Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Ethicists say Keller should be removed from bench

One of the signators forwarded me a copy of this document filed yesterday with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct by two dozen of the nation's leading judicial ethicists. You can read the full document here:
These lawyers and scholars accuse Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of failing to maintain impartiality and of "dishonesty" in both her financial reporting and attempts to obtain money from the state to pay for her lawyers. They're particularly critical of Keller's self-described status as a "pro-prosecution" judge.

According to the declaration, referencing the Texas Constitution (Art. 5, sec. 1-a(6)A), "her egregious misconduct 'casts public discredit upon the judiciary [and upon the] administration of justice.'" The ethicists conclude, "These violations are sufficiently serious to require Judge Keller be removed from the bench."

MORE: From Mary Alice Robbins at Texas Lawyer.


doran williams said...

Grits, I agree with these people on Keller, but I'm puzzled. How does someone get to be known as an "ethicist"?

Mancon said...

Anyone can be an ethicist. Just take the hat and wear it. This is an especially good claim to fame if you have no other distinguishing characteristics.

These cheeseballs are obviously mentally bankrupt if their two primary objections about Keller's behavior are 1) an assets filing and 2) some crap her lawyer cooked up to justify being allowed to not charge for his services in the exact same way that the attorney prosecuting Keller is also not charging.

Thanks for nothing ethicists!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

actually, Mancon, their main complaint was Keller's self-avowed lack of impartiality.

Most of these folks appear to teach ethics in law school or chair various state bar ethics committees. The list and their affiliations are all at the end of the document.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to ask a question. Of all the 37 persons exonerated due to DNA testing in Texas (most of them innocently convicted of rape), how many of them had an appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeals and Sharon Keller? Thank you.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

By definition, all of them, 3:25. Many of them were turned down several times by Keller and Co. before DNA finally exonerated them, and some of them were even labeled "writ abusers" by the court for too vociferously and frequently protesting their innocence.