Talk:Sharon Keller

message: The "Results" section is misleading in both its placement and description.  The Special Master's report came before the Commission's Report.  The Commission found the Special Master's report to be unsatisfactory because it focused on the the TDS's conduct and not Keller's misconduct.  That is why it came out with a different result after a far more detailed analysis making findings of fact that Keller had engaged in misconduct by failing to follow Execution-day Protocols, i.e. she was supposed to refer defense attorneys' request to submit a late filing to Judge Johnson.  She lacked authority to deny the request and had she followed protocols Johnson would have granted the request to file late.  These are matters of uncontested fact from the Commissions report which came out AFTER the Special Master's report and recommendation which the Commission rejected.  A special court review dismissed the Commissions public warning, not because it found Keller did not engage in misconduct, but because it found the Commission did not have the authority to issue a public warning, only the harder sanctions of public censure and recommendation for removal from the bench.  So the finding of misconduct remains, with no actual sanctions handed out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.24.239 (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard's section requires significant editing

message: He deletes any criticism of Sharon Kelleror or modifies to a uselessly milder version. You are better of looking elsewhere. People like him are the reason why many like me have stopped editing entries.
Sorry about the formatting minimalism, but this article seems to be a clear battle between one user- Mysteryquest- and everyone else, no?  Not sure if this is how wikipedia is supposed to run.  The fight seems to effect the rest of the article too, since the first section- early life/career does not even have date and place of birth.  Bizarre.  Maybe if Mysteryquest goes back to their job as republican strategist, we can get some less biased articles.  TomTominrochester (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mysteryquest hasn't edited this article since 2009. He hasn't edited on Wikipedia at all since October 2010. I don't know whether this section was relevant in 2009 when it was added, but it certainly isn't relevant now.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysteryquest has hijacked this article

message: I've rewritten it from the ground up based on new sources found. Alas, I must run off for now, but will be back later today to discuss.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I can see that there are some editors who have really taken the initiative to improve this article.  I made a slight change to the article, but feel free (obviously) to alter my wording if you wish. I added a general statement to the lead because it seemed overly abrupt and brief.  It looks to me like the lead now offers a better segue into the main article. —Matheuler 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, if you wish to make more contributions, you could work on filling in some of Sharon Keller's biographical information.  There is a monthly article that contains much information on it.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Expansion

message: This isn't complicated. This shouldn't require discussion. Keller goes first because she wrote the majority opinion. Baird goes second because he's also a member of the court and wrote a dissent. The jury foreman goes last because he isn't anything - he's just the jury foreman. Seniority prevails unless there is some compelling reason that requires deviation, such as ease of storytelling. There isn't here. Reverted.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's merely your opinion, Seniority has nothing to do with how things are placed in an interview.  And "just" the jury foreman?  This is the man who helped decide the case and possibly had more power than either person.  You are imposing you own personal views on this article.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the jury foreman. I'll reiterate: we discuss three interviews. The running order is entirely and inarguably POV-neutral. One interview is with the author of the majority opinion in the case that occupies our attention, and the subject of this article; obviously, she goes first. The next interview is with the author of the dissenting opinion in that case. And the last interview is with the jury foreman. It's absolutely clear that the order should place him last, if he must be included at all (I don't see why he should be, frankly, and I see an obvious reason why it shouldn't be: including his lay understanding of Texas legal process may well constitute a subtle form of POV pushing, insinuating that there was something irregular about the majority's action when we know that isn't true).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you feel that the jury foreman's opinion should not be included.  He obviously felt that the DNA evidence would have made a difference.  That's not POV pushing.  You assume that the majority opinion conforms to Texas law, that it is some holy grail, that's POV.  There is no evidence that it does, if there is kindly show me an article stating that.  The jury foreman participated in the very decision that Keller is reviewing and in deciding whether or not Criner is entitled to a new trial, arguably took that decision away form a jury which is the essence of Baird's dissent.  This is not a law review article and what is placed in it does not have to conform to the law.  The fact that jury foreman believes that the evidence would have changed his decision is highly relevant.  Moreover, the opinion contradicts itself on the most key point, whether evidence that Ogg's was promiscuous was introduced at trial.  Judge Baird points this out.That is plain and clear and pointing that out is not POV or original research.  This article should weigh all considerations as to whether Keller's decision was reasonable in all aspects.  One could argue that putting Keller's portion of the interview first is POV.  The juryforman's comment is in direct contradiction to Keller's opinion.  Her opinion is not sacred because she was in the majority and this article should not give undue weight to that opinion. 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My changes are not acceptable?  Well we will have to submit to mediation or arbitration as you have not come up with a competent reason why there are not acceptable.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of interviewees