Burnam Introduces Impeachment Resolution

On September 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would decide whether execution by lethal injection was constitutional or not. A Texas prisoner was scheduled to die at 6pm on that date using that method of execution. His attorneys believed his execution should be delayed until the Supreme Court made its decision, so they rushed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals -- only to find it was closed.

Now it was a tradition of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stay open late when an execution was scheduled, to hear any last minute appeals. The judges rotate that duty among themselves. On that date, it was Judge Sharon Keller's turn to stay late (Keller is pictured above). Instead, she closed the court at 5pm and left, leaving no one to hear the last-minute appeal. Her action showed a remarkable callousness in light of the scheduled execution.

Since that time, the court has allowed attorneys to file last-minute appeals by e-mail. But it looked like Judge Keller would escape any real punishment for her dereliction of duty (and that's exactly what it was). However, Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) has filed HR 480 to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge. He accuses her of "neglect of duty" and "willful disregard for human life".

Burnam says, "It's one thing for a banker to close shop at five o'clock sharp. But a public official who stands between a human being and the death chamber must be held to a higher standard."

Burnam's resolution calls for a special House committee that "shall conduct an investigation to consider whether to recommend that under Section 1, Article XV, Texas Constitution, and Chapter 665, Government Code, the House of Representatives adopt and present to the Texas Senate articles of impeachment against Judge Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, for gross neglect of duty and conducting her official duties with willful disregard for human life in connection with her actions on the evening of September 25, 2007, including her apparent irresponsible refusal to abide by the prior practice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in order to receive the appeal of Michael Richard, which conduct may have resulted in Mr. Richard's deprivation of life without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 19, Article I, Texas Constitution, by means of a potentially unlawful execution by lethal injection, and in the embarrassment of the State of Texas in a manner that casts severe doubt on the impartiality of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the entire criminal justice system of this state."