Terry Lenamon on the Death Penalty : Lawyer & Attorney Terry Lenamon on Capital Punishment Defense, Death Penalty Trials & Appeals | Law Firm

We've been following the melodrama surrounding Sharon Keller, Chief Justice of Texas' highest criminal court since allegations that her acts caused the execution of Michael Richard to go forward back in 2007. For background, here are some of our posts giving the details on this horrifiic story:

Sept 2009 - Texas' Chief Justice Keller's Trial - Shocking Report from FactFinder

August 2009 - In Texas Justice Keller's Trial, What if the US Supreme Court had ruled the other way?

April 2009 - Texas Chief Justice Sharon Keller's Lesson to Us All About Due Process

Well, yesterday was the deadline for the Examiner (read that, "prosecutor") to file objections to the fact findings that a state district judge (Judge David Berchelmann of San Antonio) issued recently after a week long trial in August.  That judge simply didn't find that she did anything that bad - that the public ridicule of Justice Keller was more than enough punishment. 

Lots of folk (including us) were SHOCKED at this response.  Now, thankfully, a clear and solid voice has come forth in the public record, as the Examiner files its case before the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct (which has the power to remove her from the bench). The entire filing is important reading, and we're hopeful that you'll take the time to go through the 38 pages that explains everything so well. 

And to be fair, Justice Keller has filed her formal response to this filing, and you might want to read that, too.  It's the right thing to do, something that you'll recall wasn't allowed to Michael Richard on that fateful day he died at the hands of the State of Texas. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As you'll recall, the Chief Justice for the highest criminal court in the State of Texas was on trial in August 2009 for her alleged bad acts on the day that Michael Richard was executed. 

The same day that the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that Richard's attorneys argued should have stayed that execution, but whose motion to stay never made it to the court for consideration because of some logistical problems that afternoon.  Logistics that revolved around Justice Keller, who was at home meeting with repairmen that fateful day. 

You'll remember -- when the attorneys got to the high court, the doors were locked.   It was 20 minutes after 5.  When they called the lackey inside, who then called Chief Justice Keller at home for guidance, she said the clerk's office always closes at 5 pm.  Nevermind that Justices were on stand-by for this motion.  Everyone knew it was coming, including Justice Cheryl Johnson, the justice on call that day for emergency motions.

Michael Richard was executed by lethal injection within hours of Chief Justice Keller's dismissive phone response. 

So, a trial was had and a state district judge, David Berchelmann, was assigned to act as fact-finder in the trial of Justice Keller,  His findings then go to the state's Judicial Commission for final disposition (removal, etc.). 

The fact-finding judge issued his report last week.  And he's apparently so sympathetic with the "public humiliation" that the Chief Justice has already experienced that he thinks she's suffered enough.  However, if you actually READ his opinion, it's very curious.

Substantively, he's arguing that the Chief Justice didn't violate any rule, and then he explains (on page seven) that the "tradition" or "rule" of having a justice on duty to answer queries like the ones made by Richard's attorneys may have been ignored.  Like maybe ignoring having Justice Johnson take the call, having Justice Johnson run with the ball, instead of shutting things down with "the clerk's office closes at five"?

Experienced jurists and experienced criminal defense appellate attorneys know that there are occasions when filings are placed before the court after the standard close of business.  Especially on days when the United States Supreme Court makes rulings that impact the possibility of stay in death penalty cases. 

This fact finding report is shocking.  One can only wonder what the State of Texas will do next. 

For other responses to Judge Berchelmann's report:

Gamso for the Defense

Grits for Breakfast

Dallas Morning News

Houston Chronicle (great headline here, "Keller is lucky judge wasn't just like her.")

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The San Antonio Express-News has provided a video containing snippets from the closing arguments in the trial of Sharon Keller, Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest criminal court in that state).   It bears viewing, and it's only 2:24 minutes long.

Listening to it, you'll hear an attorney's deep voice talking about the death penalty and how capital punishment depends upon a public trust that there will not be a erroneous death sentence.

As you'll recall (we've posted the details of Justice Keller's trial here and the short video gives a synopsis as well), Justice Keller is being challenged for denying the attorneys for Death Row inmate Michael Richard the ability to file a motion to stay execution on the day he was scheduled to die  - they were running late, and Justice Keller admits to telling her clerk to respond that "the clerk's office closes at 5."  The motion to stay execution didn't get filed on time, and Mr. Richard was executed by lethal injection at 6 pm that day.

Mind you, that same morning -- the very same morning -- the US Supreme Court had granted writ in a Kentucky case which put lethal injection as a method of execution under scrutiny.  Keller's supporters point out that six months later, the Supreme Court decided that this method was not "cruel and unusual" and accordingly, Richard would have been executed anyway.

Here's the question that I'm not seeing: what if the US Supreme Court has RULED THE OTHER WAY in the Kentucky case?  Then, would we have a very clear example of the erroneous execution that is referenced in the closing arguments of Justice Keller's trial?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Due process under the law has been constitutionally protected since our nation began, although the phrase gets tossed around quite a bit these days without much concern as to its real importance.

Due process is protected by the 5th (federal) and 14th (state) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, although it is a principle with origins in the Magna Carta. In that historic document, England's King John promised that "...[n]o free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

King John signed the Magna Carta over 790 years ago. You'd think that due process of law would be pretty much settled into a traditional, solid role in our society by now. Particularly so, when it comes to those officials in positions of authority. But if you think that, you'd be wrong.

Due Process of Law is endangered in this country.

Never has our sacred right to due process under the law been more endangered than it is today. And no - I'm not about to delve into the current Florida case concerning a young woman awaiting trial for the murder of her child.

Instead, I'm looking over at our sister state, Texas, and what's been going on over there since the afternoon of September 26, 2007.

Texas Chief Justice Faces Criminal Charges, Civil Trial, and Impeachment Arising From Death Penalty Case

Criminal charges were recently filed against Sharon Keller, the Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by Texans for Public Justice for her actions on the day that Michael Richard was executed by lethal injection. (In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court for all criminal matters; the state divides its civil and criminal caseloads, and has a separate high court, the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil matters as the state court of last resort.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)