Today's Dallas Morning News carries the editorial, "We recommend Hampton for Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6."
Three seats on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals are up for election this year. The Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest criminal court in the state, hearing criminal appeals – including death penalty appeals. Judges serve six-year terms. We are recommending in the only race being contested by both major parties.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has developed a reputation as a court that turns its back on verdicts that need a second or third look.
It's easy to see why. Seven of the nine judges have backgrounds as prosecutors, and the presiding judge once campaigned as "pro-prosecutor." Court-watchers recite a list of marquee cases of failed justice. The court's tilt is a concern, considering that Texas leads the nation in executions and has far more DNA-proven miscarriages of justice than any other state.
The Nov. 2 election for Place 6 on the court is an opportunity for a rebalancing. Austin defense attorney Keith Hampton, running against veteran Judge Michael Keasler, has the legal credentials and a perspective now missing on the court: If elected, he would be the only member to have involvement in a capital murder case from indictment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And:
Keasler concedes that the court has a poor reputation, but he says the quality of its work has improved drastically in recent years, bringing it into "the mainstream" nationally.
Still, in some death penalty cases, the court has appeared more concerned with procedure than the possibility of new information that could affect the outcome. A high-profile example involved murder accomplice Kenneth Foster, who raised claims of new information in 2007 that the court refused to address. (Gov. Rick Perry commuted the death sentence to life based on concerns that Foster was tried jointly with the triggerman).
Keasler has written and taught extensively and has been active in judicial organizations nationwide. He should be respected for his contributions, but this court would benefit now with Hampton sitting in his seat.
The Victoria Advocate carries the editorial, "We should appoint state judges, not elect them." It appeared in the September 14 edition.
We have suggested it before, but we think state judges should be appointed based on their merit, not elected.
Our recent visit with Judge Mike Keasler, who teaches judicial ethics and is a judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, last week brought to mind this issue.
We certainly thank Judge Keasler for the visit and we appreciate his educating us about the judicial system.
How we should select judges in our judicial system -- should we elect them or have them appointed based on their merit?
As Judge Keasler noted, most people don't know that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals exists.
It is a high court like the Texas Supreme Court that the judges deal with crime, and the judges are elected. Yet who knows who the judges are in this court?
And should these judges be identified as a member of some political party?
Judge Keasler said his court is one of great importance, disposing about 10,000 cases a year, including all of the death penalty cases.
But when voters vote, it's like playing roulette because generally voters don't know anything about the judges they elect.
Today's San Angelo Standard Times reports, "Democrat cites death-penalty experience in criminal court bid." It's by Kiah Collier.
Keith Hampton points out that, if elected, he would be the only judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to have handled death penalty cases at every stage of litigation. He would also be the only Democrat.
Like most judicial candidates, the 49-year-old Austin criminal defense attorney dismisses his party affiliation as irrelevant to the rulings he hopes to make but says he will bring a “broader perspective” to Texas’ court of last resort for all criminal cases — a court he says has had many troubles in the last decade he wants to help rectify.
“I’ve handled death penalty cases at all stages, unlike any of the other judges, so I’ll be able to bring that to the table since all the death penalty cases come to that court,” Hampton said. “I think that will help me and help the court have greater insight into what’s going on in a particular case.”
Referencing a trend embodied by the internationally infamous “sleeping lawyer” case, in which the court upheld a death-sentence conviction even though the defendant’s court-appointed attorney fell asleep multiple times during trial, Hampton says the worst feature of the court is its “myopia.”
Related posts are in the politics and Court of Criminal Appeals indexes.
Comments