UNFOUNDED KELLER CRITICISM BY GRITS N’ CASEY
Categories: Essays
Written By: Billy Sinclair
I really had not planned to post another piece about Chief Judge Sharon Keller, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. But two posts by anti-Keller blogger Grits for Breakfast and an opinion piece by Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey concerning the “public warning” the Texas Commission of Judicial Conduct imposed on Judge Keller a couple weeks ago compelled me to put my two-cents into the fray. The judicial sanction was given to Keller because of her role in the handling of the botched appeal by condemned inmate Michael Wayne Richard on September 25, 2007. I have quite thoroughly explained my position in the Keller/Richard controversy in a number of posts on this website: here, here, here, here, and here.
Essentially what Grits n’ Casey are upset about is that the “public warning” administered to Keller by the13-member Commission was not severe enough. Out of one side of his mouth Casey called the warning a “historic slap on the wrist” while out of the other side of his mouth, in the very same breath, the anti-Keller columnist called it a “strongly worded condemnation.” What kind of double-speak is that? And Grits rambled on about the public warning, the second lowest sanction the Commission could have imposed according to Casey, being a “bad” precedent that would encourage other “misconducting” judges to fight their cases all the way through the judicial disciplinary process to secure the same kind of “special treatment” supposedly given to Judge Keller.
Short of a public hanging, or perhaps a lesser public flogging, I don’t know what would satisfy the anti-Keller forces like Grits n’ Casey. I certainly support the right of Grits n’ Casey to pillory Judge Keller with the written word. That’s classic First Amendment stuff. But they’re burning the barn because the jackass escaped. There would be no “Keller debate” had the Texas Defender Service properly represented Michael Wayne Richard on his final appeal. Look, Richard was going to be executed: whether it was September 25, 2007 or September 25, 2009. The crime he committed etched his fate in death penalty stone.
But the only reason Richard was executed on September 25, 2007 rather than September 25, 2009 was because his attorneys did not adequately and properly represent him on the last day of his life. Their actions, far more than Keller’s admitted failure to follow procedures, resulted in Richard’s untimely execution. All the criticism in the world against Sharon Keller is not going to undermine that fact. The anti-Keller forces can try, and may eventually succeed in removing the judge from the bench, but it shouldn’t be because of the Richard case.
There have been some discreet and passing references about the failings of the Texas Defender Service in the Richard case but nothing comparable to the wide-ranging, far-flung criticism leveled against Keller. It’s politics in its rawest form—and debates on these kinds of issues should not be shaped by political perspectives. They should be waged and resolved on the basis of fact. And the fact is that the Texas Defender Service is the reason Michael Wayne Richard was executed on September 25, 2007, not Judge Sharon Keller.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Mr. Sinclair:
Thank you for your insightful objectivity. Your credibility rating just hit the roof, and I for one appreciate it.
The problem that Grit’s, who I read daily, has is the total animosity towards Judge Keller that was evidenced by his constantly cheering the irrelevant to Richard sanctions that Judge Keller received.
David Dow and the TDS committed malpractice in their incompetent handling of Richard…period. Whether it was simple negligence; or some Machiavellian brinkmanship to embarrass the Court of Criminal Appeals, using Richard’s life as a tool, remains to be seen.
And in rebuttal to Grit’s assertion that all pro-Keller people hide behind their anonymity, my name is William “Rusty” Hubbarth, and I am the vice president of Justice For All.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Mr. Hubbarth: I don’t know if the motives of David Dow and Texas Defender Service were sinister, as you suggest, or just plain incompetence. But clearly it was their actions that resulted in the untimely execution of Richard. All the fanatical criticism directed at Judge Keller is political; these forces who oppose her presence on the bench have simply manipulated and distorted the facts in the Richard execution in a blatant attempt to destroy the judge. Like you, I will not be silenced when it comes to the facts … and I have endured some unfounded criticism from anti-death penalty forces because of it. But this site was not created to put forth an agenda, but to express points of view grounded in fact. Thank you for your interest in it. Billy Sinclair
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Billy, you write “Grits n’ Casey are upset about is that the “public warning” administered to Keller by the13-member Commission was not severe enough.”
This is a misrepresentation. In fact, I specifically said “I’ve got to admit, I don’t care much who is right on the details of the obscure debate over the Commission’s power to ‘warn’ judges after a formal hearing.” And it was the executive director of the SCJC (and later Keller herself) who complained that the Commission’s decision was illegally lenient, so why you attribute that position to me I have no idea. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Since you critique nothing else I’ve said except to assert false, baseless characterizations that say more about your own mindset than any position I’ve taken, I’ll eschew reacting to the rest. But I’d encourage you to take on real issues instead of straw men if you want your writing to be taken seriously by serious people.
And Rusty, if you write under your own name then I’m not talking about you when I criticize cowardly, anonymous trolls. But if you read Grits every day I’ve never seen your name in the comments, so perhaps you’re only willing to put your name on your opinions in forums like this one where the writers all agree with you.
August 24th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Grits: I think my references to you in the above post are accurate given the number and manner of your posts about Judge Keller. As for being taken “seriously by serious people,” I will assume you count yourself as one of those “serious people.” Let me say this: points of view are based on informed factual analysis while opinions are based on gut instinct and raw emotion colored by personal experience. I am not seeking higher office in the court of public opinion, especially among “serious people.” I’m too old, fought too many battles (most of which I lost), and have too little time left on this precious earth to be concerned about what serious people” may or may not think of me. But, anyway, thanks for the trip to the verbal wood shed. Billy Sinclair