From the Amazee “Project of the Day” announcement for Dec 2 featured on their front page.

Put an end to the death penalty!

2 December 08 If the death penalty is just or cruel, right or wrong, has been discussed at length at least since the age of the Aufklärung (Enlightenment). For a group of Americans, the case is quite clear. The death penalty must be abolished.

Ever since Kenneth Foster’s commutation in 2007, we have been looking for a state legislator to file a bill ending the death penalty as a sentencing option for people convicted under the Law of Parties. Several state legislators wrote clemency letters on behalf of Foster and later again on behalf of Jeff Wood. Those letters criticized Texas’ use of the death penalty against people who did not kill anyone but who were sentenced to death under the Law of Parties. Now, State Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston has filed HB 304, which would disallow prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in the future using the Law of Parties.

The anti-death penalty movement in Texas owes another big thank you to Rep. Dutton, who is often the first person in the Legislature to take up new criminal justice reform issues. In 2001, Dutton was the first person to file a moratorium and study commission bill. One of his moratorium bills that year made it to the floor of the Texas House and received more than 50 votes. In 2003, Dutton filed the first bill to abolish the death penalty in recent times. He has re-filed those bills each session since.

Below is the text of HB 304:

By: Dutton

H.B. No. 304

	A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to the extent of a defendant’s criminal responsibility for
	the conduct of a co-conspirator in certain felony cases.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1. Section 1, Article 37.071, Code of Criminal
	Procedure, is amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 1. (a) If a defendant is found guilty in a capital
	felony case in which the state does not seek the death penalty, the
	judge shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without
	parole.
	(b) A defendant who is found guilty in a capital felony case
	only as a party under Section 7.02(b), Penal Code, may not be
	sentenced to death, and the state may not seek the death penalty in
	any case in which the defendant’s liability is based solely on that
	section.
	SECTION 2. Section 2, Article 37.0711, Code of Criminal
	Procedure, is amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 2. (a) If a defendant is found guilty in a case in
	which the state does not seek the death penalty, the judge shall
	sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.
	(b) A defendant who is found guilty in a capital felony case
	only as a party under Section 7.02(b), Penal Code, may not be
	sentenced to death, and the state may not seek the death penalty in
	any case in which the defendant’s liability is based solely on that
	section.
	SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies to a
	criminal proceeding that commences on or after the effective date
	of this Act. A criminal proceeding that commences before the
	effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the
	proceeding commenced, and the former law is continued in effect for
	that purpose.
	SECTION 4. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
	a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
	provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
	Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
	Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

We just did a live radio interview with KPFT in Houston about our “Abolish the Death Penalty” project on Amazee.com. It aired at 5:18 pm today, Dec 1.

Join the “Abolish the Death Penalty Project” on Amazee.com and help us win the Amazee Bucket membership contest. We could win up to $5,000 to use against the death penalty. The project with the most members by Jan 22 wins. If we win, we plan to use one-half of any prize money we win to help needy families of people on death row travel to visit their loved ones on death row. We will use the other half of the prize money to fight against the death penalty.

First visit the project page on Amazee, then you have to click on “join project” on the right hand side, then click on “register”. Then to qualify as one of the members who count towards the contest, you have to upload a picture or avatar of yourself.

We were all moved by the family members who spoke at the 9th Annual March to Stop Executions in Houston, so we were thinking of how we could help them. We all know that the death penalty is reserved for the poor. There are no rich people on death row. We will use one half of any prize money we get through this contest to help family members visit their loved ones on death row. Many families have a hard time making ends meet and the extra cost of traveling long distances to visit their loved ones on death row is a great financial burden. Some of the people on death row have young children who rarely get to visit them. The other half would be used for activities during the upcoming Texas legislative session from Jan to May 2009, such as a big anti-death penalty rally at the capitol and other projects to persuade people to support abolishing the death penalty.

Thanks to Amazee for helping non-profits achieve their missions!

Here is how KPFT explains their radio station:

What is KPFT?
We’re an FM radio station, situated at 90.1 on your radio. We are one of the five stations that comprise what is called the Pacifica Network, a subject we’ll explain later.
Nearly 90 percent of our funding comes from individual listener-members. We have no large corporate sponsors. All too often, massive funding arrives with an agenda, not to mention all those commercials! Because of our independence from concentrated control, you can hear the difference between us and any other station in the first 10 or 15 minutes of listening. We are definitely different, and we revel in it.

The Pacifica Radio Network
In addition to being a radio station in its own right, KPFT is also an important part of the nationwide Pacifica Radio Network. Maverick broadcaster and peace activist Lewis Hill founded Pacifica Radio, in 1949. Lew Hill’s dream of a truly alternative media became a reality when its flagship station, KPFA in Berkeley, went on the air as a bold, alternative challenge to the market-driven airwaves. Hill’s vision created the country’s first audience-supported radio station and gave birth to public broadcasting as we know it today.
Lew and Pacifica’s other founders sought to create independent, noncommercial radio in the service of peace, social and racial justice, and the arts. They saw, and we see, radio as a forum to ignite the democratic spirit. For over 55 years, Pacifica has produced challenging, courageous, smart and independent programs.

Most district attorneys make a name for themselves by winning convictions. Craig Watkins has done it by reversing convictions that never should have happened.

Every year since 1994, Governing has honored individual state and local government officials for outstanding accomplishment by naming them Public Officials of the Year. Elected, appointed and career officials from any branch of state or local government are eligible. Our readers are invited to nominate individuals who have had a notable positive impact on their department or agency, community or state.

Governing annually receives several hundred nominations from individuals in the public and private sectors. In addition, Governing staff consults experts and scholars in the field, and also nominates outstanding individuals they encounter in the course of their work. Nominations are evaluated by a selection committee, which, after painstaking research, chooses the winners.

When the Texas Legislature convenes in January, it should take action to remove Sharon Keller from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We are still waiting for a report from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the reprehensible actions of Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The last communication we received from the Commission was that their investigation was nearing completion. That was in September. There were several judicial complaints filed against Keller (scroll down for list).

We do not know what, if any, action the Commission will take to discipline Keller for her violation of the unwritten policies of the Court of Criminal Appeals on Sept 25, when she neglected to inform the duty judge that the lawyers of Michael Richard wanted to submit an appeal 15 minutes after the end of the day’s office hours. Keller said, “we close at 5” and refused to accept the appeal. In truth, the Court does not “close”. Justice is always open. Keller knew it and yet she obstructed justice by her actions. The Commission could recommend that the Texas Supreme Court removes her from office. However, there are two other methods that could be used to remove Keller from her position.

The Texas Constitution Article 15, Section 2 says that “impeachment of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Comptroller and the Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Court shall be tried by the Senate.”

Before such a trial can take place, the Texas House has to impeach the officer to be tried. “Impeachment” is the formal charging of misconduct.The actual removal of office would be by the Senate’s trial. even if the Senate did not vote to remove her, being officially indicted by the Texas House could be encouragement enough to convince her to resign.

Texas Monthly’s Mike Hall raised the idea of impeachment in the magazine’s December 2007 issue:

If the commission doesn’t act quickly, we’ll have to wait until January 2009, when the Legislature—which has the power to oust high judges—reconvenes, or worse, 2012, when Keller is up for reelection. The fact is, we need to do it now. Impeach Sharon Keller.

The Texas Constitution also says in Article 15, Section 8 that judges can be removed for causes that are not sufficient for impeachment:

The Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Courts, shall be removed by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each House of the Legislature, for willful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, or other reasonable cause which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment; provided, however, that the cause or causes for which such removal shall be required, shall be stated at length in such address and entered on the journals of each House; and provided further, that the cause or causes shall be notified to the judge so intended to be removed, and he shall be admitted to a hearing in his own defense before any vote for such address shall pass, and in all such cases, the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals of each House respectively.

Texas Moratorium Network submitted a Public Information Request to Sharon Keller to receive a copy of the letter she wrote to the Houston Chronicle’s R.G. Ratcliffe in response to Ratcliffe’s own PIR. Ratcliffe wrote an article on his PIR on Dec 13 (“Judge in death case violated policies: Keller, who shut out appeal, says new written rules reflect unwritten ones on that day“). He wrote that “Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller apparently violated court policies for handling death penalty cases when she closed the court clerk’s doors on Michael Richard’s efforts to file a last-minute appeal before his execution.”

Ratcliffe’s reporting seems to have uncovered the smoking gun admission that Keller broke the CCA’s policies in effect on the day of Richard’s execution. He should be given a journalism award for his work. We congratulate him on his idea of asking for the policies in effect on Sept 25. His article left us wanting to see the entire text of the policies ourselves, so we submitted our own PIR.

Reading the entire text of the policies makes it very clear that Keller violated the rules by not contacting the assigned duty judge about the request by Richard’s lawyers to file a late appeal.

We sent a copy to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct of Keller’s letter to Ratcliffe and of the document “Execution-day Procedures”.

Read the policies and judge for yourselves if she violated them. Here is a link to a pdf of the document we received from the Court. The newly written down text of the unwritten policies in effect on Sept 25, 2007 is below:

Execution-day Procedures

A designated judge will be assigned to be in charge of each scheduled execution. Generally, judges will be assigned in rotating seniority order by the general counsel. Exceptions in order of assignment will be made for prior involvement in the death-row inmate’s case as trial judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel, or for recusal. Judges may also trade assignments, with notice to all other judges and general counsel, for other good cause such as anticipated absence from court on the day of execution. Unless the Court has been informed by defense counsel that no pleadings will be filed, or pleadings have been filed and ruled on, general counsel shall be present at the Court on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. The assigned judge shall be present at the Court, or immediately available, on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. Support staff may be requested to remain, also, as needed.

All communications regarding the scheduled execution shall first be referred to the assigned judge. The term “communications” includes pleadings, telephone calls, faxes, emails, and any other means of communication with the Court. The assigned judge may call a special conference or gather votes by telephone, email, fax, or other form of communication.

If the communication includes a request for stay of execution, the assigned judge shall contact, by any reasonable means, the other members of the Court and request a vote on the motion to stay. Non-assigned judges will provide to the assigned judge an adequate means of contact. “Reasonable means” includes calling a special conference and contact by electronic communication.

Below are some of the people who filed complaints last year against Keller with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

* A group of about 1900 people signed a complaint sent to the Commission by Texas Moratorium Network.
* Twenty lawyers represented by Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, including:
o Dick DeGuerin
o Chuck Herring
o former State Bar President Broadus Spivey
o University of Houston law professor Mike Olivas
o former appellate Judge Michol O’Connor
o State Representative Harold Dutton
* Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, signed by more than 130 lawyers and others, including:
o State Representative Dora Olivo
o State Representative Garnet Coleman
* National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
* Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
* State Representative Lon Burnam
* State Representative Jessica Farrar

Several newspapers also called for Keller to be removed from office, including the Houston Chronicle, which wrote on Oct 15, 2007:

Judge Keller let her personal bias in favor of the death penalty trample the right of now-executed prisoner Michael Richard to access the courts and have due process. In doing so, she abdicated her role as the state’s chief criminal justice to become its chief executioner.