Judge Keller Issued a Public Reprimand

Judge Sharon Keller has been issued a public reprimand for her conduct involving the attempted appeal of death row inmate Michael Richard.  See San Antonio Express News report.  Judge Keller sits on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases.  As readers will recall, Judge Keller refused Richard's lawyer's last minute request to keep the clerk's office open until they could file an appeal.  The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated.  The Commission has now issued her a public reprimand.  This sanction is much less than the requested sanction that she be removed from office.  

Judge Keller violated known protocol for the court, as I explained in earlier posts.  This story demonstrates the unpredictability of all litigation.  On any given day, even the best judges will make a bad call.  That is why lawyers discuss settlement.  As my former judge used to say, the worst settlement agreement is better than the best trial.  He meant that no matter how strong your case may be, you should consider settlement.  Because, one never knows what may happen at trial. 

Even Judges Must Follow Procedure

 I do not know what happened, but, yes, if a judge fails to follow procedure, then that is a problem.  The trial of Sharon Keller started yesterday.  She is presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  That means, she is the chief judge for the highest court in Texas regarding criminal cases.  If she did know that attorneys for Michael Richard were calling for more time and she did not give them that time, then, yes, that would be a pretty clear violation of something.  

The trial is starting out not too well for Judge Keller.  Another judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals  disagrees with Judge Keller on a key fact: did anyone tell Judge Cheryl Johnson, the duty judge that day, about the call asking for more time?  Judge Johnson says no, no one told her.  If so, that would be a pretty clear breach of procedure. 

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct used to be a fairly weak organization.  But, some ten years ago, they started to truly enforce judicial ethics.  This is by far the biggest case they have taken on.  But, if the allegations prove to be true, it is one of the more egregious cases they have dealt with to my knowledge.