Death row inmate unable to appeal, computer troubles blamed

In a very bizarre case, a death row inmate was unable to file for appeal after his lawyer's computer began acting up. On the day in which he was to be executed, Presiding Judge Sharon Keller decided to not accept a filing for appeal after 5:00PM, even though a number of personnel stayed after. Turns out, a "severe computer problem" hindered Mr. Michael Richard's lawyers from being able to print and deliver the paperwork before the Judge-established deadline, thus eliminating his ability to receive a stay of execution. Of note, the legal team stated that they could have still had the documentation sent in before 5:00PM if e-mailed filings were acceptable. As expected, the director of the Texas Civil Rights Project is already thinking about "filing a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct about Keller."

[Via TheRegister]

[jean @ Oct 5th 2007 8:20PM]

i bet it was a pc (:

[Jonathan Keim @ Oct 5th 2007 9:13PM]

Your smile is turned the wrong way

I bet you're typing with a Mac

[ustimika @ Oct 5th 2007 9:16PM]

Ok, seriously not the place for this.

[Ryan @ Oct 6th 2007 3:59AM]

yeah not the place but that's actually a unibrow.

[dotcom multimillionaire @ Oct 5th 2007 8:45PM]

This judge believes you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/interviews/keller.html

[decoy @ Oct 6th 2007 12:29AM]

Actually, the principle the judge is applying/describing in her interview is the proper and accepted legal doctrine in regards to whether a judge should order a new trial in light of new evidence.

I'll assume that you weren't attempting to actively misconstrue her statements.

[chris.hicks @ Oct 6th 2007 12:34AM]

Did you actually read the link which you submitted. The interview concerns an appeal AFTER a conviction. This means the person in questions was indeed pronounced guilty; therefore, the goal in appeal IS to prove your innocence and the assumption of guilt is a given.

If you wish to smear someone, check the facts first.

[Jeremy K. @ Oct 5th 2007 8:22PM]

Anyone find it odd that this was posted on a UK new website?

[ScOObyDoo @ Oct 5th 2007 8:29PM]

The Reg isn't a "UK" website, they report from all over the world.

[John McKee @ Oct 5th 2007 8:26PM]

Let's see, he had been repeatedly convicted of theft and spent time in prison for it and he killed a mother who's own children found her body in order to steal to buy cocaine. He later admitted to killing her by "accident" and took investigators to the confirmed murder weapon although he later claimed innocence.

I feel very limited sympathy in this case.

[K. @ Oct 5th 2007 8:33PM]

I agree......no sympathy. What is "admittedly saddening" is that this mother was murdered and the children now must suffer for the rest of their lives. I would bet the author would not be so cerebral about this case if it were his own mother.

[Sickened @ Oct 5th 2007 8:34PM]

As abhorrent as this mans crimes were some of us find it equally if not more abhorrent that a group of educated supposedly civilized people could in cold blood put to death a chained and manacled human being who was at the time posing a threat to nobody.

[randy @ Oct 5th 2007 8:42PM]

Oh, so educated people are more compassionate than the rest of us? Uh huh, OK.

[Simon @ Oct 5th 2007 8:48PM]

@randy

Why have an appeals system if something like a computer problem (or more likely, lawyer apathy) can bypass the system entirely? I, for one, do not see how it is morally justifiable to kill a killer. The man committed murder, so he was in jail. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[dukrous @ Oct 5th 2007 9:25PM]

@Simon

Morality aside, the legal system allows for an unlimited number of appeals to be placed into the system but each appeal must be received by a sitting judge to be put into motion. The judge in this case imposed a deadline of 5PM, a notification which did go out to the lawyers (it has to in order to be legally recognized) but the articles do not say that. Instead, you have a lawyer blaming a computer malfunction which they should be able to get around even if you have to run to Kinko's with a USB drive.

As for the murderer, I feel no sympathy and he was judged as deserving to die for his crime by a jury of his peers. Justice has been served and he's repaid his debt to society. We should instead see to the victim's children and make sure they can move on past an event no one but the convict had any control over.

[LC @ Oct 5th 2007 9:49PM]

@duckrous



Exactly. Good call. It sounds like the lawyer is playing the victim card. I mean it's not like he couldn't file the appeal using another computer. The story makes it appear that the deadline was made only hours earlier. His attorney had more than enough time to get the papers in order and file them and have a contingency plan in case of computer failure.

Either way, the guy admitted what he did, so I have no sympathy for him.

[Andrew @ Oct 6th 2007 1:27AM]

@Randy

You can read, write, operate a computer, subscribe to RSS. I would consider you to be in the 'educated persons' category, unless you choose to disagree with me?

[John @ Oct 6th 2007 1:51AM]

When going over a legal question, the actual case itself is irrelevant. You can't say "well, it's ok because this guy is obviously guilty" (even if that is true), because it sets a precedent for everyone else who might follow. The appeals process for those sentenced to death seems a mockery of justice until you consider how it would feel to be a victim of circumstance incorrectly placed in that position.

This seems more of a question of 'competant legal aid' though.

[ThePete @ Oct 7th 2007 10:16PM]

@John McKee

Hey, well, should you ever accidentally kill someone and are put on death row, you should really promise here and now to never file an appeal ever.

You were found guilty! SORRY! That's that.

The same goes for all of you who are convinced that a guilty verdict is a perfect, immaculate thing.

Sorry, we humans are way too flawed for me to be behind the death penalty for anyone but the most violent criminals.

As for the computer problems, tell me how he's supposed to get the document onto a thumbdrive when his hard drive has tanked. I'm recovering a 500 gig HD right now and it's taking forever.

Hm, let's see--some arbitrary deadline vs. a PERSON'S LIFE.

Yeah, you guys are right--kill the guy. He was asking for it.

o_O

[Resist @ Oct 5th 2007 8:31PM]

Finally justice!

[jroc @ Oct 5th 2007 9:45PM]

So if this guy got executed prematurely, would they call judge keller a killer?

[Andrew @ Oct 5th 2007 8:32PM]

dont see why its so saddening....unless theres significant evidence he's innocent... I mean really hes not on death row for copyright infringment...he killed a mother of 7, justice served

[david @ Oct 5th 2007 9:39PM]

7 kids? Holy cow. How many of them were on welfare? Either way, all 7 are on welfare now. he got what he might have deserved, but the judge is still a bitch over that 15 minutes late shit. If he was your son, you'd want him to get the benefit of the doubt.

[Anthony @ Oct 5th 2007 11:19PM]

Oh no, another person gone that did nothing but bring misery to every life he touched. Why are we upset again?

[John @ Oct 6th 2007 1:57AM]

you all aren't thinking about this in the right way - this is a question of legal procedure, not the facts of the case. The facts say the guy is pretty much dead to rights. The law doesn't address "computer issues" when it comes to the deadline to file an appeal.

[Bill @ Oct 5th 2007 8:38PM]

What a shame! BooHooHoo...poor poor man. Why can we not just forgive and forget? Then wintel machines will not get us killed in cases like this. I'm voting for Hillary! So if I kill someone she'll get me a good lawyer, a tax-payer funded computer, and maybe even pardon me.

...again, poor poor sad man. Oh, what a tremendous day for injustice!! Europe is right, we are just a bunch of barbarians. Sigh. Vote Hillary! Or Obama! I'm going to go eat some yoplait and have a good long cry.

[randy @ Oct 5th 2007 8:39PM]

So his lawyer's printer ran out of ink? Oh, that's too bad. 20 years of unsuccessful appeals for this convicted confessed murderer of a young mom, I guess that's how it goes. The inkjet paper is worth more to the me than this slob, so it sounds like serendipity to me.

[eh @ Oct 5th 2007 8:41PM]

Let me guess, the "severe computer problem" was a paper jam.

[ScOObyDoo @ Oct 5th 2007 9:06PM]

"PC load letter"

[Bill @ Oct 5th 2007 8:45PM]

I hope the poor poor man's family sues sues the lawyer! It is the lawyer's fault the sad sad man died!! The deserve millions for losing such a fine upstanding young man! Perhaps they can sue the printer company, and Bill Gates! They have lots of money to make the sad sad family rich rich rich! I hope if I'm ever in prison my lawyer has a supply of pens and paper as a backup.

What a sad story. A human tragedy. This will likely be front-page news on the New York Times Saturday. Remember, vote Hillary.

Or Obama!! I just like saying that name...try it yourself..."OBAMA!"

[randy @ Oct 5th 2007 9:02PM]

Well done, at least you didn't blame the mom he killed in '86.

[Alex @ Oct 5th 2007 8:52PM]

I'm pretty sure kinkos is open 24 hours or some other printing shop thats open 24 hours. Let's see 10$ on printing or a mans life? Sh*t thats 10 dollars we could be making screw that we'll just blame it on a huge technical problem such as we couldnt afford to email our printing to kinkos and our printer "broke." Im pretty sure thats the worst possible excuse considering they said if they were able to email the file they would have had it in on time.

[Phreak511 @ Oct 5th 2007 9:01PM]

Riiight....

"Your honor. Unfortunately, we were unable to file the appeal before the 5:00pm deadline. Despite having (*insert years, months, weeks, days*) to file this appeal and despite having a team of aggressive young / seasoned attorneys on staff and several hundred idealistic law students around the state who would just love to sink their teeth into such a juicy and career defining case...we were unable to file the appeal on time. What's that Your honor? Why? Err...the dog...no. Strike that...MY COMPUTER MALFUNCTIONED! Yep. That's it."

Give me a friggen break.

Oh, and I love the editorializing from the poster -
"...admittedly saddening case.."

How about a saddening case for this monster's victim and her children? If you feel so strongly, why don't you offer to rent out a room in your home to this maniac and let this guy play with your kids? No? Didn't think so.

[rick @ Oct 5th 2007 9:38PM]

It's important to remember that in Texas - Judge Keller - like most judges - all the way up to the State Supreme Court - is elected.

Not appointed based on merit, not chosen by a jury of her peers - or eeven chosen by law enforcement as an advocate for justice - she's elected. Just like every congressman and senator.

This guy can file all the complaints he wants, but she's basically untouchable - and she knows it.

Taking the crime(s) of the situation, I'd like to hope that - should my life depend on it - t

[randy @ Oct 5th 2007 10:34PM]

Snobs like you who declare voters don't have the intelligence or common sense to consider a candidate's credentials make me chuckle.

You don't trust the people, because you think you are better than the rest of us.

I trust the people. I am no better than anybody.

[rick @ Oct 6th 2007 12:49AM]

Randy - you don't know me - at all - but what the heck...

I trust _people_ just fine. If you actually _knew me_ before calling me names and insulting me - you'd know that.

But that's a lot harder than cheap shots, eh?

Big marketing campaigns that are designed to convince people to make a decision they might otherwise not make - I don't trust.

Oh, and I'm in Texas - are you?

[randy @ Oct 6th 2007 1:57AM]

No, I'm not in Texas. But I'd prefer Texas remain a republic, just in case I ever blast through there again someday on my way east.

Listen, you need to relax. Plenty of candidates embellish their qualifications, Rick. Folks work it out. You ought not run around calling for the abolition of everybody's right to vote just because you're displeased with the results.

OK?

And by the way, of I get pulled over in Texas in thirty years then later discover the judge who upheld my speeding ticket was 'chosen by the law enforcement officer' who wrongfully cited me, I'm going to come looking for YOU, Rick.

[Michael Kaplan @ Oct 6th 2007 12:43AM]

@Bill -

Your bile spills out all over your posts, as does your ignorance.
"Remember, illegals are undocumented workers."
Yes, that's true.
"Swamps are wetlands."
Again, you've described the situation perfectly.
"Thoughtcrime is punishable, or soon will be!"
There are millions of people in this country who feel this is true now. Protestors are routinely cleared out of sight of the President and Vice President, having the wrong bumper sticker on your car can get your fired, and having the wrong views on religion can get you attacked at the Air Force Academy.

Not sure what point you're trying to make -- other than you're clearly a partisan Republican -- but thank you for making a series of clear, factual statements. If only all people on this blog acted the same.

[Yon @ Oct 6th 2007 2:05AM]

"you're clearly a partisan Republican"

- Let's try to stop the name calling, clearly he's a troll and therefore shouldn't be acknowledged.

"There are millions of people in this country who feel this is true now."

- Do you honestly think it was that much different before Bush?

"Protestors are routinely cleared out of sight of the President and Vice President, having the wrong bumper sticker on your car can get your fired."

- Making slightly off-point remarks used to have one branded a communist where becoming blacklisted from industry work and surveillance by the government weren't out of the question.

"and having the wrong views on religion can get you attacked at the Air Force Academy."

- Religious tension has always existed, and will for some time to come. In our age of free flowing information, many incidences of discrimination that would have been quietly resolved in the past are now national news. Is this a good thing? Most likely, though I honestly feel that, occasionally, the media gets carried away attempting to pry into matters which should remain privatein an attempt to inflate a story simply for viewership shock value. Overall, though, we've become a more accepting society in these past decades.

People enjoy living in the moment, forgetting how comfortable their lives are today; the sense of perspective is lost on most. I feel our society really needs to become more positive, rather than degrading those who one feels have unwise or competing views. Just like looking into a mirror, if one focuses only on the subtle negatives, soon that's all they see, and lose sight of the whole individual.

Sorry, my post was long..

[Daryl Herbert @ Oct 6th 2007 2:44AM]

This guy wasn't put to death for thoughtcrime.

He was put to death for actually-murdering-someone-crime.

His lawyers asked the court to stay open late but WOULDN'T SAY WHY. If they told the court they had computer trouble, it would have stayed open. They refused to give a reason.

They probably didn't have computer trouble at all. Law firms are always rushing things out at the last second, because the lawyers don't budget their time well. (How would I know this? I work in one!)

[mike @ Oct 6th 2007 4:12PM]

And you're a bleeding heart democrat liberal.

/sarcasm off/
Sob... they executed a confessed murderer. What a travesty of justice!
/sarcasm off/

Go kiss hillary's @ss, moron!

[James Hare @ Oct 5th 2007 10:24PM]

Always good to see that there will always be people to defend our morally indefensible preoccupation with killing people in the name of "justice." Tell me, death penalty supporters, will a killer's victims be any more alive after their killer is killed by the state? Considering the death penalty has been a part of our societies since the beginning of recorded history, how can you claim any deterrent effect? You'd think people would stop killing people and all that, but they don't. The death penalty accomplishes only one thing: it places all of us at the lowest common denominator with murderers. We are also willing to kill people.

If killing is so wrong that it deserves a penalty, it is wrong no matter what. If anyone's life is worth protecting, everyone's is. What I think is interesting is how many people oppose abortion but support the death penalty. How they deal with that cognitive dissonance, I certainly can't speak for.

But pimp that death penalty. We can have lots of fun with Iran and Saudi Arabia and all the third world countries that still do that kind of thing. Perhaps with another few years of Bush we might not even know the difference!

[PhilJ @ Oct 5th 2007 10:47PM]

...just like when suing the Enrons, Tykos, etc. for mooching off of retirement funds, and so on, those poor employees/retirees won't get their money back either. But the CEOs/CFOs/et al get sued anyway, and nobody feels symptahy for them (I sure as hell don't). Why? Because it's a penalty, not an attempt at retribution or retaliation. That's why they call it the death "penalty", not the death "revenge" or something.

Note that analogy is to explain the word "penalty" as I see it, not to justify/unjustify the death penalty itself.

I, for one, am glad they are taking the criminals off the streets for good. Does the ends justify the means? I dunno. But I'm not losing sleep knowing that one less murderer is out there to recommit.

A criminal commits a crime and there is a defined penalty, why expect anything else? If you folks don't like it, write your congresswoman/-man, not Engadget. At any rate, no one can post an argument so convincing that we'll all agree, so stop trying, it's embarrassing. Really.

[Josh L @ Oct 5th 2007 10:54PM]

"Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."

[cr @ Oct 6th 2007 12:07AM]

Sounds like procrastination gone wrong.

[sodapop @ Oct 7th 2007 4:50PM]

LAME. If they could email it, they could have emailed it to a computer that can print. Or mopved it over the lan.

No sympathy.

[Tavis Veighey @ Oct 6th 2007 2:33AM]

At the fees that these lawyers charge... They could have HAND COPIED it from the screen!

They could have also saved it to a USB Flashdrive and gone to a Kinkos and printed it from there!

There was no excuse for this!!!

Lawyers have operated in the past WITHOUT computers, typewriters, or any fancy techonology! If you can not operate for ONE DAY without your techonology working 100%, then you should find a new line of work!!!

[momotarosan @ Oct 6th 2007 9:32AM]

OLPC - one laptop per criminal

[Mike @ Oct 6th 2007 4:06PM]

Repeat offender. Confessed murderer.
I thinks its karma.

Who says there's no justice?

[Kamokazi @ Oct 6th 2007 5:22PM]

This really puts new meaning in to Blue Screen of Death...