at 10am on September 25, the US Supreme Court...

at 10am on September 25, the US Supreme Court announced it would review in early 2008 an appeal by two Kentucky death row inmates challenging the legality of the lethal injection. The same day, Michael Richard was due to receive the deadly cocktail at 6pm. His lawyers said they rushed to draft an appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. At 4.50pm, the attorneys called the court to ask it to remain open 20 more minutes after they were stalled by a computer malfunction. "We close at 5,'' was the response from the court clerk, a quote widely reported by newspapers in the US. In a last-ditch effort, Richard's lawyers took their case to the Supreme Court, which remains open for executions. The legal move delayed the execution by a few hours, but since the inmate did not file his appeal with a local court first, his arguments were not accepted by the Supreme Court in Washington. The execution went ahead that evening and Richard was declared dead at 8.23pm. The court's shocking behaviour angered a leading Texas daily newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, which expressed outrage in an editorial entitled "We Closed at 5". "Hastening the death of a man, even a bad one, because office personnel couldn't be bothered to bend bureaucratic procedure was a breathtakingly petty act and evinced a relish for death that makes the blood of decent people run cold,'' the newspaper reported. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judges were ready to work late the evening Michael Richard was executed, expecting an 11th-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." The reason behind the request for the delay was a severe computer problem. The court will not accept a filing by e-mail. If it did, 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. Keller, who was re-elected last year to a 6-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.