Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Media gearing up for Sharon Keller ethics trial spectacle

Everybody's gearing up for Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller's ethics trial in San Antonio later this month. First Texas Monthly published an extended feature and today the Wall Street Journal Law Blog has a post "pregaming" the trial, which begins August 17.

Meanwhile the Statesman's Chuck Lindell had an item on Sunday previewing Judge Keller's defense, which appears to be to attempt to divert attention away from her own actions by accusing appellate attorneys in their case of lying about computer troubles. Lindell also offered a couple of other interesting data points:

• Cheryl Johnson, the Court of Criminal Appeals judge who was assigned by rotation to handle appeals in Richard's case — but who was not informed about the request for more time — is the only other judge on the nine-member court expected to testify. Witness lists will not be finalized until Monday. ...

• One deposition still needs to be taken — that of Ed Marty, the court's retired general counsel. On Richard's execution day, Marty phoned Keller at her home to say that Richard's lawyers had requested more time. In previous interviews with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Marty and Keller offered differing versions of that conversation.

Ed Marty's role in this was critical so it's a shame he won't be available for cross-examination on the stand. The Statesman has also offered up a series of blog posts collectively titled "The Keller Files," providing more background for those following the case.

3 comments:

Boyness said...

I don't want to miss a minute!

Anonymous said...

What an utter embarrassment for Texas. A good illustration of why there needs to be more DOJ supervision of state courts. Because some states, Texas high on the list, can't be trusted to follow the rules.

Ponzi said...

I found this reader comment on the NYT story interesting:

"[...] This case certainly poses an odd juxtaposition to the Sotomayor hearings. In one case, we see supporters doing and saying anything to avoid the impression of an activist judge looking to make new law; in another, we see detractors looking to impeach a judge for not being activist enough to make an open-ended exception to longstanding court rules to give preferential treatment to an individual that appears to be among the least deserving of it. And the supporters and detractors are basically the same people."

Maybe its not kosher to cross-post someone else's comment like this but I thought maybe y'all would find it interesting too.