used in other appeals courts.

The charges against Judge Keller come at an opportune time. With the Legislature meeting in Austin, lawmakers will be sorting through proposals to heighten the level of scrutiny in capital cases. One of them, filed by Sen. Rodney Ellis of Houston, would give a condemned inmate the right to attend, either in person or by telephone, a clemency hearing by the parole board.

That is the level of access a defendant should be afforded, and the level of attention that the justice system must pay, when the state is about to end a person's life.

Source: Dallas Morning News, Editorial, Feb. 2009