After Three-Year Saga, Sharon Keller’s Name Cleared

By Ashby Jones


It’s all over for Sharon Keller.

The presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has been under fire for more than three years for her refusal to keep open the court clerk’s office to allow a death-row inmate to file a last-minute appeal of his execution.

But on Monday, a judicial panel tossed out a public warning that was issued against her. The case is now officially closed. Keller emerges perhaps not unscathed, but without any official reprimands, warnings, or censures. Click here for the story, from the Houston Chronicle; here for earlier LB posts on L’Affaire Keller.

According to the Chron story, not everyone was happy with the outcome.

“So much for the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system,” said Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who had filed a complaint against Keller. “It says that judges protect their own. … How in heaven’s name do you ever hold a judge accountable if you can’t hold Keller accountable in this instance?”

The decision means “this case is over,” said Keller’s lawyer, Chip Babcock.

Asked Keller’s reaction, Babcock said told the Chron, “I think relief that this long ordeal is finally over and that the charges against her have been dismissed.”

The decision dismissing the warning wasn’t exactly on the merits. The three-judge panel — called a special court of review — wrote that because the State Commission on Judicial Conduct had instituted formal proceedings against Keller, it didn’t have the authority to issue a public warning against her under the Texas Constitution and state law.

The court of review said that the commission’s only choices were public censure, which is more serious than a warning; a recommendation for her removal from office or her retirement; or dismissal of the case against her.

The court of review specified that “our resolution of this motion is not an opinion on the underlying merits.”



Does black mark against Keller disappear?

8:50 AM Tue, Oct 12, 2010
Rodger Jones/Editorial Writer
With the passage of years Sharon Keller's name may no longer be associated with the outrage of closing the courthouse doors to a last-minute death penalty appeal. Then again, with the passage of years, there will be no name recognition for Sharon Keller, period.

In tossing a reprimand against Keller yesterday, a special court of review gave a technical victory to Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Keller won with her argument that the Commission on Judicial Conduct picked the wrong type of reprimand -- an unauthorized one -- in wrapping up the case.

But that's not going to erase the damning findings and language the commission included in its conclusion in the case this year.

Recall the commission found in its final ruling that Keller's failure to "require or assure compliance by the Court of Criminal Appeals General Counsel and clerk staff with respect to Richard's right to be heard constitutes willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties ..."

That black mark hasn't been erased.

Scott Cobb of the Texas Moratorium Network says the next step now out of Austin should be impeaching the judge. He said in a statement:

It is now up to the Texas Legislature to restore the harm done by Sharon Keller to the integrity of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by impeaching Keller for judicial misconduct. The voters of Texas will likely throw her out of office if she decides to run for re-election in 2012, but it would be better for the quality of justice in Texas if the Legislature impeaches and removes her from office".
Don't bet a penny on that outcome. I don't know if an impeachment attempt would come in the form of a bill or resolution, and one probably will be filed next year, and it might get a hearing depending on the committee it goes to, but it wouldn't come out of committee. I'd bet a dollar on that.

Meanwhile, Grits wonders about the commission:

Maybe one day we'll learn the backstory on why they chose not to follow the law after issuing such damning findings of fact.