A special court of review Monday threw out an ethics rebuke given to Presiding Judge Sharon Keller for closing the Court of Criminal Appeals at 5 p.m. despite knowing that lawyers wanted to file an appeal for an inmate facing imminent execution in 2007.
Ruling not on the merits of the case but on the way it was handled, the three-judge panel also threw out the charges that accused Keller of violating her duty as a judge and prohibits the State Commission on Judicial Conduct from refiling the accusations.
The commission cannot appeal Monday’s ruling. ...
Bringing the high-profile case to a swift and stunning end, the review court said the commission committed fatal errors that doomed its punishment of Keller, issued in the form of a July “public warning” that chastised the state’s highest criminal judge for violating court procedures and bringing discredit to the judiciary.
In essence, commissioners chose the wrong punishment, opting for a warning when state law and the Texas Constitution limited their options to a “censure,” a more serious penalty, the court ruled.What a disappointing ruling for all involved: Keller gets the warning overturned on a technicality with the findings of fact on the merits untouched, while the State Commission on Judicial Conduct's improper leniency denuded the agency's authority in one of its highest profile cases ever. Nobody looks too good here. I don't begrudge the judges their ruling. As I'd written after the public arguments, "I certainly didn't leave the room feeling as though there was an obviously 'correct' decision I could easily identify." The SCJC really screwed the pooch on this one. Maybe one day we'll learn the backstory on why they chose not to follow the law after issuing such damning findings of fact.
The judges said they did not address the merits of the charges against Keller but based their decision solely on the errors committed by the commission.
MORE: From Jeff Gamso who provides a link to the final opinion and concludes, depressingly, "if we've learned anything by now, it's that the system protects its own."
.jpg)
16 comments:
EXONERATED!
There is one thing I have learned after many years dealing with lofty public servants and administrative law. That is, the dog and pony show all parties will put on to make it look like an attempt is being made to fix a problem.
Everybody's a comedian, 8:14! :)
I hate it when anyone gets off on a technicality - - offenders AND judges!
He raped and killed Marguerite Dixon in 1986 and the liberals delayed justice for 21 years. They are so upset because, to them, 21 years is not long enough of a delay. In those 21 years have any of these liberals once expressed concern for Marguerite Lucille Dixon? You guessed, not once.
Associated Press
LIVINGSTON, Texas — Two of Marguerite Lucille Dixon’s seven children returned to their darkened home 21 years ago to find her body, hours after a stranger she had offered a drink of water on a hot August day shot and sexually assaulted her before stealing two televisions and a van from the home.
Michael Richard, 49, was set to die Tuesday night in Huntsville for the 1986 murder of the 53-year-old nurse from Hockley.
Richard had been freed from his second prison term only two months when he walked up to Dixon’s home to ask whether a van parked outside was for sale.
It wasn’t, but Dixon invited him inside for a drink of water. When Richard left, he saw two of Dixon’s kids leave right after him. He returned to the house, pulled a gun on the woman, sexually assaulted and fatally shot her, and took two televisions as he left in the van, evidence at his trial showed. Then he went to Houston, about 30 miles to the southeast, and gave the .25-caliber pistol to a friend and swapped the TVs for some cocaine.
How are you feeling about that appellate review process now, Grits? Perhaps you can get at least a little bit of the feeling that so many crime victims feel when some nameless, faceless appellate court overturns a trial jury's verdict on some technicality. Brings to mind that old adage regarding gooses and ganders.
Personally, as loosely as the term "exoneration" gets tossed around on this blog by the IPOT folks and many of the posters, I'm thinking it fits Keller's case quite nicely! Have a nice day!
9:20 asks, "How are you feeling about that appellate review process now, Grits?"
To which my response lies in the original post, which you ignore: "I don't begrudge the judges their ruling." Is that how "so many crime victims feel when some nameless, faceless appellate court overturns a trial jury's verdict on some technicality"? Probably. My sense is it's just a vocal (often anonymous) few doing all the screaming.
I am surprised at how this ended...and I am a Keller supporter.
You really wanted that rapist/murder back on the streets didn't you, pal? I can see that you feel like screaming.
How many appeals was Michael Richard given in those 21 years? Keller wouldn't give him one more. They waited until after 5:00 PM and she said court was closed. Sounds like they waited until 5 to set her up so they could claim she was the bad guy.
How many appeals was Marguerite Lucille Dixon given? No one delayed her execution. No one feels like screaming over that.
9:39/9:56/10:00 - I said before "My sense is it's just a vocal (often anonymous) few doing all the screaming." The reason it seems that way is it's so obvious when the same troll just can't let it go and treats us to repetitive, anonymous baiting. You're here a lot, aren't you? Have a nice day, and thanks for boosting my traffic stats!
I told you so.
Rage
And my guess is she'll be reelected.
Rev. Charles
Texas Lawyer says Sharon Keller told them she is running for re-election in 2012.
It really is amazing. A judge decides not to violate state law and give an ad hoc lesson to an experienced attorney on how to file an appeal after hours and she is dragged through the mud.
Dow botched the appeal. It wasn't up to Keller to help him.
Post a Comment