The state of Texas has always had a difficult relationship with the concept of justice. It is a bond in which both sides avoid eye contact for fear of having to face their demons. The state, however, hasn’t always been able to avoid confronting the injustice within its borders.
From one of the most outrageous attempts at intentionally targeting minorities for trumped-up drug charges in the small town of Tulia, Texas, in 1999 to the overwhelming percentage Texans who voted to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples in 2005, it often seems like the state never entered the 20th century. When these moments occur, when the state gains national attention for all the wrong reasons, Texas is left to confront issues of inequality and injustice head-on.
A not-so-new but no less appalling injustice has begun to take shape as another one of these monumental occasions. This time, however, isn’t merely about a prison sentence or deferred equality. This case involves the fundamental question of life and death.
Michael Richard’s execution for a 1986 rape and murder of a Houston woman was scheduled for September 25, 2007, the same day the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of lethal injection. Upon hearing the news, Richard’s attorneys rushed to file a last-minute appeal for a stay of execution until after the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. Technical difficulties delayed their attempt. They called the office of Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to ask the clerk to remain open 20 minutes past the 5 p.m. closing time. Abandoning the court’s precedent, Judge Keller refused to do so. Richard was given a lethal injection that night. The Supreme Court, two days later, granted a stay of execution to another Texan man on the same grounds Richard’s lawyers attempted to use.
Attorneys and private citizens have undertaken the call for justice, submitting a wave of complaints and organizing protests outside Judge Keller’s house and workplace. In recent weeks, however, the state has moved to investigate the judge’s misconduct.
One such example is a resolution filed earlier this month by State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, charging the judge with “neglect of duty” and “willful disregard for human life.”
Even if the legislature chooses not to act on Rep. Burnam’s bill, Judge Keller’s actions must not go unanswered. Last Thursday, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct filed formal proceedings advising the judge that they are leveling five charges against her. They included a “willing and persistent failure to follow [Court of Criminal Appeals] execution-day procedures” and a denial of an “open court or the right to heard according to law.” In perhaps the most damning professional charge yet, the commission found that Judge Keller’s actions “[casted] public discredit on the judiciary.”
She will now have to submit a written response to the allegations and attend a public hearing on her conduct, after which the commission will have to choose between throwing out the charges, censuring the judge or recommending the Supreme Court of Texas remove her from office.
While private hearings with the Commission of Judicial Conduct are the norm in these cases, the executive director of the committee, Seana Willing, told the Dallas Morning News that a public hearing would provide the judge the “opportunity for due process, to cross-examine and confront witnesses” brought against her.
Judge Keller should be so lucky as to have the justice system work — at least for her. For all the anger at the judge’s actions, Texans can take pride in knowing that, whichever state entity decides her fate, she will be afforded the due process of law which every U.S. citizen is entitled to (and which she denied Richard).
This case isn’t really about damaging her personal prestige and career ambitions or even about coddling criminals. Its main objective is not to highlight the flaw of electing partisan judges, though that is a valuable lesson. Instead, this case stands for how Texas carries out justice.
The state must now make right any unlawful actions. Texans must see that even if Richard was denied his rights as an American citizen, the best way for the state to investigate those responsible for such a reckless act includes nothing short of an impartial and legal hearing.
Give the judge an open and fair hearing, investigate her actions with the strictest of scrutiny and make an honest judgment about her fate on Texas’ highest criminal court. The state deserves nothing less than judges that possess, above all else, prudence and tough-yet-disciplined discretion.
Cervantes is a government sophomore.
