Like a dream come true, Chief Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Sharon Keller, walks away untouched. MIchael Richards remains dead. Keller’s slamming shut of the courthouse doors remains wrong. And yet all charges against her are dismissed. Is this a great system or what?
The reasoning behind the Special Court of Review tossing the charges against Killer Keller (as she will forever be called, here at least) is simple. The sanction imposed by the Commission reviewing the decision of the special master, Judge David Berchelmann Jr., imposed a penalty that was legally unavailable. The options were removal from the bench or censure. Instead, they issued a public warning.
The 3 person Special Court of Review held :
In the absence of a finding of good cause and the requisite number of votes, the Commission was required to dismiss the charges. Here, by failing to either authorize censure or to recommend the removal or retirement of Judge Keller, the Commission implicitly acknowledges that it did not find good cause for its actions or have the required votes to take those actions. The Commission, therefore, had no option but to dismiss the charges against Judge Keller.
Whenever a decision turns on the words “implicitly acknowledges,” you can bet that we’re in for one heck of a good ride. When it’s a controversial decision in an odd situation, it’s best described by the word “punt.” From the Latin, punt, puntum, puntas. If the Dallas Cowboys could punt like this, maybe they wouldn’t be losers. Nah.
To any reasonably thoughtful person, the inquiry into Sharon Keller’s deep, abiding concern for the life of others would consist of two separate questions.
Question 1: Did the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Sharon Keller, violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is “yes”, then what penalty should be imposed?
These questions should come as no surprise to anyone. They mirror the same questions asked in every case, whether civil or criminal. Every case except this one.
Instead, the court did something quite extraordinary, mashing remedy with violation and assuming that if the remedy was wrong, the violation didn’t occur. This is akin to saying that a defendant, convicted of murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment outside the realm of available prison sentences, didn’t commit the murder at all. After all, had he committed the murder, he would have been sentenced within the realm of available prison sentences. By imposing an unavailable sentence, the sentencing judge “implicitly acknowledges that it did not find good cause for its actions.”
Or, it just imposed an unavailable sentence because the statute describing available sentences was ambiguous, and it was unclear whether it was comprehensive or merely illustrative.
If it was a criminal defendant, the matter would have been sent back for resentence within those available by law. If this was a civil action, the matter would have been remitted with instructions to raise or lower the verdict, as the case may be. But this was Killer Keller. Dismissed.
From my understanding of Texas procedure, that’s the ballgame. The sound you hear in the background is Porky Pig saying, “That’s all, folks!”
The Honorable Sharon Keller’s judicial career is unbesmirched. Michael Richards is still dead. The Sovereign Republic of Texas has fully addressed this sordid chapter in its handling of the execution of defendants, and in the integrity of its criminal justice system, and put it to rest. An excellent day indeed.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Being a law student in Texas, I’ve followed the Sharon Keller case pretty closely as it’s unfolded during my time in law school, and it troubles me on several levels. It’s obviously troublesome that someone we entrust with such a powerful position has such a callous disregard for human life, even a convicted murderer. It’s also troublesome that the system is set up so that it takes so little to ensure an execution. I mean, she closed the office and a person died as a result. I’m not going to call it murder because that’s not really what it is, but the fact is that another human being died as a direct result of her actions. That in itself is also troubling. But I think what troubles me the most is how powerless I feel about my ability to do anything at all about it. The State Bar obviously isn’t going to do anything, and we can’t just rise up and throw her in a pit, because of that whole due process thing (ugh such a pain in the ass sometimes!), so what can we do? How can we tell Sharon Keller that her actions are inexcusable and she is unworthy of human decency and respect, while still staying within the bounds of the law and the social contract?
My answer: treat her like shit. Absolute shit. Personally. If you see Sharon Keller, be mean. Be insulting. Be demeaning. Call her horrible names in the street. Refuse to serve her at your restaurant and refuse to allow her to patronize your business. If you’re on her condo association, enforce every single rule, no matter how trivial, until her life becomes miserable. Make her feel like a complete social pariah, and treat her with the same disregard and disrespect that she shows to the people whose lives rest in her hands. Make her realize that Do Unto Others works both ways.
Petty? Sure. Effective? Not likely. I’m not going to pretend like it’s a great idea. But the one thing I can control is how much respect I give another person, and a worthless piece of shit like Sharon Keller deserves none.
Scott, is there a reason under Texas law that this couldn’t have been remanded back to the Commission instead of completely kicked, or was this just the court’s way of looking after it’s own?
The idea is to respect the office, if not the person. Doing so can be very difficult some days.
None that I can see.
The court’s opinion dumping the case explains that it couldn’t be remanded for a legal sanction because imposing the illegal one demonstrated (just how isn’t the least bit clear, but clarity wasn’t the point) that there was no basis for a legal one. And the Commission’s options in the first place were a sanction or dismissal, so dismissal is all that’s left.
Or something like that.
Sure, which is why my outrage is limited to Sharon Keller the individual. I have no beef with the Court of Criminal Appeals (other than my general beef with them as a future criminal defense lawyer). She may have been fully within the realm of her official powers, but that doesn’t make her personally any less of a piece of shit.
Of course, youthful idealism and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, so..
Judge Keller is accused of an impropriety with serious consequences. Punishment of sorts follows. The judge uses her right to appellate review, no doors are closed to her, and punishment goes away because the method of punishment was wrong. Taxpayers pay her lawyer.
Michael Richards is convicted of a terrible crime, capital punishment is imposed, and Richards uses his right to appeal the method of punishment. The courthouse door is closed to Richards. Taxpayers pay for his execution.
Next, Richards’ lawyers are blamed. Looks like Richards can now appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel. Judge Keller is still a judge, so maybe she could hear this case and we will have a happy, story book ending celebrating the rule of law.
But wait, Richards is still dead. So maybe not such a happy ending.