"Not surprisingly, Graczyk reports that her lawyer, Chip Babcock, says
The case is "by no means" over, Babcock said Monday.
He said he was writing a letter Monday asking Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson to appoint a special court of review or hold an entirely new trial similar to the one Keller had before the Judicial Conduct Commission.
"Whatever the court thinks is appropriate," he said. "We could have another trial in front of three judges appointed by the court if the court decides it's permissible."
Babcock acknowledged such a proceeding would be "unusual" and something that hadn't happened before.
It's kind of like how she describes those death penalty appeals of which she's so derisive. You know, frivolous filing after frivolous filing after frivolous filing.
There are two differences, though.
1. Keller's filings now really are frivolous.
2. There's essentially nothing at stake here."
JEFF GAMSO: FOR THE DEFENCE; (Commentary by an Ohio criminal defence lawyer);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Justice Sharon Keller has attained notoriety for allegations that she allowed convicted murderer and rapist Michael Richard to be executed on September 25, 2007 - notwithstanding his attempt to file a stay of execution - because the court clerk's office closes at 5. Keller is of particular interest blog because of the opinion she wrote for the majority in the Roy Criner case. Wikipedia informs us that: "Sharon Faye Keller (born in Dallas, Texas, 1953) is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the highest court for all criminal matters in the State of Texas. Because of her position, she has been involved in many high-profile and controversial cases, and has thus received widespread news coverage......In 1998, Keller she wrote the majority opinion in a 5-3 (one judge abstaining) decision that denied a new trial to Roy Criner. Criner had been convicted of sexual assault in 1990, but newly-available DNA testing had shown that the semen found in the victim was not his......Judge Tom Price, who ran for the Chief Judge seat, in a primary election, said that Keller's Criner opinion had made the court a "national laughingstock." Judge Mansfield, who had sided with the majority in denying Criner a hearing, told the Chicago Tribune that, after watching the Frontline documentary, reviewing briefs and considering the case at some length, he voted "the wrong way" and would change his vote if he could. "Judges, like anyone else, can make mistakes ... I hope I get a chance to fix it." He stated that he hoped Criner's lawyers filed a new appeal as he felt Criner deserved a get a new trial......Following the (appeal court's) refusal to order a new trial, the cigarette butt found at the scene (and not adduced at trial) was subjected to DNA testing.The DNA on the cigarette was not a match for Criner, but it was a match for the semen found in Ogg. Ogg's DNA was also found on the cigarette, indicating that she shared a cigarette with the person who had sex with her (and who presumably killed her). These results convinced the district attorney, local sheriff and the trial judge that Criner was not guilty. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended he be pardoned and, citing "credible new evidence [that] raises substantial doubt about [Criner's] guilt," then-Governor George W. Bush pardoned him in 2000.
The thorough, unabridged Wikipedia article on Keller can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Keller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Texas Supreme Court won't touch it," Jeff Gamso's August 16, 2O10 post begins under the heading "Still Beware Sharon Keller (and Orly Taitz, too).
""It" is Sharon Keller's warning. You know, that we-won't-punish-her-but-you-should-know-she's-dangerous order from the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. (I wrote about it here and here and here.) The short version of the order was that Keller was a bad girl," the post continues.
"* She ignored various "Binding Obligations" she had as Chief Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
* She violated some of the "Aspirational Goals" of a judge.
She was warned not to do it again. Or maybe we were warned to stay away from her. Or maybe both. In any event, the Commission issued two Public Warnings. It was the mildest punishment they could find. Probably milder than any punishment they had the authority to issue.
She responded with a mandamus action in the Texas Supreme Court. Because she is Sharon Keller. Not someone who makes mistakes. Not someone who can have things done to her.
You'll recall that she insists she would behave exactly the same way again, which pretty well indicates that if there's a lesson for her to be learned, she skipped school that day. But then, if you read her opinions it's pretty clear that she doesn't believe in the possibility of rehabilitation.
Anyhow, as Michael Graczyk explains in today's AP report, she went to the Texas Supreme Court.
Keller then appealed, asking for the public warning to be removed from her record and allegations of judicial misconduct to be dismissed.
Today, without explanation, they refused.
Not surprisingly, Graczyk reports that her lawyer, Chip Babcock, says the case is "by no means" over, Babcock said Monday.
He said he was writing a letter Monday asking Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson to appoint a special court of review or hold an entirely new trial similar to the one Keller had before the Judicial Conduct Commission.
"Whatever the court thinks is appropriate," he said. "We could have another trial in front of three judges appointed by the court if the court decides it's permissible."
Babcock acknowledged such a proceeding would be "unusual" and something that hadn't happened before.
It's kind of like how she describes those death penalty appeals of which she's so derisive. You know, frivolous filing after frivolous filing after frivolous filing.
There are two differences, though.
1. Keller's filings now really are frivolous.
2. There's essentially nothing at stake here."
***
Meanwhile, in news from another Supreme Court, the U.S. Supremes this morning refused to grant a stay of the $20,000 sanction imposed on lunatic birther advocate/lawyer/dentist/realtor Orly Taitz for filing her own frivolous actions in federal court demanding that Obama provide a US birth certificate that will satisfy her.
The decision, without comment or dissent, appears in today's order list.
You can read a relatively sober discussion of Taitz and why she got sanctioned at the scotusblog or you can go to Lowering the Bar, do a search for "Taitz," and read what Kevin Underhill has to say about her, or you could do a Google search for "orly taitz is batshit insane."
* * * * *
The post can be found at:
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2010/08/still-beware-sharon-keller-orly-taitz.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
