US Vote Smart

Candidate Path

Submitted by john wertz on 2016-01-11 18:31:29

Saturday, Jan. 9th, 2016 1:43 PM

In the prosecution of criminal cases, the State, having the burden of proof, gets to speak both first and last during final argument, with the accused citizen having just one opportunity to argue his case. Judge Keel apparently thinks that rule applies in politics. At our forum at the Cypress Tea Party, I spoke first, then she spoke and then, being adamant about getting to speak again, she was allowed to. Therefore, I would have declined the opportunity to address her rebuttal, but because her comments are already posted, I will respond.

Forfeiture of Property:

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure has two chapters dealing with property seized at the time an arrest, Chapter 18 and Chapter 59. Both authorize the forfeiture of an accused person’s property, which could include unlimited amounts of property. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “excessive fines.” The Texas Constitution grants the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction to review criminal cases. The Texas Supreme Court has jurisdiction in civil matters. The issue of which court has jurisdiction over which types of case has been the subject of some disagreement between the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In 2011, in the case of In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) Mr. Reece, in a civil case, was held in contempt for allegedly perjuring himself during a deposition in a civil case. The trial court judge sentenced him to jail. Mr. Reece sought relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to take the case. The Texas Supreme Court begrudgingly accepted it. As pointed out in that opinion, in Texas we do not truly have one supreme court. We have two courts with equal and often confusing jurisdiction. As the opinion states, even the State of Texas itself had filed the same appeal in each of the two courts because of the uncertainty of which court would accept it.

It is clear to me that a reasonably competent lawyer can make a compelling argument that when a person is arrested and charged with a crime, his property is seized under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Eighth Amendment has been violated, the proper court to hear that matter is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. I would grant that appeal. Judge Keel would not.

Judge Keel’s Brother:

I do not know how many people endorsed Judge Keel’s brother in his failed attempt for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. I do know that Rep. Joe Straus endorsed him, which to me, indicates they must be close friends and of like mind. “Terry's expertise and diverse experience in criminal law is unmatched in this state," House Speaker Tom Craddick, who is endorsing Keel in the race, said. Keel's endorsements also include District Attorney Bill Hill of Dallas, and central and south Texas-area legislators including State Senator Jeff Wentworth and State Representatives Frank Corte and Joe Straus.” http://www.banderabulletin.com/news/political/article_bfbbf4e1-a7df-5db4-8adb-08cce34ea90f.html.

In the trial of cases, direct evidence is sometimes hard to come by because people cover their tracks. Therefore, circumstantial evidence often leads to convictions. In addition to Judge Keel’s family ties to Rep. Straus, she is endorsed by an Austin lawyer who serves on Rep. Joe Straus’ campaign finance committee. Moreover, Judge Keel’s husband, James Hippard, Jr., is a Houston Democrat personal injury lawyer who ran as a Democrat in 2014 for judge in Harris County while she ran for reelection as a Republican. Last, Judge Keel never mentions her involvement in the Republican Party because it is embarrassing for her to admit that she did not join the Village Republican Women Club until November 2015.

Thanks!

Ray Wheless