I have closely monitored the trial of Judge Sharon Keller this week and was even able to attend the trial on two of its four days. I filed one of the judicial complaints against Keller in November 2007. It was co-signed by about 1,900 people. The testimony presented at the trial supports the severest sanctions against Keller - her removal from office for violating the Execution-Day Procedures of her court and for casting discredit on the Texas judiciary.
One of the charges from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct is that she has brought discredit on the Texas judiciary. The New York Times has an editorial in today's paper calling on Keller to be removed, saying "at a hearing on Wednesday, she said in a crowded courtroom that if she had it to do again, she would do the same thing. That testimony is further proof of why Judge Keller needs to be removed from the bench." The Times editorial shows that the discredit she has brought on the judiciary continues.
Here is a link to a blog post by Austin American Statesman reporter Chuck Lindell about Keller's testimony on the witness stand. She testified that in hindsight she would do nothing differently on Sept 25, 2007 if she had it to do over again. Her sworn testimony has further damaged the integrity of the Texas judiciary. The most effective way to restore integrity to Texas' highest criminal court is for Sharon Keller to be removed from office. She has seen that the consequences of her saying "we close at 5" were that Michael Richard was unable to file an appeal with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, even though his lawyers called the court again shortly before 6 PM and were told not to bother to bring the appeal to the court because no one was there to accept it.
Cheryl Johnson, the duty judge assigned to receive all communications regarding the case of Michael Richard on Sept 25, 2007, testified on day one of the trial that she was not informed about the request by Richard's lawyers to file a late appeal. She testified that she would have accepted the appeal. Sharon Keller was obligated by the rules of her own court to direct all communications regarding Richard to Judge Johnson.
"She should have directed (the request to file late briefs) to me," said Johnson, who had been assigned by rotation to be the only judge expected to handle execution-day phone calls, faxes and filings from lawyers for the inmate, Michael Richard.
"And I would have told them that they could file," Johnson said.
"It's an execution. They might be valid pleadings. I have no other way of knowing."
Johnson, however, said she didn't learn about the request for more time until four days after Richard was executed - an account contradicted in parts of a witness deposition revealed Monday.
"I was upset by it. I was frustrated," she said. "And it made the court look bad."
Sharon Keller could have avoided being charged with misconduct and incompetence, if she had responded to Ed Marty when he called her at 4:45 pm on Sept 25 by saying, "tell them the clerk's office closes at 5, but they can submit an appeal after 5 by directly contacting any judge on the court who is willing to accept the appeal. Let them know that Judge Johnson is the assigned duty judge on the Richard case and inform Judge Johnson of their request to file an appeal.
Here is a quote from the judicial complaint I filed: "It is clear from her actions that Judge Keller can no longer be expected to preside over death penalty cases with the requisite fair, bias-free and even-handed disposition so critical to such serious life and death matters."
A PDF of the judicial complaint I filed in November 2007 is here: http://su.pr/2ArO3J
A video of a copy of the judicial complaint being delivered for Sharon Keller to the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in November 2007 is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbVd9P3R7MU. The video contains footage of the clerk's office remaining open 3-4 minutes after 5PM to receive the copy of the complaint.
Below is a TV news report of the trial's first day.
(I'll also promote this on Monday. This is the same day that the blogger protection bill will get a hearing, too. So if you've got a sick day left in April, now is the time to use it! - promoted by Phillip Martin)
The House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence will hear public testimony on Monday, April 27, on HR 480 by Rep Lon Burnam, regarding whether to begin the impeachment of Sharon Keller, presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Please go to the Capitol on Monday afternoon and sign a Witness Affirmation form in support of impeaching Keller. The hearing is in room E2.010. It will start after adjournment of the House, probably around 1 PM.
On November 28, 2008, I wrote a post on BOR saying, "When the Texas Legislature convenes in January, it should take action to remove Sharon Keller from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for willful neglect of duty." Thank you to Rep Burnam for filing the impeachment resolution.
It is very important that the House impeaches Keller, because if she is impeached, then she would be automatically suspended from office pending the outcome of her trial in the Senate. Keller needs to be suspended or completely removed from office as soon as possible. Her trial on misconduct charges by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct does not begin until August. Every day that Keller remains on the Court ruling on cases, she continues to bring discredit on the Texas judiciary.
Keller broke the rules of her own court when she refused to accept an appeal 20 minutes after 5 PM from a person on the day set for his execution. In addition, she has asked the people of Texas to pay for her legal expenses to defend herself while she failed to report millions of dollars in assets to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Rep Burnam will hold a press conference to discuss the impeachment of Judge Sharon Keller in the Speaker's Committee Room in the Capitol (2W.6) on Monday at 12 PM or upon adjournment of the House.
According to his press release:
House Resolution 480 accuses Judge Keller of "neglect of duty" for declining to keep her office open past 5 pm to receive the final pleadings of condemned inmate, Michael Richard, on September 25, 2007.
Richard's appeal was based on announcements made by the United States Supreme Court the morning of the scheduled execution. Although Richard was executed that night, the Court of Criminal Appeals (over which Judge Keller presides) later granted two stays of execution based on the same arguments Richard's lawyers attempted to present.
If passed, HR 480 calls on the House of Representatives to form a committee to investigate Judge Keller for "gross neglect of duty and willing disregard for human life." If the House finds cause for impeachment, a trial would then be held in the State Senate.
"It's one thing for a banker to close shop at five o'clock sharp," said Rep. Lon Burnam, the principal author of the resolution. "But a public official who stands between a human being and the death chamber must be held to a higher standard.
Reading the entire text of the policies makes it very clear that Keller violated the rules by not contacting the assigned duty judge about the request by Richard's lawyers to file a late appeal.
I sent a copy to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct of Keller's letter to Ratcliffe and of the document "Execution-day Procedures".
Read the policies and judge for yourselves if she violated them. Here is a link to a pdf of the document I received from the Court. The newly written down text of the unwritten policies in effect on Sept 25, 2007 is below:
Execution-day Procedures
A designated judge will be assigned to be in charge of each scheduled execution. Generally, judges will be assigned in rotating seniority order by the general counsel. Exceptions in order of assignment will be made for prior involvement in the death-row inmate's case as trial judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel, or for recusal. Judges may also trade assignments, with notice to all other judges and general counsel, for other good cause such as anticipated absence from court on the day of execution. Unless the Court has been informed by defense counsel that no pleadings will be filed, or pleadings have been filed and ruled on, general counsel shall be present at the Court on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. The assigned judge shall be present at the Court, or immediately available, on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. Support staff may be requested to remain, also, as needed.
All communications regarding the scheduled execution shall first be referred to the assigned judge. The term "communications" includes pleadings, telephone calls, faxes, emails, and any other means of communication with the Court. The assigned judge may call a special conference or gather votes by telephone, email, fax, or other form of communication.
If the communication includes a request for stay of execution, the assigned judge shall contact, by any reasonable means, the other members of the Court and request a vote on the motion to stay. Non-assigned judges will provide to the assigned judge an adequate means of contact. "Reasonable means" includes calling a special conference and contact by electronic communication.
Several newspapers have also called for Keller to be removed from office, including the Houston Chronicle, which wrote on Oct 15, 2007:
Judge Keller let her personal bias in favor of the death penalty trample the right of now-executed prisoner Michael Richard to access the courts and have due process. In doing so, she abdicated her role as the state's chief criminal justice to become its chief executioner.
The Chronicle again called for Keller's removal on February 25, 2009, writing that Keller's "deformed ethical compass makes her unfit to judge".
The New York Times wrote in an editorial, "If the facts are as reported, Judge Keller should be removed from the bench."
The seven deadly virtues, those ghastly little traps
Oh no, my liege, they were not meant for me
Those seven deadly virtues were made for other chaps
Who love a life of failure and ennui
Closing the Courthouse rather than accepting a late appeal in a capital case, after equipment failure?
The highest criminal court judge in Texas failed to disclose nearly $2 million in real estate holdings and claimed it would be "financially ruinous" to pay lawyers to fight misconduct charges that could get her removed from the bench.
Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is seeking dismissal of charges by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that she violated her duties in a death penalty case.
In 2007, I was one of the many people and several groups who filed a judicial complaint against Sharon Keller. The complaint I filed was co-signed by about 1,900 people. I waited, somewhat impatiently, 15 months until the State Commission on Judicial Conduct finally charged Keller with misconduct last week. Last December, I dropped by Lon Burnam's office at the capitol with a copy of a blog post I had written on BOR entitled "Legislature Should Remove Sharon Keller from the Court of Criminal Appeals" and urged his aide to ask Lon to file an impeachment resolution. Now, I believe Keller should be suspended from office pending the outcome of her upcoming public trial.
Rule 15(b) of the Procedural Rules for Removal or Retirement of Judges on the website of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct allows the Commission to request that the Supreme Court of Texas suspend a judge.
It is time for the Commission to suspend Sharon Keller until the formal proceedings, which include a public trial, are complete and the Commission votes to dismiss the case, issue a public censure, or recommend to the Supreme Court that Keller be removed from office. Keller has lost the confidence of the people of Texas. The latest example of that lost confidence was expressed in today's Houston Chronicle editorial that says, "A faulty ethical compass makes Judge Sharon Keller unfit for the bench."
Other newspapers have expressed similar sentiments.
The Dallas Morning News last week said, "Texas must have courts that are dispassionate, fair and soberly mindful of their life-and-death authority. Judge Keller's actions cast doubt about whether she measures up, and her opportunity to address that will clarify her level of commitment to justice over vengeance."
The Austin American-Statesman says, "Keller's decision - made by her alone - was grossly insensitive, unjust and discredited her court in the eyes of the world."
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram says, "there's no excuse for arbitrary actions that undermine public confidence in the integrity of Texas' courts".
Rule 15(b) states:
Upon filing with the Commission of a sworn complaint charging a person holding such office with willful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, incompetence in performing the duties of office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful and persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or cases public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, the Commission, after giving the person notice and an opportunity to appear and be heard before the Commission (under the provisions of Rule 6), may recommend to the Supreme Court the suspension of such person from office.
The Commission itself has charged Keller in the Notice of Formal Proceedings with 1) "willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties as presiding judge", 2) "willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice", 3) "incompetence in the performance of duties of office".
Those are the exact reasons given in Rule 15b for suspending a judge. The Commission should immediately begin the process to recommend that the Texas Supreme Court suspends Keller. She should still stand trial, but in the meantime she should not exercise the powers of her office as a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The other option to achieve Keller's suspension is for the Texas House to vote to impeach her. If she is impeached by the House, she is automatically suspended pending the outcome of her Senate trial.
Here is a link to the Notice of Formal Proceedings sent to Sharon Keller by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and below is the letter I received today from the Commission.
I submitted one of the several judicial complaints against Keller in November 2007. Our complaint was co-signed by almost 1900 people.
The New York times today wrote an editorial regarding Keller, "Investigating Judge Keller". I wonder if the editorial and the filing of the impeachment resolution by Lon Burnam had anything to do with the timing of today's annoucement by the Commission.
Scott Cobb Texas Moratorium Network
Scott Cobb and all Complainants who signed on:
Please be advised that on December 2-4, 2008, following three informal hearings that took place before it on June 18-20, 2008, August 13-15, 2008, and October 15-17, 2008, the Commission voted to initiate formal proceedings against the judge who was the subject of your complaint. This process involves a public trial before a Special Master appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, after which findings of fact will be presented to the Commission. You will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of this trial. Based on the Report from the Special Master, the Commission may vote to dismiss the case, issue a public censure, or recommend to the Supreme Court that the judge be removed from office.
In the event that removal is recommended, a seven-member Review Tribunal of appellate justices, also appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, will review the record of the public trial and the hearing before the Commission to determine if the judge should be removed from office. The Review Tribunal could also dismiss the case or issue a public censure against the judge. Be advised that this process is lengthy and could take anywhere from six (6) to eighteen (18) months or more to complete.
Thank you for your continued patience and cooperation as we continue with this process. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the complaint, as well as for our failure to communicate with you more often and in more detail regarding the status of the investigation. Due to confidentiality rules, we were greatly restricted as to what information we could provide and were concerned that any information we provided would be leaked to the media.
We appreciate that this case is very important to you. Like all cases filed with our agency, this matter was handled carefully and thoroughly investigated. Because the factual allegations and legal issues presented proved to be more complicated than most cases presented to the Commission, it simply required more time to resolve. In addition, please keep in mind that our Commission holds hearings only six (6) times per year, and handles hundreds of cases at each of those meetings. The thirteen volunteers who serve on the Commission take their responsibilities seriously and provide each case and decision the consideration it deserves. The members did not arrive at their decision in this matter lightly or prematurely.
We would also point out that we have a small, but dedicated staff that includes five lawyers and three investigators, who handle over 1,000 cases each year. Because of the significance of this matter, the investigation and presentation of the case was handled exclusively by the agency's Executive Director and the Chief Investigator. It should be clear from a review of the Notice of Formal Proceedings how much time and effort has gone into this case so far.
On a final note, we are honored to have the services of John J. "Mike" McKetta, III, Michelle Alcala, and their firm, Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, P.C., supporting the Commission as Special Counsel in this matter.
Let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this process.
This is breaking news from the Statesman via email. Texas Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Sharon Keller will have to face a public hearing after receiving charges from the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct has charged Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the state's highest criminal court, with bringing discredit upon the state judiciary for denying a death row prisoner the ability to file an after-hours appeal in 2007. Keller will face a formal, public hearing to answer the charges and could be removed from office, reprimanded or exonerated.
State Representative Lon Burnam, a Democratic legislator from Tarrant County, has filed House Resolution 480 this afternoon which would establish a Special Committee on Impeachment to consider impeaching Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Sharon Keller.
HR 480 charges Keller with:
"gross neglect of duty and conducting her official duties with willful disregard for human life."
You'll recall that Judge Keller has made a career of sparking controversies and most certainly contributing toward the enormous black eye that the Texas Judicial system currently has. The motivation behind Burnam's Bill are the actions that Keller took in late 2007 where she refused to keep her Clerk's office open beyond 5PM in order to receive a final plea from death row inmate Michael Richards.
Burnam's release contained the following pointed quote from the legislator representing House District 90:
"It's one thing for a banker to close shop at five o'clock sharp," Burnam, a Democrat, said in a statement. "But a public official who stands between a human being and the death chamber must be held to a higher standard."
Shortly after the closing of the office, Mr. Richards was executed by lethal injection. This was on the same day that the United States Supreme Court had earlier questioned whether death by lethal injection was indeed constitutional. You can read a BOR outline by Scott Cobb on Keller's actions by clicking here.
Prominent publications across the state, including the Texas Monthly, have called for Keller's impeachment. Burnam has finally taken it one step farther in filing a House Resolution to do just that. Kudos to State Representative Lon Burnam for doing Justice a great service by attempting to right an incredible wrong. Keller deserves nothing less than impeachment from the bench. She is a disgrace to this state, but most certainly to the Texas legal system, and the legal profession itself.
When the Texas Legislature convenes in January, it should take action to remove Sharon Keller from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for willful neglect of duty. We are still waiting for a report from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the reprehensible actions of Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The last communication we received from the Commission was that their investigation was nearing completion. That was in September. There were several judicial complaints filed against Keller (scroll down for list).
We do not know what, if any, action the Commission will take to discipline Keller for her violation of the policies of the Court of Criminal Appeals on Sept 25, 2007, when she neglected to inform the duty judge that the lawyers for Michael Richard wanted to submit an appeal 15 minutes after the end of the day's office hours. Keller said, "we close at 5" and refused to accept the appeal. Richard was executed later that night. In truth, the Court does not "close". Justice is always open. Keller knew it and yet she obstructed justice by her actions. The Commission could recommend that the Texas Supreme Court removes her from office. However, there are two other methods that could be used to remove Keller from her position.
The Texas Constitution Article 15, Section 2 says that "impeachment of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Comptroller and the Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Court shall be tried by the Senate."
Before such a trial can take place, the Texas House has to impeach the officer to be tried. "Impeachment" is the formal charging of misconduct.The actual removal of office would be by the Senate's trial. Even if the Senate did not vote to remove her, being officially indicted by the Texas House could be encouragement enough to convince her to resign.
If the commission doesn't act quickly, we'll have to wait until January 2009, when the Legislature-which has the power to oust high judges-reconvenes, or worse, 2012, when Keller is up for reelection. The fact is, we need to do it now. Impeach Sharon Keller.
The Texas Constitution also says in Article 15, Section 8 that judges can be removed for causes that are not sufficient for impeachment:
The Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Courts, shall be removed by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each House of the Legislature, for willful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, or other reasonable cause which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment; provided, however, that the cause or causes for which such removal shall be required, shall be stated at length in such address and entered on the journals of each House; and provided further, that the cause or causes shall be notified to the judge so intended to be removed, and he shall be admitted to a hearing in his own defense before any vote for such address shall pass, and in all such cases, the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals of each House respectively.
Ratcliffe's reporting seems to have uncovered the smoking gun admission that Keller broke the CCA's policies in effect on the day of Richard's execution. He should be given a journalism award for his work. Congratulations to him on his idea of asking for the policies in effect on Sept 25. His article left me wanting to see the entire text of the policies myself, so I submitted my own PIR to obtain the letter Keller wrote to Radcliffe.
Reading the entire text of the policies makes it very clear that Keller violated the rules by not contacting the assigned duty judge about the request by Richard's lawyers to file a late appeal.
I sent a copy to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct of Keller's letter to Ratcliffe and of the document "Execution-day Procedures".
Execution-day Procedures
A designated judge will be assigned to be in charge of each scheduled execution. Generally, judges will be assigned in rotating seniority order by the general counsel. Exceptions in order of assignment will be made for prior involvement in the death-row inmate's case as trial judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel, or for recusal. Judges may also trade assignments, with notice to all other judges and general counsel, for other good cause such as anticipated absence from court on the day of execution. Unless the Court has been informed by defense counsel that no pleadings will be filed, or pleadings have been filed and ruled on, general counsel shall be present at the Court on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. The assigned judge shall be present at the Court, or immediately available, on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. Support staff may be requested to remain, also, as needed.
All communications regarding the scheduled execution shall first be referred to the assigned judge. The term "communications" includes pleadings, telephone calls, faxes, emails, and any other means of communication with the Court. The assigned judge may call a special conference or gather votes by telephone, email, fax, or other form of communication.
If the communication includes a request for stay of execution, the assigned judge shall contact, by any reasonable means, the other members of the Court and request a vote on the motion to stay. Non-assigned judges will provide to the assigned judge an adequate means of contact. "Reasonable means" includes calling a special conference and contact by electronic communication.
Below are some of the people who filed complaints last year against Keller with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
* A group of about 1900 people signed a complaint sent to the Commission by Texas Moratorium Network.
* Twenty lawyers represented by Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, including:
o Dick DeGuerin
o Chuck Herring
o former State Bar President Broadus Spivey
o University of Houston law professor Mike Olivas
o former appellate Judge Michol O'Connor
o State Representative Harold Dutton
* Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, signed by more than 130 lawyers and others, including:
o State Representative Dora Olivo
o State Representative Garnet Coleman
* National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
* Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
* State Representative Lon Burnam
* State Representative Jessica Farrar
Several newspapers also called for Keller to be removed from office, including the Houston Chronicle, which wrote on Oct 15, 2007:
Judge Keller let her personal bias in favor of the death penalty trample the right of now-executed prisoner Michael Richard to access the courts and have due process. In doing so, she abdicated her role as the state's chief criminal justice to become its chief executioner.
(More developments in this story... - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Texas Moratorium Network submitted a Public Information Request to Sharon Keller to receive a copy of the letter she wrote to the Houston Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe in response to Ratcliffe's own PIR. Ratcliffe wrote his story on his PIR on Dec 13 ("Judge in death case violated policies: Keller, who shut out appeal, says new written rules reflect unwritten ones on that day"). He wrote that "Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller apparently violated court policies for handling death penalty cases when she closed the court clerk's doors on Michael Richard's efforts to file a last-minute appeal before his execution."
Ratcliffe's reporting seems to have uncovered the smoking gun admission that Keller broke the CCA's policies in effect on the day of Richard's execution. He should be given some sort of journalism award for his work. We congratulate him on his idea of asking for the policies in effect on Sept 25. His article left us wanting to see the entire text of the policies ourselves, so we submitted our own PIR.
Reading the entire text of the policies makes it very clear that Keller violated the rules by not contacting the assigned duty judge about the request by Richard's lawyers to file a late appeal. The consequences of her action should be for her to resign immediately or if she lacks the integrity to resign on her own, then the State Commission on Judicial Conduct should compel her to resign.
We will send a copy to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct of Keller's letter to Ratcliffe and of the document "Execution-day Procedures". We hope the Commission has already obtained a copy, but just in case, we will send them our copy, along with another 250 or so new names of people who have signed our judicial complaint against Keller since we first submitted about 1600 names on Nov 16.
Keller claims in the motion that there was no reason for her to order the court to stay open because other judges on the CCA could have been contacted directly, whether the clerk's office was open or closed. She does not explain in the motion to dismiss, however, why she did not tell the court's clerk to tell Richard's lawyers to contact the duty judge or why she did not tell the clerk to inform the duty judge that the lawyers wanted to submit an appeal.
Keller told the lawyers for Richard "We close at 5". This was a lie, because according to her own admission, the duty judge and any judge on the CCA can accept after hours submissions. It is also a lie because she acknowledges in her motion to dismiss that she had the authority to keep the clerk's office open after 5, but she chose not to.
A truthful statement would have been, "We close at 5, but I have the authority as presiding judge to keep the court open past five in order to accept your appeal or you may just contact the duty judge on this case who is Judge Cheryl Johnson and here is her phone number".
In the course of arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because she was acting in her official capacity, Keller admits that she has the authority as presiding judge to keep the court's clerks open after 5pm. Excerpt:
Texas statutory law provides that the normal office hours of a state agency are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. It also authorizes, but does not require, the chief administrator of a state agency to keep offices open during other hours if the administrator “considers it necessary or advisable.” Thus, under Texas Law, the CCA closes at 5 p.m. unless Judge Keller exercises her discretion in her capacity as Presiding Judge to keep the court open.
and
Only Presiding Judge Keller had the authority to keep the clerk’s office open beyond the state-mandated hours. However, as discussed above, she was under no duty or obligation to do so since any CCA judge could have accepted the filing. Richard did not need the clerk’s office to remain open because he could file his motion with the judges that Plaintiff admits remained at the CCA past 5 p.m.
In response to a request for public information to her from the Houston Chronicle, Keller admits that she broke the unwritten rules of the court. For that breach of the rules, she should be removed from office.
Excerpt from Chronicle:
In its public information request, the Chronicle asked for the state appeals court procedures for handling death penalty cases on the day of Richard's execution.
"No written policies regarding those matters existed on that date (Sept. 25)," Keller wrote. "Subsequent to that date, the court reduced to writing the unwritten policies that did exist on that date."
The written policy the court later adopted said the judge assigned to the case should stay on duty on the day of an execution until the execution occurs. The policy also said "all communications regarding the scheduled execution shall first be referred to the assigned judge."
