I’m glad to see that someone is asking questions about the warning that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct handed down to Sharon Keller.
Seana Willing, the commission’s examiner, contends in an e-mail that the order is based on a rule that does not comport with the Texas Constitution. As examiner in judicial misconduct cases, Willing acts as a prosecutor does in a criminal case, gathering and presenting evidence, often assisted by a private attorney.
Willing says, “I’m not criticizing the commission for what they did, but I don’t understand why they did what they did.” But Willing is concerned that the commission’s public warning in Keller could result in “bad law” and cost taxpayers more money.
She argues the commission should have based its order on the constitution, which allows the commission only three options after it begins formal proceedings against a judge and after a special master issues a report: issue a censure, recommend removal or retirement, or dismiss the charges.
But John J. “Mike” McKetta, the special counsel who prosecuted Keller, thinks the constitution allows the commission to take the action it did.
Bob Warneke, the commission’s counsel in Keller, says the commission’s position is that the order “speaks for itself.” He declines further comment.
The question is somewhat complicated, and turns on what the Texas Constitution outlines and what the rules for the SCJC specify. It’s a bit of a mess, actually. The Statesman has a good story on this as well, which includes the fact that Keller is the 96th judge to be examined by the Commission, and the first to receive this particular sanction. One thing I hope we all can agree on:
While [Keller defense attorney Chip] Babcock is discussing an appeal, how such an appeal would proceed is unclear. That’s because there are different procedures for appeals after formal and informal proceedings. A public warning typically follows informal proceedings, but in Keller’s case, the commission issued a public warning after formal proceedings.
When the commission issues a public warning to a judge in informal proceedings, that judge has the right to ask the state Supreme Court to appoint three appellate justices to a special court of review to hear the appeal. Willing says in an interview that in such appeals, the three-justice panel reviews the evidence de novo, amounting to a new trial.
But because the commission initiated formal proceedings against Keller, Keller already has had a trial — before the special master. Willing says a new trial would be a waste of resources. She is concerned about Keller getting what amounts to a second trial on the taxpayer’s dime.
“This is taxpayers’ resources being expended for a second trial,” Willing says. “I have a problem with that.”
Willing says that even though the commission does not pay Graves Dougherty legal fees for McKetta’s work as special counsel, it had to pay for the firm’s expenses in Keller, which totaled about $20,000 so far. “Are we going to have to do that again?” Willing asks.
I would hope the answer to that is No. At this point, it appears the only way for that to be ensured is for Keller to take her medicine and let it go already. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Thanks to Grits for the Texas Lawyer link.
Well, on one hand it makes you appreciate the argument against “Activist Judges” who when the law ways “A,” “B,” or “C,” say well, I’m creating “D” and that’s how I rule.
On the other hand, it doesn’t take anyone with more than a couple of cells for the “common sense” gene to realize that this is totally screwed up.
If nothing else, you’ve done your public service by drawing attention to this mess.
So, GO, GO Kuff. Boo, SCJC!
Pingback: Keller appeals to Supreme Court – Off the Kuff
Pingback: SCJC contests Keller’s appeal – Off the Kuff
Pingback: Who judges the judges? – Off the Kuff