DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Court of Review Vacates Public Warning, Charges Against Keller

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Special Court of Review Vacates Public Warning, Charges Against Keller Case Closed: Special Court of Review Vacates Public Warning, Charges Against Keller By Mary Alice Robbins Texas Lawyer October 18, 2010 Breaking her silence after three years, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller says she feels "vindicated" by a special court of review's decision to vacate the State Commission on Judicial Conduct's public warning and charges against her. Although some reporters have written that the three-justice court of review's Oct. 11 decision in In Re: Honorable Sharon Keller was only a technical victory for Keller, she doesn't see it that way. "I won," Keller says. "People can call it what they want." Keller, a member of the CCA since 1995 and its presiding judge since 2000, also says she will seek re - election in 2012. "I have always planned on doing that," she says. Her judicial conduct case played out against the backdrop of debate over the death penalty. Dubbed "Sharon Killer" by some anti-death penalty activists, Keller has experienced not only the commission's investigation and prosecution of its charges against her but also critical media coverage and protests at her home. "It's been a three-year-long ordeal," Keller says. Austin solo Lillian Hardwick, co-author of the "Texas Handbook on Lawyer and Judicial Ethics," says what many people have focused on in Keller's case is the death penalty. "Make no mistake, the death penalty is a serious issue, but that's not what this is about," Hardwick says. Hardwick says, "It's whether what Judge Keller said and did on that day [Sept. 25, 2007] violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Texas Constitution." In its judgment in Keller , the court of review noted that the judicial conduct commission "erred as a matter of law" on July 16 when it issued its order of public warning to Keller for her conduct in the case of convicted murderer Michael Richard, whom the state executed on Sept. 25, 2007. The commission's error, according to the court of review's opinion, was in issuing a sanction not permitted by the Texas Constitution or the state's Government Code after the initiation of formal proceedings against Keller. However, the court of review also noted that the resolution it reached "is not an opinion on the underlying merits." The court of review's opinion provides the following background on Keller: The case concerned complaints against Keller for her decision not to keep the CCA clerk's office open past business hours to allow the entity serving as Richard's attorney to file a request concerning his pending execution. Keller went home early to meet a repairman on the day Richard's execution was scheduled. "I thought there was a dangerous situation with my oven," she says. Keller says it is not unusual for a CCA judge not to be at the court on a day an execution is scheduled. The important thing, she says, is that the judges be accessible by telephone. CCA Judge Paul Womack says Keller's statement is generally correct but that he was at the court on the day Richard was scheduled for execution. "I made a point to stay around because I knew the [U.S.] Supreme Court had granted cert in a case that day," Womack says. He says he was expecting a filing based on the high court's decision. On the morning Richard was scheduled to be executed, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection in Baze v. Rees, a Kentucky case. The court of review's opinion provides the following additional background on the case: After an informal investigation, the judicial conduct commission voted in February 2009 to pursue formal proceedings against Keller. San Antonio's 37th District Judge David A. Berchelmann Jr., who served as the special master in Keller, presided over a four-day trial for her in August 2009. In his Jan. 20 findings of fact, filed with the commission, Berchelmann wrote that, although Keller's conduct was not exemplary on the day Richard was executed, she "did not violate any written or unwritten rules or laws," and he recommended that no formal action be taken against Keller. Both Keller and the commission's examiner objected to Berchelmann's findings. After considering the record, the commission disregarded Berchelmann's conclusions and voted to issue a public warning to Keller. This is the point at which the court of review found that the commission erred. The court of review noted that different consequences follow an informal proceeding than follow a formal proceeding. After an informal investigation and before a formal hearing, the Texas Constitution permits imposition of a "sanction," wrote the court of review. The Texas Government Code defines "sanction" as a private or public admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement for additional training or education. After a formal proceeding, the constitution provides for 1. imposition of a public censure or 2. recommendation for removal or retirement. A censure is more severe than any of the sanctions: It is an order of denunciation, which is a condemnation, according to the court of review's opinion. Following a formal proceeding, can the commission issue penalties short of censure or a recommendation of removal or retirement? The court of review found the constitution's plain language inconclusive on this point. The relevant statute doesn't clear up the matter. The court of review wrote that the government code's plain language also is inconclusive with regard to whether a sanction is permissible absent a formal proceeding, but the language suggests that the answer is yes. The court of review then looked to the protections afforded judges in reaching its conclusion about permissible consequences. The Texas Legislature gave sanctioned judges the right to a trial de novo because the sanction resulting from informal proceedings before the commission may lack "basic elements of due process." In contrast, the Government Code provides for a court of review to conduct a review of the record of the formal proceedings that resulted in a judge's censure. Being entitled to greater appellate review (trial de novo v. review of the record) for a lesser consequence (a sanction v. a censure) after more due process (informal v. formal proceedings) did not make sense to the court of review. The court wrote, "Engrafting a warning into the range of penalties after a formal proceeding would lead to an absurd result — an automatic second trial for warnings after formal proceedings but not for censure, removal or forced retirement — with the latter penalties greater in severity but entitled to less appellate review." Keller's case went through formal proceedings. As explained in the court of review's opinion, the commission could have, with seven votes and a finding of good cause, issued a censure of Keller for her conduct in Richard's case. But without a finding of good cause and the requisite number of votes, the commission was required to dismiss the charges against Keller, the court of review concluded. Jorge Rangel, the judicial conduct commission's chairman, says, "We are very respectful of the opinion, because we recognize this is a process. The commission had a role in the process. The special court of review had a role in the process." But Rangel, a shareholder in The Rangel Law Firm in Corpus Christi, says that the commission could not say that a rule promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court violates the state's constitution or is inconsistent with the constitution. "The commission takes the rules as written and as they are handed to us," Rangel says. In its July 16 order of public warning, the commission cited, among other things, Rule 10(m) of the Procedural Rules for the Removal or Retirement of Judges. That rule provides that, after a hearing and considering the record and report of a special master, the commission, by a vote of six of its members, "may dismiss the case or publicly order a censure, reprimand, warning or admonition." But, as the court of review pointed out in its opinion, Rule 10(m) is inconsistent with other Supreme Court's rules, the Texas Constitution and the Government Code. The court of review made its finding in response to Keller's motion to dismiss the commission's public warning of her and the commission's charges against her. Keller had requested appointment of the court of review after the commission issued its public warning. The Texas Supreme Court appointed Fort Worth's 2nd Court of Appeals Chief Justice Terrie Livingston, Houston's 1st Court of Appeals Justice Elsa Alcala and Beaumont's 9th Court of Appeals Justice Charles Kreger to sit as the court of review. Texas Civil Rights Project director James C. Harrington of Austin is one of a number of attorneys who filed complaints against Keller with the judicial conduct commission. "It's kind of sad," Harrington says of the court of review's decision. "You have all the findings by the commission, and the three-judge panel says they didn't do it right. "I don't know how the commission could do that. It's incomprehensible," Harrington says. "On the other hand, why didn't the justices [on the court of review] just send it back to the commission and say 'Do it the right way'?" But Hardwick says that was not an option. Hardwick says that remanding Keller's case to the judicial conduct commission is not a part of the process. If the commission had considered the complaints against Keller in an informal proceeding, the special court of review could have ordered the commission to open formal proceedings against her, Hardwick says.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Or Read It Here. May-June-2021-Issue
    TheThe TexasTexas The official journal of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association ProsecutorProsecutor May–June 2021 • Volume 51, Number 3 “It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys … not to convict, but to see that justice is done.” Art. 2.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure The meaning of ‘material’ in Watkins v. State If you are a prosecutor, certainly you have heard of the Michael Morton Act. The Act has caused a significant change in the practice of all prosecu- tors and has impacted the workload of prosecutor office staff. But did you know the Michael Morton Act did not create By Alan Curry a new statute? The Michael Morton Act actually amended part of Texas’s discovery statute, which had been on the Assistant Criminal District Attorney in Galveston County books for decades, and it added several new subsections to it.1 The Michael Morton Act specifically amended Art. 39.14(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which now The Michael Morton Act added several new types of evi- requires that the State produce, after a timely request from dence that the State is required to disclose, but—as you can the defendant, various pieces of “evidence material to any see—there has been no change to the language as to the na- matter involved in the action.”2 Prior to the enactment of the ture of the evidence that the State is required to produce. Michael Morton Act, Art. 39.14(a) had long required the State The State is, and always has been, required to produce “evi- to produce, “upon motion of the defendant showing good dence material to any matter involved in the action.” cause,” various pieces of “evidence material to any matter in- So if the Michael Morton Act is such a big deal—and it is— volved in the action.” that must be based upon some other addition to Art.
    [Show full text]
  • The STATE of the JUDICIARY in Texas Chief Justice Wallace B
    The STATE OF THE JUDICIARY in Texas Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson Presented to the 81st Legislature February 11, 2009 Austin, Texas The STATE OF THE JUDICIARY in Texas Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson Presented to the 81st Legislature February 11, 2009 Austin, Texas THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS WALLACE B. JEFFERSON Justices Chief Justice NATHAN L. HECHT HARRIET O’NEILL DALE WAINWRIGHT SCOTT A. BRISTER DAVID M. MEDINA PAUL W. GREEN PHIL JOHNSON DON R. WILLETT THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SHARON KELLER Judges Presiding Judge LAWRENCE E. MEYERS TOM PRICE PAUL WOMACK CHERYL JOHNSON MICHAEL E. KEASLER BARBARA PARKER HERVEY CHARLES R. HOLCOMB CATHY COCHRAN Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson STATE OF THE JUDICIARY Presented to the 81st Legislature February 11, 2009 Austin, Texas Governor Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst, Speaker Straus, members of the Legislature, to my colleagues on the bench and most importantly, to the citizens of Texas, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak with you today. These are critical times for Texas and for the nation. Now more than ever, the public relies on all branches of government to work together. That work begins here in the Capitol, in this chamber and in the Senate, where the Legislature crafts laws to promote the general welfare. Without the executive branch to enforce them, the laws may as well be written on sand. And unless the judiciary interprets the laws faithfully, the underpinning of our democracy – the rule of law – will falter. We each have an obligation to concentrate our energies on the first goal the United States Constitution articulates, and that is “to establish Justice.” Working together, we have made good progress toward that ideal.
    [Show full text]
  • JA2021-Issue
    TheThe TexasTexas The official journal of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association ProsecutorProsecutor July–August 2021 • Volume 51, Number 4 “It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys … not to convict, but to see that justice is done.” Art. 2.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure New discovery rules for asset forfeitures When it comes to asset forfeitures, planning is the key to success. It sounds simple enough, but with the new discovery rules (effective Janu- ary 1, 2021) and a mere 30-day filing deadline, the challenge of successfully prosecuting forfeiture cases has By Jennifer Hebert grown. Assistant District Attorney in Brazos County Prosecutors are already juggling chaotic schedules with packed dockets (and backed-up dockets due to COVID-19) and crazy trial schedules, and law enforcement agencies are Knowing the rules overloaded with detectives who can hardly keep up with the Let’s start with the basics. What is asset forfeiture? Asset workload. So with all of these challenges, the question is, how forfeiture is a means by which law enforcement can legally can you successfully manage a forfeiture docket? take contraband from criminals through a civil process. While there isn’t an answer that works for everyone, each Contraband is defined by Texas law as property of any na- prosecutor has to find an efficient strategy or system that ture (including real, personal, tangible, or intangible) that works for the individual situation. What works in one office is used or intended to be used in the commission of, pro- or for one prosecutor may not work for someone else.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Civil Rights Project
    TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT Michael Tigar Human Rights Center 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, Texas 78741-3438 (512) 474-5073 (phone) (512) 474-0726 (fax) James C. Harrington Wayne Krause Director Senior Staff Counsel Sheri Joy Nasya Tolliver Isaac F. Harrington Scott C. Medlock Attorneys 10 October 2007 State Commission on Judicial Conduct PO Box 12265 Austin, TX 7871 1-2265 Re: Judge Sharon Keller Presiding Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Dear Members of the Commission: We wish to file a formal complaint against Judge Sharon Keller (Presiding Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) and ask that you take appropriate, immediate, and severe disciplinary action. The Texas Civil Rights Project is a nonprofit foundation that promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas. SUMMARY STATEMENT This complaint involves a situation in which Judge Keller refused to allow the attorneys for Michael Richard, scheduled to be executed on the same day, to file pleadings on his behalf, based on a grant of certiorari by the U.S Supreme Court that same day on the question of the constitutionality of lethal injunction. The attorneys had requested that the court clerk's office remain open twenty minutes past the 5pm closing time because they had experienced computer failure in the preparation of their pleading. Judge Keller refused the request, even though she was not the judge assigned to the Richard case. As a result, Richard then was executed by lethal injection. Judge Keller's actions denied Michael Richard two constitutional rights, access to the courts and due process, which led to his execution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Office of the Federal Public Defender (Txn)
    THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER (TXN) and THE FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION (FORT WORTH ) are pleased to sponsor the 2016 “Federal Criminal Law Practice” Refresher CLE United States Federal Courthouse, 501 West 10th St., Jury Room Fort Worth, Texas Friday, April 08, 2016 Overview The Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Texas has designed this one-day event to provide the experienced federal criminal defense practitioner with instruction in a broad array of procedural and substantive subject matter. The Federal Defender has submitted the appended agenda to the State Bar of Texas for certification and the course has been approved for 7.00 hours of continuing legal education credit, of which one (1) hour qualifies for Ethics credit. Cost(s): All Attendees: Free Lunch: TBD Parking: On your own Registration: Register online here or E-Mail the appended form to: [email protected] -1- AGENDA 7:45 - 8:00 A.M. Welcoming Remarks The Hon. Jeffrey Cureton, United States Magistrate Judge Mr. Joe Cleveland, President, Federal Bar Association Mr. Jason Hawkins, Federal Defender N.D. of Texas 8:00 - 9:30 A.M. Sentencing Guideline Update Taylor Brown, Assistant Federal Defender N.D. of Texas Jerry V. Beard, Staff Attorney, N.D. of Texas On November 1, 2015, the latest version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines went into effect. In this session we will review the recent amendments and identify practice-pointers that you can use to increase your sentencing effectiveness. 9:30 - 10:30 A.M. Restitution Matthew Wright, Assistant Federal Defender N.D. of Texas One of the "high interest" items percolating recently at the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and the various Northern District's trial courts is court-ordered restitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the 36Th Annual IACP Conference!
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION MARCH 14 - 17, 2014 OF CULINARY PROFESSIONALS Welcome to the 36th Annual IACP Conference! In the last two years since our transition to self-management, MESSAGE IACP has been reinventing itself in many ways to better serve you. We’ve expanded our range of non-conference events and introduced new mentoring and affiliates programs. We are on the Contents cusp of launching our popular Speaker Series to the broader culinary communi- ty, and we have recently cleaned house by streamlining the organization’s Board governance structure and policies and procedures. All in the spirit of helping you better connect with the people, places, and knowledge you need to succeed! 2 As you’ll soon see, this year’s conference has undergone some exciting transfor- mations, too. At your request, we’ve introduced more interactive sessions, integrated the Culinary Expo into the fabric of everyday conference, parsed the Awards Gala into more digestible units (read: more cel- ebrating and less sitting), and expanded our digital media content. And to keep you from missing a single beat, we’re recording some of the conference’s most sought-after sessions so you can experience them once you return home. I truly hope these changes will make this year’s conference all the more rewarding for you. I very much look forward to connecting with you over the next few days! Cheers, Julia M. Usher President, IACP CONTENTS WELCOME • 2 CONFERENCE OVERVIEW • 4 SCHEDULE-AT-A-GLANCE • 8 SPEAKERS • 17 SCHEDULE IN DETAIL • 41 IACP • 70 THE CULINARY TRUST • 74 SPECIAL THANKS • 79 SPONSORS • 80 USEFUL INFORMATION • 85 JUMP TO SECTIONS BY SELECTING TITLES CONFERENCE OVERVIEW 4 Welcome to Chicago! It’s my pleasure to welcome you to IACP’s 36th Annual Conference, held this year in one of the country’s most appetizing cities.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Curriculum Vitae Susan R. Klein
    1 Curriculum Vitae Susan R. Klein 727 E. Dean Keeton Street Austin, TX 78705 Telephone: (512) 232-1324 e-mail address: [email protected] SSRN Author No. 59208 Employment: Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law, Univ. of TX at Austin, 2008 - present. Areas of expertise include Federal Criminal Law, Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law, and Ethics. I also supervise a Department of Justice internship program with the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas (with Anthony Brown). Baker and Botts Professor in Law, Univ. of TX at Austin, 1999 - 2008. Professor of Law, Univ. of TX at Austin, 1998 - 1999. Assistant Professor of Law, Univ. of TX at Austin, 1994 - 1997. Attorney General's Honor Program. 1990 - 1994 - Trial Attorney for the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Public Integrity, Money Laundering Asset Forfeiture, and Terrorism & Violent Crime Sections. Special Assistant United States Attorney for the United States Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C. 1989 - 1990 - Judicial Clerk for Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law University of California, Berkeley, CA Juris Doctor Degree, 1989 Class rank: top 1% (#2) John Stouffer Memorial Merit Scholarship for highest second year GPA Order of the Coif, for top 10% 2 Seven American Jurisprudence Awards, for best exam Two Prosser Prizes, for second best exam Articles Editor of IRLJ Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA B.A., Philosophy and Political Science, 1984. Publications: “Policing in a Democracy Without Privacy,” Book Review of Barry Freidman "Unwarrented: Policing Without Permission,” 57 New England Law Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List
    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Tennessee Supreme Court;
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange College of Law Faculty Scholarship Law January 2003 Book reviews: A History of the Tennessee Supreme Court; Cathy Cochran University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_lawpubl Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Cochran, Cathy, "Book reviews: A History of the Tennessee Supreme Court;" (2003). College of Law Faculty Scholarship. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_lawpubl/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Complete issue 54:3 Tennessee Libraries Vol 54 No 3 Full issue ● From the editors ● Tennessee Bibliography 2003 ● Book Reviews ● Interviews ● Webliography From the Editors Mark Ellis Now that the 2004 election is over, it seems like a good time to remind new officeholders as well as reelected incumbents of the importance of libraries to the health of the nation, and of the need for their support for libraries. In our district in Washington County, we have a new representative to the Tennessee legislature who promises to set up a public forum to find out the concerns of his constituents. My wife and I plan to attend and let him know our thoughts. In many areas the local chapters of the League of Women Voters will be setting up “meet your elected officials” events to provide the citizens of Tennessee with opportunities to talk to their representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Cspearson\Desktop\Facts
    NO. AP-75,363 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN MAX ALEXANDER SOFFAR, Appellant VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Trial Court Cause No. 319724 Appeal from the 23nd Judicial District Harris County, Texas The Honorable MARY LOU KEEL, Judge presiding BRIEF FOR APPELLANT DAVID R. DOW Bar No. 56064900 [email protected] JARED P. TYLER Bar No. 24042073 [email protected] Texas Defender Service 412 Main St. # 1150 Houston, Texas 77002 Voice: (713) 222-7788 Fax: (713) 222-0260 BRIAN W. STULL Practicing Pro Hac Vice [email protected] ACLU Capital Punishment Project 201 W. Main Street, Suite 402 Durham, NC 27701 Voice: (919) 682-9469 Fax: 919-682-5961 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Identity of Parties and Counsel Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a) (2005), the parties to this suit are as follows: (1) MAX SOFFAR, TDCJ # 000685, TDCJ Polunsky Unit, 3872 FM 30 South, Livingston, Texas 77351, is the appellant and was the defendant in the trial court. (2) The STATE OF TEXAS, by and through the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77002-1923, is the appelle and prosecuted this case in the trial court. The trial attorneys were as follows: (1) Max Soffar was represented by KATHRYN M. KASE and JOHN P. NILAND of the TEXAS DEFENDER SERVICE, 412 Main Street, Suite 1150, Houston, Texas 78704. (2) The State of Texas was represented by CHARLES A. ROSENTHAL, Jr., District Attorney, and LYN MCCLELLAN, DENISE NASSAR, AND ALAN CURRY, Assistant District Attorneys, 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77002-1923.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee College of Law Spring 15
    University of Tennessee College of Law Spring 15 Juan Quevedo As a teen, he led his family in pursuing citizenship. Now, this student is ready to help others achieve the same dream. Contents TENNESSEE LAW SPRING 2015 FEATURES 12 For Love of the Law When he coordinated his family’s immigration case as a teenager, student Juan Quevedo learned the value of compassionate legal representation. Now, he’s preparing for a career as an immigration lawyer to help others achieve their dreams of American citizenship. BY ROGER HAGY JR. 16 Step into the Past This year, we’re celebrating the 125th anniversary of the College of Law. Join us as we take a stroll down memory lane. 18 Open for Business We decided to imagine what a city block featuring some of the clients of the college’s Business Clinic might look like. 20 Irrepressible Contrarian Pioneer blogger, prolific writer, and law professor Glenn Reynolds applies his unique perspective to just about everything. BY BROOKS CLARK DEPARTMENTS 2 From the Dean 3 Omnibus 7 Syllabus Jeremy Stokes (’15) looks up at loved 8 Recess ones in the audience while standing with his fellow graduates at the 10 Deliberation Spring Hooding Ceremony. 24 Alumni PHOTO BY PATRICK MORRISON 26 Report on Giving 32 Colleague Tennessee Law EDITOR & DESIGNER From the Dean Omnibus Roger Hagy Jr. I get ready to finish up as dean and CONTRIBUTING WRITERS look back over the past seven years, it Brooks Clark As Introducing Melanie Wilson, our next dean feels like I just started. The time has flown by.
    [Show full text]
  • The STATE of the JUDICIARY in Texas
    The STATE OF THE JUDICIARY in Texas Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson Presented to the 79th Legislature February 23, 2005 Austin, Texas THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS WALLACE B. JEFFERSON Justices Chief Justice NATHAN L. HECHT PRISCILLA R. OWEN HARRIET O’NEILL DALE WAINWRIGHT SCOTT A. BRISTER DAVID M. MEDINA PAUL W. GREEN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SHARON KELLER Judges Presiding Judge LAWRENCE E. MEYERS TOM PRICE PAUL WOMACK CHERYL JOHNSON MIKE KEASLER BARBARA P. HERVEY CHARLES R. HOLCOMB CATHY COCHRAN Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson STATE OF THE JUDICIARY Presented to the 79th Legislature February 23, 2005 Austin, Texas GOVERNOR PERRY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST, SPEAKER CRADDICK, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I am honored to appear before you for my inaugural “State of the Judiciary” address, one of the unique privileges afforded to me as Chief Justice. As you know, I was appointed by Governor Rick Perry to fill the vacancy left when Chief Justice Tom Phillips retired. Tom Phillips devoted his life to the Court, and to the judiciary, and has received much-deserved praise for his service to Texas. I am sure I have the authority to order yet another plaque for this giant Texan. I choose instead to honor his example by speaking passionately about how the judiciary can best meet its responsibility to the people of Texas, to litigants in our courts, and to all who expect our halls of justice to be fair and impartial. The state of our judiciary is strong; made strong by those, like Chief Justice Phillips, who have dedicated their lives to the great public enterprise of preserving our state and national constitutions and to protecting and defending laws that ensure we remain a government of the people.
    [Show full text]