A bit overwrought, since it’s not as if Sharon “Killer” Keller actually did the killing. She just didn’t do enough to give the defendant a chance to stop the killing, as would be demanded of the Chief Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. That’s right, the report of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct is in, and Killer Keller’s conduct brings discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice.
Via Jeff Gamso, the decision :
Now the Commission has ruled. In a 19 page document (below), the Commission set forth 119 Findings of Fact demonstrating that Keller violated her duty, then failed to disclose her misconduct to her colleagues, and brought national condemnation on herself and the court.The Commission then set forth “Conclusions Regarding Binding Obligations.”
- Judge Keller’s failure to follow Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ Execution-day Procedures on September 25, 2007, and failure to require or assure compliance by the Court of Criminal Appeals General Counsel and clerk staff with respect to Richard’s right to be heard, constitutes willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties as a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals and as the Presiding Judge . . . .
- Judge Keller’s failure to follow Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ Execution-day Procedures on September 25, 2007, and failure to require or assure compliance by the Court of Criminal Appeals General Counsel and clerk staff with respect to Richard’s right to be heard, constitutes willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice . . . .
- Judge Keller’s conduct on September 25, 2007, did not accord Richard access to open courts or the right to be hear according to law. Judge Keller’s conduct constitutes willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties as a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals and as the Presiding Judge . . . .
- Judge Keller’s conduct on September 25, 2007, did not accord Richard access to open courts or the right to be hear according to law. Judge Keller’s conduct constitutes willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice . . . .
The Commission also concluded that Keller violated the “Aspirational Goals” of a judge.
- Judge Keller’s conduct on September 25, 2007 demonstrated a failure to cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business . . . .
- Judge Keller’s conduct on September 25, 2007 demonstrated a failure to require court staff under her direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to herself . . . .
Lots of tough language like “wilful or persistent,” and discredit. Scathing. None of the confused purpose of the special master’s report. And a sternly worded public warning to never, and I mean never, do it again.
Some folks question whether this system, the one that puts ordinary people in prison for long stretches at a time, and even takes the life of a person deemed unworthy of living it, is really just a sick joke that’s played on a naive and unsuspecting citizenry for the benefit of the people in charge. We run with some really catchy platitudes, like we’re a nation of laws, not men. We have impressive wood-paneled courtrooms with robed figures on high benches giving forceful lectures on morality and justice.
And then we go and do something like this, which reminds us that some pigs are more equal than others.
One of the most difficult sells in the criminal justice system is why some attenuated malum prohibitum proscription is worth a life lost to a prison cell. Examples are pervasive, from drugs to insider trading. Sure there are arguments of harm, but they’re attenuated and largely rhetorical. As is so often said, “It’s not like I killed someone.” No, it’s not, the lawyer responds, but these are our laws and you have broken them and must be punished.
But if you’re willing to play the beloved attenuated argument game, then Sharon Keller is as much a killer as the getaway driver in a felony-murder gone bad. Yet she not only gets to go home at night, but continues to wear her robe to work every day. It’s hard to explain exactly why this should be. It’s hard to put on that very serious face and tell someone why their conduct, no victim included, is so horribly wrong that they must be a guest of the state while Sharon Keller gets a stern public warning before returning to chambers.
The Commission was clearly correct when it proclaims that Keller’s conduct discredits the judiciary “or” the administration of justice. One might say that “discredits” doesn’t do it justice. Her conduct did more than that. She rendered the legal system a farce, a joke, a system that is callous to the taking of a life of a defendant. And so what?
Having concluded that Sharon Keller brought discredit to the system, the Commission compounds that discredit by allowing Sharon Keller to put her robe back on, step up to the bench and affirm the next execution. When the powerful and connected are given a pass, it’s impossible to explain to the groundlings why they should behave better.
Whether Sharon Keller learned her lesson is unclear. Whether all the other nice folks who get to stand before a judge will take comfort in the outcome of this matter is a bit easier to guess. And the lawyers who appear before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to make their last ditch argument for their clients will still be required to call Sharon “Killer” Keller “your Honor,” knowing that she’s free to kill again.
May it please the court?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems pretty clear to me that she has not learned her lesson, at all. If anything, she seems emboldened.
Judge Keller may or may not be a “bad” judge. I don’t know what her behavior was like before this case. She was certainly guilty of nonjudicial behavior in this case.I disagree though, that she is as guilty of murder as much as the “getaway driver in a felony-murder gone bad”.
She would only be that guilty if there were sufficient legal grounds for Richard to have a stay of execution and she intentionally refused to hear them. If that wasn’t the case, Richard would have been executed anyway and her not hearing a last a minute appeal did no harm to Richard.
I’m not saying that her behavior was not reprehensible, just that it certainly did not rise to the level of murder.
I would add that the only time “ordinary people go to prison for long periods of time”, is when an innocent person is wrongly convicted.
I know that many individuals have different reasons for their actions and that some people in the judicial system may belief that a person that has received a death sentence is “unworthy of living”, but that is not the reason that the capitol punishment is proscribed in some states for certain crimes. The death sentence is given as punishment for a heinous crime, to prevent the person from killing anyone else, and as motivation for others to choose not to commit similar crimes; not because the person is “deemed unworthy of living”.
I understand that the judicial system is screwed up badly and that the death penalty should be put on hold until if and when it gets much better. I remember the scandal when some organization, a few years ago, tested the DNA of semen samples that were found in the bodies of women that had been raped and murdered. If I remember right, they found 25 men on death row, in Los Angeles alone, who’s DNA did not match the DNA of the victims and that all of those men were released and all of the records for men who were convicted of that crime reviewed.
I appreciate your compassion for people convicted of crimes and when I went to grade school in the 1940’s we were told that one of the principles of law was that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be sent to prison. I still believe in that principle but it seems that that principle has fallen from the wayside in the judicial system.
Albert Nygren wrote: “I disagree though, that she is as guilty of murder as much as the “getaway driver in a felony-murder gone bad”.
She would only be that guilty if there were sufficient legal grounds for Richard to have a stay of execution and she intentionally refused to hear them.”
Exactly that was the case. The US Supreme Court granted cert in Baze that morning to consider whether lethal injection – which Richard was scheduled to get – was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. The stay in Baze was grounds to stay execution of Richard. Richard’s counsel tried to file for a stay of his execution, and tried to contact the judge assigned execution-day duty. Keller prevented Richard’s counsel getting through to that judge and herself ordered staff not to accept the filing.
So – yes, she refused to allow his request for stay to be heard, and he was executed. If the Texas court had not granted a stay, the US Supreme Court would have granted the stay.
“Killer” Keller. QED.