Texas Judge Accused of Misconduct, Appellant Died

The odds are stacked against Sharon Keller, a Texas high court judge who is accused of blocking a defendant's right to file an appeal prior to execution.

On the day of the defendant's scheduled execution, September 25, 2007, defense contacted Keller to ask her to keep the court office open past the usual 5pm close of business. According to reports, Keller not only admits to saying, "We close at 5," she also failed to inform eight other high court judges that the defendant would be delivering an appeal to his death sentence that evening. In Keller's own defense, she claims that the defense did not give a reason for the request.

The defendant, Michael Richard, was convicted of the rape and murder of a Texas nurse; the victim was a mother of seven. The defendant confessed to the crime. Counsel filed appeal based on Richard's mental capacity -- a rather typical claim to allowing a stay of execution, yet a right granted by the Eigth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Richard's appeal was also concurrent with another case the Supreme Court had accepted that same day, on the basis of propriety of lethal injections -- an argument presenting the "cruel and unsual" infliction of pain on a person sentenced to death by lethal injection because the chemicals used were painful while being administered. Had the Supreme Court found the previous case of sound legal and scientific argument, an ex facto novo, or retroactive law could have ceased all Texas lethal injection executions.

I give a nervous chuckle while questioning the health of our democra'Z'y when I encounter stories like this one. Who is "Killer Keller" to determine the fate of a convicted felon? Who is she, or anyone for that matter, to disregard another's due process rights simply because she believes in the totality of crimial justice (read: "justice against criminals")? According to the reports I found, such as the nitty gritty on FindLaw.com, her reputation and bias precedes her actions against Richards and countless others.

Guilty or not, the defendant was fully entitled to his due process rights; he was entitled to mental health treatment, if necessary, as a ward of the government. Our morality demands it; our laws command it. Fortunately for her, she will be provided the liberties she so has so willfully taken away from others.

Sadly, violations like this happen every day, but normally people aren't put to death as a result.