I wanted to write about the failure of appellate review to recognize when innocent people are convicted of crimes and to correct those convictions.
I was going to spin some thoughts about how all those prosecutors who say things like,
249 appellate court judges looked at this case so the guy we're executing is clearly guilty,
are blowing smoke because few of those judges actually considered whether the guy was innocent and fewer still would admit to there even being a question - regardless of the truth. To make that point, I was going to quote this piece of a new post by Walter Reeves (Todd Willingham's appellate lawyer - you know, the one who actually worked for the client).
The Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project filed a grievance Wednesday with the State Bar of Texas against Justice Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, saying she is unfit to retain her license to practice law. Records show Keller has been licensed since graduating from SMU's law school in 1978.
The group alleges she is untrustworthy and dishonest, citing:
A review by the Texas Ethics Commission that found she failed to disclose several sources of income, as required by law.
Her refusal in 2007 to keep the court open after 5 p.m. at the request of lawyers drafting an appeal on behalf of death row inmate Michael Richard, who was executed that evening.
Statements she made in a federal lawsuit filed by Richard's widow that purportedly contradict what she told the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.