Judge in Texas is on trial

[Nyoibo]

Which this guy had, and several appeals, still found guilty.

[Mr Slugger]

You know I definitely think that from the point of saving a guy's life the lawyers fucked up. I mean they waited until the last day, the last part of the day, and then said they had computer problems. So they called the the court and asked for them to hold on the paperwork is coming, and they said no, and they went ok?

I mean if the judge told me no, and I knew the law was different then I would have fought her on that told her to look up the laws. If she still said no I'd be all over every judge in the building trying to get someone to listen to me.

And maybe the judge knew and maybe she didn't. Maybe she wanted to see him put to death. Maybe she now knew these lawyers all to well and how they worked and was tired of all their crap. I dunno, it will come out eventually.

[BlaqueKatt]

So, under state law, as far as she knew, she did the right thing, as she thought that the paperwork wasn't filed with the clerk's office. <snip>. She fucked up on procedure. How's that merit criminal charges?

Two other judges on the court told the Houston Chronicle they were willing to work late that night, and were unaware Keller refused to allow the filing of the appeal.

"It was an important issue," Judge Paul Womack told the Chronicle in the October 2007 story. He said he stayed at the court until 7 p.m. because "I wanted to be sure to be available in case it was raised."

Keller pointed out in her response that there were no written execution-day procedures in place the day of Richard's execution. She said she did not tell the other judges about her conversation with Marty because she thought they knew about it.

Mind you she left early that day-and assumed they knew about her coversation that occurred AFTER she left the office.


How would they know? Telepathy? There were two other judges that stayed to hear the case but she didn't feel like telling them she didn't allow the appeal to be filed. She let her personal feelings about the case get in the way.

that's why it warrants criminal charges.

You know I definitely think that from the point of saving a guy's life the lawyers fucked up. I mean they waited until the last day, the last part of the day, and then said they had computer problems.

"The afternoon of Richard's scheduled execution day, September 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments in a Kentucky case over the constitutionality of lethal injection."

this is why they "waited" until the last day-it was possible if the supreme court ruled against lethal injection his sentence could have been commuted to life without parole rather than death. They had to wait until SCOTUS decided to hear the other case-scramble to get the paperwork done and filed. Lawyers don't have just one client. What if they were in court all day on another case?

[BroomJockey]

Two other judges on the court told the Houston Chronicle they were willing to work late that night, and were unaware Keller refused to allow the filing of the appeal.

And she thought they knew about the conversation. See? I can bold stuff irrelevant stuff too. Doesn't matter how she thought they knew, she thought they knew. That's enough.

[Slytovhand]

Well, I can only comment based on what's written in the article, and thus not based on fact.. but......

What I read said - Marty, the clerk of the court, rang the judge and asked if they could stay open a bit later for some late paperwork. Thus, the clerk Marty knew what the paperwork was, and who it was from.. not the judge herself... (why? Because as it's written, Marty the clerk didn't say who the paperwork was from!)

The other 2 judges? Well, if they were aware of what was going on, why weren't they there in the first place? If they weren't there, then why should Keller bother keeping the place open a bit later? Is it now Keller's responsibility to tell the other judges "Hang around a bit later this afternoon, just in case those lawyers for the execution have a problem getting their paperwork in on time"??? I don't think so!

I too think if anyone is at fault (other than the scum who was sexually attacking women on his second chance (that he's been caught for!!)), are the lawyers. Surely they had something ready to hand in for a stay.

Also, from all I can read of it, the stay of execution wasn't to bring new evidence to prove this person's guilt. It was merely to argue against a death penalty... one which is in that state, has been for a while, and is likely to remain for some time to come... what the hell is another stay of execution going to do (that hadn't already been done at higher levels)?? The 'victim' apparently was well and truly guilty... so what's the problem (with this issue, not the moral issue of the death penalty in general...).

[DesignFox]

<snip> The 'victim' apparently was well and truly guilty... so what's the problem (with this issue, not the moral issue of the death penalty in general...).

Thank you. I mean, how much MORE tax payer money needed to be wasted on this guy?

The only argument I can see is the whole "what if" scenarios involving other cases, and this is one of those circumstances where I'm not interested in playing those games. There were too many other factors already muddying the scenario.

(did she know, what about the other judges involved, etc.)

[daleduke17]

The grocery store closes at 9pm. Do you wait until 8:59pm to shop, then get made when the store is closed when you get there?

No.

The lawyers screwed up, not the judge. Hold the lawyers accountable.

[Flyndaran]

I'm disgusted that so many people consider legal protections and civil rights so annoying. I don't give a crap what someone did or did not do. That isn't the point of legal protections. They are there to protect everyone, not just the lilly white pure saints you like.
When the death penalty is on the line, all whiny procedural crap should get tabled. Whether the judge did wrong or it was the lawyers, the fact remains that the accused wasn't allowed his legal right. Heads should roll.

[BroomJockey]

Heads should roll.

Yes, but again I ask: Why criminal charges? This should simply be a professional review with punishment up to and including revocation of all ability to practice law (disbarment).

[Flyndaran]

Yes, but again I ask: Why criminal charges? This should simply be a professional review with punishment up to and including revocation of all ability to practice law (disbarment).

Criminal charges would preclude her ever serving as a judge, I'ld imagine. Maybe people want to make sure that she gets screwed even if she plea bargains the charge down. I know: I'm reaching for some kind of sense here.

[daleduke17]

Whether the judge did wrong or it was the lawyers, the fact remains that the accused wasn't allowed his legal right. Heads should roll.

He was allowed his legal right. The lawyers didn't follow through properly to ensure his rights were in their best interest. It is the lawyers fault, not the judges. Don't let your blind hatred of just about any level of the legal system keep you from seeing who really is at fault.

Also, if you were on death row, wouldn't you have made sure all of your paperwork was turned in before the due date, and not wait until the last minute?

[Flyndaran]

He was allowed his legal right. The lawyers didn't follow through properly to ensure his rights were in their best interest. It is the lawyers fault, not the judges. Don't let your blind hatred of just about any level of the legal system keep you from seeing who really is at fault.

Also, if you were on death row, wouldn't you have made sure all of your paperwork was turned in before the due date, and not wait until the last minute?

So we agree that his legal representation was woefully inadequate to the point of illegal incompetence?
I don't hate the justice system. I would prefer that it work properly rather than the mess we have now.

[daleduke17]

So we agree that his legal representation was woefully inadequate to the point of illegal incompetence?
I don't hate the justice system. I would prefer that it work properly rather than the mess we have now.

The justice system worked properly. Also, he chose the representation he had (he had the choice of a Public Defender as well). The onus is also on the criminal to make sure his representation does their job.

[linguist]

However, it's not mandated by state law that my office close at 5.

And which law trumps which? If the state law says the office closes at 5, it closes at 5. I mean, what is there someplace that says "well, the office closes at 5, except when lawyers say their computers are down?"

that article misstates the law which sets state office hours. the law sets regular hours from 8am-5pm, however, it does not mandate that the office close at 5. some offices open earlier or close later, and legal offices in particular routinely stay open past regular hours to make or accept filings. my wife works for the office of the attorney general of texas, and her regular hours are 730am-430pm (outside of those stated in the law), but when one of her attorneys is in trial, she often stays until 7pm or later, and the courts stay open to accept filings as needed.

[BroomJockey]

some offices

The clerks' office? Because that's the one she's getting nailed over.