"Prosecutors Tuesday asked a special review court to reconsider its recent decision to void an ethics rebuke given to Presiding Judge Sharon Keller for her role in closing the Court of Criminal Appeals to a late execution-day appeal in 2007.
The motion for rehearing argued that the three-judge review court mistakenly dismissed Keller’s charges over procedural errors made by the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The proper recourse, the motion argued, would have been to return the matter to the commission with instructions on the correct procedures to follow.
Dismissing the case was inappropriate because the court did not review the merits of the case against Keller, while the commission reviewed the evidence before reprimanding Keller for violating her duty as the judge, the motion said."
REPORTER CHUCK LINDELL: THE STATESMAN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prosecutors Tuesday asked a special review court to reconsider its recent decision to void an ethics rebuke given to Presiding Judge Sharon Keller for her role in closing the Court of Criminal Appeals to a late execution-day appeal in 2007," the Statesman story by reporter Chuck Lindell published earlier today under the heading, "Court asked to reconsider its ruling on Keller," begins.
"The motion for rehearing argued that the three-judge review court mistakenly dismissed Keller’s charges over procedural errors made by the Commission on Judicial Conduct," the story continues.
"The proper recourse, the motion argued, would have been to return the matter to the commission with instructions on the correct procedures to follow.
Dismissing the case was inappropriate because the court did not review the merits of the case against Keller, while the commission reviewed the evidence before reprimanding Keller for violating her duty as the judge, the motion said.
“The proceedings should be remanded to the commission for reconsideration of the remedy appropriate for the violations that Judge Keller was found to have committed,” said the motion by Mike McKetta, an Austin lawyer who volunteered his time to act as examiner, or prosecutor, for the commission.
Chip Babcock, Keller’s lawyer, criticized the filing.
“It’s disappointing that the examiner won’t let this thing go,” Babcock said. “It doesn’t raise any legitimate basis for revisiting the court’s decision, and I expect the rehearing will be denied.”
Last July, the commission issued a “public warning” that criticized Keller for refusing a request to keep her court clerk’s office open past 5 p.m. so lawyers for death row inmate Michael Richard could file an appeal shortly before his execution.
Setting aside Babcock’s arguments that defense lawyers dragged their feet and ignored other options for filing past 5 p.m., the commission said Keller’s action’s violated court procedures and brought discredit to the judiciary.
But on Oct. 11, the three-judge review court, chosen at random to consider Keller’s appeal, found that 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.
In addition to voiding the warning, the review court forbade commissioners from reconsidering the charges against Keller, reasoning that they had already rejected censure because a majority obviously could not agree to assess the harsher punishment.
Tuesday’s motion suggested that such reasoning was purely speculative because members have never revealed how they voted or why they chose a warning.
The motion also asked the court to rescind its decision to let Keller recoup her legal costs from the state, noting that Texas law explicitly bans the practice when judges are investigated for potential wrongdoing."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/investigative/entries/2010/10/26/court_asked_to_reconsider_its.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;
