"Democrat vows to push Keller impeachment," is Chuck Lindell's report in today's Austin American-Statesman.
Democratic Rep. Lon Burnam said Monday he will employ rarely used rules to try to force the Texas House to vote on impeaching the state's highest criminal judge for her role in a 2007 death penalty case.
Burnam, of Fort Worth, said Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is unfit to continue serving because of her pro-prosecution bias and because she turned away an after-hours appeal by lawyers for death row inmate Michael Richard, who was executed later that night.
"She's an embarrassment to the state, she's an embarrassment to the Republican Party, she's an embarrassment to her profession," Burnam said. "She needs to be off the bench."
Keller already faces a special trial on charges, filed by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, that she violated her duty to protect Richard's access to the legal system. The trial, to begin Aug. 17, could determine whether the Republican judge remains on the court she joined in 1995.
Keller's lawyer said she did nothing to warrant removal from office.
"What she did is not a violation of the canons of judicial ethics or any state statute," lawyer Chip Babcock said Monday. "Last election millions of Texans thought she was the superior candidate for office. I don't think impeachment or the commission ought to override the will of the people."
It has been 34 years since an elected Texas official, District Judge O.P. Carrillo of Duval County, was impeached and removed from office for a bogus rental scheme.
Christy Hoppe writes, "Rep. Lon Burnam calls for vote on whether to impeach Court of Criminal Appeals
Justice Sharon Keller," for the Dallas Morning News.
Keller's case is under review by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, but Burnam said Monday that the Legislature should not wait months before the commission rules.
"The only way to get Judge Keller off the bench promptly is through the impeachment process," he said.
The House committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence is weighing a resolution of impeachment where testimony from lawyers and others is expected to help outline the procedure to remove a sitting judge.
Burnam said one of his witnesses, ethics lawyer Charles Herring of Austin, will testify that Keller's actions were tantamount to "judicial homicide," he said.
The last time a judge was impeached by the Legislature was state district Judge Oscar Carrillo in 1975. Carrillo was found guilty by the Senate of corruption charges and removed from his Duval County office.
Burnam said he believes that a resolution of impeachment is a "privileged motion," which if raised, must be considered by the House. If a majority votes for the impeachment, a trial would be held by the Senate, which could convene itself without the governor calling a special session, he said.
Currently, no articles of impeachment, the specific charges raised against Keller, have been written. The Monday night hearing on his resolution would to create a seven-member committee to create the charges and present them to the House. But if that doesn't happen, Burnam said he will present the question of impeachment to the full House before the end of the session.
"I'd rather lose the vote than not call it," he said.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has, "Burnam aims to get impeachment proceedings started against judge before legislative session ends," by Dave Montgomery.
The Fort Worth Democrat presented witnesses to reinforce his claim that Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, committed "a gross neglect of duty and willing disregard for human life" by refusing the keep the court’s office open after hours to accept a Death Row appeal. The inmate, Michael Richard, was executed hours later.
"What she did was so outrageous," retired state appeals court Justice Michol O’Connor of Houston said as she waited to testify on behalf of Burnam’s motion.
Neither Keller nor her attorney, Chip Babcock of Houston, were present at the hearing before the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. The hearing, which got off to a late start and ran into the night, focused on Burnam’s request to start impeachment proceedings and did not address the merits of the case. A committee vote will come later.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has ordered a trial-like proceeding against Keller. She has denied that she acted improperly and plans to vigorously defend herself, Babcock said.
"The Legislature has certainly got a role to play, but I’m really focused on the issues before the commission," Babcock said in a telephone interview. Asked about the separate impeachment case going forward, Babcock said, "I would have to take that as it happens, but I would be surprised if it did. I hope that it doesn’t."
And:
Austin attorney Charles Herring Jr., an expert on legal ethics issues who has advised the Texas Supreme Court, said in written testimony that Keller’s behavior "clearly meets the constitutional standards for impeachment."
"I submit that if that type of egregious judicial misconduct, with the most serious possible consequences imaginable, does not require removal from office, nothing does," Herring wrote.
Follow the link for the text of House Resolution 480 and additional information on the legilsation.
The Texas Civil Rights Project has released its prepared testimony for the hearing. TCRP Executive Director Jim Harrington filed the original complaint against Judge Keller with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In his testimony, Harrington said:
against Judge Keller, it may or may not take appropriate action. However, the
only constitutional remedy is impeachment by the representatives of the people.
The framers of the 1876 Texas Constitution and the voters who ratified it
created a strong judiciary. The 1876 Constitution deliberately fashioned a
weak legislature and a weak governor because of past abuses of power. The
judiciary was the one branch of government that kept power, and very extensive
power. The drafters of the constitution felt that only judges could protect
the people against the government and monied interests taking away their
rights. For that reason, the populist tradition of electing judges was framed
into our current constitution. The authors of the constitution and voters
wanted to elect their judges to keep direct control over them so they would
not become beholden again to the big financial interests of the state and
political caprice -- as they had been in prior times when appointed by the
governor.
Impeachment thus is the people's way of undoing the election of a judge who
has betrayed their trust and acted with "official delinquency," that is,
abused their office to the extent of violating the mandate to administer
fairly and impartially the constitutions of the nation and of the state.
The charges against Judge Keller are sufficiently grave that the House of
Representatives has to duty to formally consider them, and then act on them.
We believe the ultimate conclusion of this process would be impeachment by the
House, trial by the Senate, and removal from office.
Whether Judge Keller is ultimately convicted or vindicated is for a later
date, but the House must at least be faithful to its obligation to formally
consider and act on the substantial charges brought against her.
TCRP Board Member Chuck Herring, an legal ethics specialist, testified:
constitutional standards for impeachment and removal, I want to emphasize
three general points that I believe make this Resolution a particularly
important matter for legislative action.
First, if the published allegations are correct, Judge Keller was personally
responsible for killing a man on a day when he should not have died. That is
the most severe possible consequence imaginable for judicial misconduct.1 I
submit that if that type of egregious judicial misconduct, with the most
serious possible consequences imaginable, does not require removal from
office, nothing does. By comparison, the charges against the last judge
impeached by this Texas House, Judge O.P. Carrillo, alleged misconduct that
included stealing groceries; using public funds to pay ranch hands and other
private employees; using public equipment on his ranch; filing a false
financial statement; having conflicts of interest; and conspiring to
improperly influence a grand jury.2 The Texas Senate acquitted Judge Carrillo
on the impeachment article alleging stealing groceries, but convicted him on
an article alleging conspiracy to collect government rental monies on
non-existent equipment--and dismissed the other articles without a decision.3
In short, the Texas Legislature convicted Judge Carrillo and removed him from
office for false rentals. He did not wrongfully cause anyone's death, which is
exactly what Judge Keller allegedly did.
Second, based on Judge Keller's Answer filed in the Commission on Judicial
Conduct proceedings, and based upon the published remarks of her lawyer, it
appears that she is claiming that the lawyers for Mr. Richard wanted some
extraordinary relief in the form of keeping the court clerk's office after
5:00 p.m., and then those lawyers capriciously or negligently chose not to
follow other available remedies that permitted an after-hours filing. If that
is her position, I submit that her position is simply not credible. The
lawyers who handled Michael Richard's case were with the Texas Defender
Service (TDS), which was founded in 1995 and is the most skilled, respected,
and experienced organization in Texas providing representation to persons on
death row. Their Board includes law school professors from Texas and across
the country who are expert in death penalty law and representation, including
for example the Co-Director of the Capital Punishment Center at the University
of Texas School of Law, and the Co-Director of the Death Penalty Clinic at
Boalt School of Law. Professor Dow, who worked on the Richard case, heads the
Innocence Project at the University of Houston. He is a superb advocate, and
he knows how these cases work as well as anyone in Texas. In short, in this
field of law practice, they are the best and most knowledgeable lawyers
available. Their commitment to justice is awe-inspiring and legendary.
Third, I think it is very important that Judge Keller's alleged misconduct
took place in the context of a death penalty case. The death penalty is the
ultimate criminal punishment. From 2002 to 2006, 40 percent of the executions
in the United States took place in Texas; in 2007, over 60 percent were in
Texas; in 2008, over 50 percent. Whether you are for or against the death
penalty in Texas is irrelevant to the merits of the present matter. But those
who support the death penalty want that penalty administered fairly and
legally. More than any other single act in the history of Texas, Judge
Keller's conduct in this case has held the death penalty and the Texas
criminal justice system up to international scorn and ridicule. If you google
"Sharon Keller," you get over 42,000 hits--and you find an almost unlimited
number of denunciations of Judge Keller and our system of justice in Texas. We
need to restore respect for Texas justice. The Legislature can do that now,
promptly, and as the elected representatives of the people of Texas, you can
speak with the authoritative voice that this case requires.4
Earlier coverage begins with this post.
Comments