• Home
  • News
  • Top Texas Judge Blames Inmate’s Lawyers for Alleged Execution-Eve Appeal Snafu

Legal Ethics

Top Texas Judge Blames Inmate’s Lawyers for Alleged Execution-Eve Appeal Snafu

Posted Mar 24, 2009 8:12 PM CST
By Martha Neil

In a filing today, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denies disciplinary charges of misconduct and incompetence filed against her last month by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Publicly castigated after she refused a request to allow the court clerk's office to stay open to receive a late filing on Sept. 25, 2007, hours before the convicted murderer at issue was executed, Judge Sharon Keller also blames a condemned man's lawyers for his execution before a last-minute appeal could be pursued in her court, according to the New York Times.

She says in the filing that she did nothing wrong and acted “in accordance with long-standing custom," the newspaper reports.

Keller also complains, in effect, of being tried in the press and says the inmate's lawyers could have taken the appeal directly to a judge assigned to hear such late filings, according to the Times and the Associated Press.

"Judge Keller did not, and could not have, if she had wanted to, close access to the court," the response states. Lawyers for Michael Wayne Richard could have gone to the court's general counsel or eight other judges on the appeals court's bench with their late filing, it contends, adding that all of their phone numbers are published.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has since changed its rules to allow emergency e-mailed appeals under such circumstances, in death penalty cases, the AP notes.

A copy of Keller's response (PDF) is provided by the Austin Legal blog of the Austin American-Statesman.

Earlier related coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Top Texas Judge Faces Ethics Case Over Late Filing Refused on Inmate’s Execution Day"

Dallas Morning News: "Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge's actions called into question"

New York Times: "Mixed Opinions of a Judge Accused of Misconduct "

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Mar 25, 2009 12:00 AM CST

It does seem odd that counsel did not try the other avenues.  I will admit I have never handled a death case in criminal court or on appeal, but if I had one on appeal, I think I would take every possible shot, unless the client affirmatively directed otherwise.

Flag this comment

2.

JR
Mar 25, 2009 10:55 AM CST

A right-wing conservative, all in favor of “individual responsibility” when imposing long sentences, points fingers when it comes to herself.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Moreover, what a lame excuse she gives.  When the chief judge says no, how can the court’s general counsel override her?  Does Texas allow lawyers to “appeal” an adminstrative act of the chief judge, who after all is in charge of the clerk’s office?  Probably not.

I think Judge Keller thought she would not get caught. when she acted callously in denying the defendant the opportunity to proceed.

Flag this comment

3.

P. Bryson
Mar 25, 2009 11:47 AM CST

The fact that someone is close to execution shouldn’t mean that the court is forced to keep the clerk’s office open special hours. That’s really the issue here. The solution is to timely file; that’s what the rest of us have to do.

Flag this comment

4.

B. McLeod
Mar 25, 2009 1:31 PM CST

The origin of the term “deadline” dates from the War Between the States.  In the poorly constructed prisoner of war encampments, the guards and camp administrators enforced prisoner containment by marking a boundary line and shooting any prisoners who crossed it.  This particular judge is perhaps a traditionalist, and may want to help restore the full gravity of the original meaning.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.