WWTBAM Bored

Four words -- "We close at 5" -- enforced by Texas judge Sharon Keller led to the almost immediate execution of convicted murderer Michael Richard.

Three hours after Keller refused to keep her courthouse open past closing time to receive the condemned killer's request to stay his execution, Richard was executed.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3724883&page=1

I agree with the Justice's comments.

"I think the question ought to be why didn't they file something on time. They had all day," she told the Houston Chronicle.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I agree with the Justice's comments.

Her colleagues don't. Apparently, the attorney's computer crashed and that's why he couldn't get the papers to the courthouse by 5:00. --Bob

Is there a rule that says he had to wait until the afternoon of the last day?

The attorney committed malpractice, but I don't agree that the Court should have stayed open to accomodate the attorney's error.

They we're filing taxes, there was someone's life at stake. The person may be guilty and may ultimately 'deserve' to die, but the judge shouldn't be so flippant about it.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Is there a rule that says he had to wait until the afternoon of the last day?

The attorney committed malpractice, but I don't agree that the Court should have stayed open to accomodate the attorney's error.

One thing to keep in mind is that the 'last minute filing' may have been a deliberate tactic: have you ever noticed that these appeals are always filed within a few hours of the scheduled execution? The appeal is often filed not because the attorney or the client actually expects to prevail on the merits, but simply to postpone the execution: if the appeal had been filed a week or two earlier, it would have been ruled upon (most likely denied) and the execution would have moved forward as scheduled; when you file just a few hours before the execution, it often has the effect of causing the execution to be rescheduled, and this just buys some more time. It probably backfired in this case, because they tried to get too close to the wire, and the judge held their feet to the fire.

FWIW, I generally object to the death penalty, and I can certainly understand the motives of the attorney and his or her client in this case, but at the same time, the judges have to guard against people just trying to manipulate the system. If it is OK to file 20 minutes late, why not 40 minutes? Or 20 hours? Or 20 days? etc. We have a legal system that is based on rules, and if you fudge them, then the whole system breaks down.

Four words -- "We close at 5" -- enforced by Texas judge Sharon Keller led to the almost immediate execution of convicted murderer Michael Richard.

Last I heard, he had uttered several racial epithets while he was doing a comedy routine. I didn't know he'd killed someone. That's too bad. I liked him on Seinfeld.

My reply is based on my (very often faulty) memory, but didn't the announcement that TSCOTUS would review the Kentucky death penalty case come out on the same day, or the day before? And wasn't this relevant to the Texas case because both states use the same drugs in the lethal injection? I seem to remember hearing that the executed man's lawyers were really pushed for time because the announcement came so close to the execution date.

Again, I may be misremembering. If so, I'm sure someone will kindly & gracefully point this out.

Rexer, you are right on target.

http://www.workers.org/2007/us/death-penalty-1018/


If she had conferred with her fellow justices and allowed the appeal, it is clear that the execution would have been stayed (at the Supreme Court level, if not earlier).

Odd that the court did not decide to stay the exxecution, on its own motion, with the annoncement by the Supreme Court that they would be reviewing the constitutionality of lethal injection.

Nebraska is the only state out of 38 with the Death Penalty that does not use lethal injection.

If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court also might be hearing a case regarding the need for foreign national accused to have access to their consulate, where Texas again is heavily involved.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Is there a rule that says he had to wait until the afternoon of the last day?

The attorney committed malpractice, but I don't agree that the Court should have stayed open to accomodate the attorney's error.

Given the facts (the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on a case presenting the same issue earlier that day), would you like to revise your opinion? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Is there a rule that says he had to wait until the afternoon of the last day?

The attorney committed malpractice, but I don't agree that the Court should have stayed open to accomodate the attorney's error.

Given the facts (the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on a case presenting the same issue earlier that day), would you like to revise your opinion? --Bob

No

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Is there a rule that says he had to wait until the afternoon of the last day?

The attorney committed malpractice, but I don't agree that the Court should have stayed open to accomodate the attorney's error.

Given the facts (the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on a case presenting the same issue earlier that day), would you like to revise your opinion? --Bob

No

Really? Which part of the attorney's conduct do you believe constituted malpractice? --Bob

"Four words -- "We close at 5" -- enforced by Texas judge Sharon Keller led to the almost immediate execution of convicted murderer Michael Richard. "

Hmmm....

Michael Richard ("Murderer") was executed 9/25/2007. He arrived on Death Row 11/20/1987. Two months short of 20 years from when he was executed.

Murderer raped and killed a 53 year-old nurse on 8/13/86, more than 21 years before he was executed.


I'm not sure what "almost immediate execution" means.


The bleeding hearts like to play 'just in time' appeals so that if the appeal is rejected, at least it delays the execution. If they appealled in a timely manner and were rejected, then they wouldn't effect any delay. Too bad this time. I'm all teared up.

traininvain wrote:They we're filing taxes, there was someone's life at stake. The person may be guilty and may ultimately 'deserve' to die, but the judge shouldn't be so flippant about it.

Well maybe they (the bleeding heart lawyers) should have considered that when putting their timeline together.

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Given the facts (the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on a case presenting the same issue earlier that day), would you like to revise your opinion? --Bob

No

Really? Which part of the attorney's conduct do you believe constituted malpractice? --Bob

Just because the USSC granted cert that morning doesn't mean that the Def could not have filed a motion earlier that same day or even before raising the issue. Too many attorneys, and especially those who work to stop any and all executions play the timing game to delay, delay, delay.

Also, did they really not know until 4:50 that they weren't going to make it by 5? I would be willing to wager that if the call had come at a more reasonable time, there would have been more flexibility. If they were hindered by a crashed computer at 10 til 5, they were already running later than reasonable.

There was no injustice here. The murderer might just have missed out on a chance to get lucky like Charlie Manson. The part that bothers me is that next time there could be an injustice.

Having spent a small amount of time on the side of capital defense appeals, this is an issue close to me.

I can agree with Cal that the attorneys should not have cut it so close. (I am guessing that Texas does not have electronic filing like federal courts)

However, I must say that I have even less regard for the Texas court system when a judge knows that the state's method of execution is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and she does not stay a pending execution on the court's own motion.

What if the Supreme Court declares that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual punishment"? It will be too late for Richard. This is a corollary to the thought that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to execute one innocent one. (Texas is not doing to well in that regard, either. Google "Cesar Fierro")

BackInTex wrote:

traininvain wrote:They we're filing taxes, there was someone's life at stake. The person may be guilty and may ultimately 'deserve' to die, but the judge shouldn't be so flippant about it.

Well maybe they (the bleeding heart lawyers) should have considered that when putting their timeline together.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

To be honest I feel that the killer got off easy, he should have had to spent the rest of his life in a small cell with next to no human interaction. Having said that, the judge should still not be so rigid when they know it's an important issue.

FWIW, the state with the most executions per capita is Oklahoma, not Texas.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:There was no injustice here. The murderer might just have missed out on a chance to get lucky like Charlie Manson. The part that bothers me is that next time there could be an injustice.

When does justice become vengeance? Do we kill all murderers to make us safer, to "right the wrong", or just to exact a sense of revenge?

I'm about to inform this bored of something that I don't usually tell except to those closest to me. My father was killed by a hitchhiker when I was 6. The moment my father died, my life changed. The murderer was on the run for about 3 days, then captured. He was tried, and sentenced to life in prison. Life was a bit different when he was running loose, but not much. It changed a little when he was caught, none when he was convicted, none when he was imprisoned, none when he was killed trying to escape.

I hate when "society" decides that vengeance = justice, and the blood lust for revenge overwhelms the brighter lights this country is so proud of. I understand people on death row are there because they have been found guilty of horrible crimes. I'm grateful that the rest of my family has escaped encounters with these people. I just don't understand why my government has to degrade itself to the level of the criminal in the name of justice.

rec

Rexer, I'm so sorry to hear about that tragedy in your past. Thank you for sharing it, as it is a viewpoint that people need to hear.

"I understand people on death row are there because they have been found guilty of horrible crimes."

It seems like you also understand that not everyone on death row actually is guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. Fortunately, DNA evidence has helped exonerate some men (and provided much greater evidence of guilt with regard to others). However, some of the accused still are paying the price for poor representation and for skin colors.

I cannot, and will not comment on the legal issues of constitutionality and malpractice.

However, the flippancy of the mere remark "We close at 5" evinces, in this case, a disregard of the value of human life that is more akin to that of Richard than what I expect from the bench. If anyone here ever finds themselves in a position to be falsely accused of capital murder, pray it is not in her jurisdiction.

Appa23 wrote:Fortunately, DNA evidence has helped exonerate some men (and provided much greater evidence of guilt with regard to others).

That is why the article I saw last week about how the funds for this project are going unused was so disturbing.

Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. I don't think he needs our help.

I hate when "society" decides that vengeance = justice, and the blood lust for revenge overwhelms the brighter lights this country is so proud of.

So when does punishment become vengeance and then blood lust? Where do you draw the line, and then how does society draw the line? Can the death penalty ever be a reasoned response to crime?