"I got a phone call shortly before 5 and was told that the defendant had asked us to stay open. I asked why, and no reason was given," Keller said. "And I know that that is not what other people have said, but that's the truth. They did not tell us they had computer failure.

"And given the late request, and with no reason given, I just said, 'We close at 5.' I didn't really think of it as a decision as much as a statement."

An official inquiry is the best way to determine what exactly happened, including whether Sharon Keller should have consulted with the other judges on the CCA, in particular with the one judge who according to the news article in the Houston Chronicle "was assigned to handle any late motions in Richard's case".

Do you ask them to keep the courthouse open after hours?

Or do you ask about what arrangements can be made to do an after-hours emergency filing?

Because it appears that the legal team representing Richard did the former, and not the latter. And that's the difference between his legal team being incredibly stupid or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals doing something entirely outrageous.

Here's what Chief Justice Keller is quoted as saying by way of explanation, in the (left-leaning) Dallas Examiner:

Keller defended her actions, saying she was relating the court's long-standing practice to close on time.

"I got a phone call shortly before 5 and was told that the defendant had asked us to stay open. I asked why, and no reason was given," Keller said. "And I know that that is not what other people have said, but that's the truth. They did not tell us they had computer failure.

"And given the late request, and with no reason given, I just said, 'We close at 5.' I didn't really think of it as a decision as much as a statement."

That sounds to me like the legal team -- maybe a junior lawyer, maybe even a paralegal -- didn't get the message to anyone at the Court of Criminal Appeals that they were trying to arrange an after-hours emergency filing. Doesn't it sound that way to you?

It's a lot easier for me to imagine that in the hectic crush of trying to get a stay motion on file before the execution, the legal team delegated the task of calling the Court of Criminal Appeals to someone -- maybe a paralegal, maybe a secretary -- who didn't make clear what was going on.

It's also conceivable to me that the communication screw-up happened with clerical personnel inside the Court's office, who either didn't know that this was an emergency motion in a death case with an execution scheduled for that night, or didn't communicate that properly to Chief Justice Keller.

If the question being asked was "Will you keep the courthouse open?" that sounds to me like the sort of thing that might be asked by someone inexperienced in emergency stay applications. And without knowing that it was a death case with an execution scheduled for that night, it's the kind of thing that a judge -- after asking "Why?" and being told "They didn't say" -- would answer "No."

It appears that they already had another Justice who was specifically prepared to review an emergency filing on this particular capital defendant. That would make sense; they probably handle more emergency stay applications than any court staff anywhere except (maybe) at the SCOTUS, doncha think?

Clearly there was some sort of breakdown, somewhere. Maybe a judge was at fault; I don't think that's been established yet, though. And if I had to bet, I'd lay odds on the breakdown being on the defense team's part.

If your paralegal came back and told you, "They won't keep the courthouse open," would you take that for an answer?  I wouldn't have.  I like to think I'd have already made after-hours arrangements just on the possibility that I might have a computer glitch or some other unanticipated problem that would keep me from filing during normal business hours.

And there's certainly no reason to think yet that Chief Justice Keller was intending to make a ruling on the merits to the effect that the Court of Criminal Appeals would not consider an emergency motion presented outside business hours. I just have a hard time imagining that happening. I'd agree that if that is what happened, it would be an awful thing.

Now, here are some of the new info from the Houston Chronicle"

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judges were ready to work late the evening Michael Richard was executed, expecting an eleventh-hour appeal that - unbeknownst to them - Presiding Judge Sharon Keller refused to allow to be filed after 5 p.m.

That's according to interviews with two judges, one of whom stayed until 7 p.m. on Sept. 25 and one who left early but was available and said others stayed. They expected Richard's lawyers to file an appeal based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision earlier in the day to consider a Kentucky case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection.

"There were plenty of judges here, and there were plenty of other personnel here," said Judge Cathy Cochran, who had to go home early that day but was available. "A number of judges stayed very late that evening, waiting for a filing from the defense attorney."

Cochran said at the least, a decision should have been made by the full court on whether to accept the appeal: "I would definitely accept anything at any time from someone who was about to be executed."

Judge Paul Womack said, "All I can tell you is that night I stayed at the court until 7 o'clock in case some late filing came in. I was under the impression we might get something. ... It was reasonable to expect an effort would be made with some haste in light of the Supreme Court" action. He added, "It was an important issue. I wanted to be sure to be available in case it was raised."

Keller didn't consult the other judges about taking the appeal after 5 p.m. and said she didn't think she could have reached them. She said, however, that Judge Cheryl Johnson, who was assigned the case, was at the court. Johnson didn't return a telephone call.

Keller voiced no second thoughts more than a week after her decision.

"You're asking me whether something different would have happened if we had stayed open," Keller said, "and I think the question ought to be why didn't they file something on time? They had all day."

David Dow, an attorney in the case who runs the Texas Innocence Network at the University of Houston Law Center, called her statement "outrageous," noting that lawyers had to decide legal strategy and then craft a filing about why the case before the U.S. Supreme Court applied to Richard's arguments.

The reason behind the request for the delay was a severe computer problem, Dow said. He said he told the court clerk about the problem. Keller said the lawyers didn't give a reason.

Dow also said the court will not accept a filing by e-mail. If it did, he said, lawyers could have met the 5 p.m. deadline once they beat their computer problem, because printing the filing took extra time. The lawyers needed about another 20 minutes.

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said he was thinking about filing a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct about Keller.

"When I saw that, I think I would just describe my reaction as 'stunningly unconscionable,' " Harrington said of her refusal. "There has to be some kind of accountability for this."

Seana Willing, executive director of the Texas commission, said she isn't sure Keller could be sanctioned, were a complaint to be filed, because she isn't aware of anything in the Code of Judicial Conduct that would cover her decision to close the clerk's office while a death penalty case was pending. She indicated she looked through the code after learning of the dispute but could find "nothing specific" dealing with it.

Keller, who was re-elected last year to a six-year term, and Cochran also said they couldn't think of a provision that Keller's action would violate. Judge Mike Keasler, noting he teaches judicial ethics, said he knows of no violation related to such an administrative action by the court's presiding judge.

Harrington said, "I think you'd take the totality of it and have to make some sort of argument this was a gross miscarriage of justice."

Lawyers said that without a ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Richard's appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't consider it. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed another man's execution the same week, after his appeal was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

My own extended take on this matter, from last night, is on my own blog. Jeralyn, thanks for the comment you left there; I've revised the text of my original post to make it clear that you were reporting here without necessarily expressing an opinion.