Talk:Sharon Keller

Richard's section requires significant editing
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)

Mysteryquest has hijacked this article
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)
 * 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)

Name of Richard's Lawyers
The name of Richard's lawyers was not initially included in the story. A who was placed in, so I put the name in. I see no reason to omit the name. The name is in several of the references supporting the story. It is has been posited that the name is not important, a position that I fail to understand as the name is certainly relevant and to not include them is tantamount to shielding them which is of course a useless inasmuch since the name is several of the references. If it is included in some references, there appears to be no legitimate reason to not include it in the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The firm's name is irrelevant, and irrelevant material should be excluded unless helpful for some other reason. I would be happy to include the name of the firm if it was important to understanding the story, or, frankly, even if it was at all relevant to or shed light on the story. But it isn't and doesn't. I would be equally happy to include the name if it made the writing easier, e.g. if there were some need to refer to "the lawyers" later in the story and this could be reduced to merely "TDS" by giving the firm's name at first mention, and this substitution produced more elegant, concise prose. But that doesn't seem the case. Without a need or compelling reason to include it, the name of the firm falls into the vast ashcan of trivial details about the case with which the reader's time should not be wasted. If it is not necessary to include something, it is necessary to not include it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That same principle of excluding irrelevant content, by the way, is why we don't name the victim (whoever's victim she was) or include the details of the crime (vicinage, etc.). For the record, she was Deanna Ogg, and she was raped, beaten, and then stabbed to death in or near New Caney, TX. It's no disrespect to the victim (or the lawyers) to exclude fine-grained details that don't illuminate issues germane to the article. This is an encyclop&aelig;dia; its content should be so written, as WP:DETAIL reflects. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I would disagree with your analysis as to the relevance of the firm's name. Keller's attorney attempts to ascribe blame, at least partially, to the firm, which is not really a firm per se, but a pro-bono project.  In the references there is analysis of her claim and whether it is meritorious.  There are other questions about the diligence of "firm."  Thus, the "firm" does not have the same irrelevance that the victim has, as nobody is ascribing any responsibility to him or her as to the crime or the "botched" last minute appeal.  That said, some references do not mention the name of the "firm" so I am not going to push the inclusion of the name that far, if you feel strongly about removing it and nobody else has an opinion, remove it.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re my use of the word "firm," I was just looking for something without the slightly pejorative overtones of "litigation shop" or the like. I recognize that Keller has tried to blame the attorneys (by-the-by, rightly so, as I understand it: no one has yet been able to tell me what the usual process is in Texas for emergency motions when the clerk's office is closed, and Keller rightly points out in her response that TDS had previously filed a stay motion after 5pm). Nevertheless, the fact relevant to the article is the accusation of the attorneys having blundered--not their identity. The story might be different if the attorneys were themselves notable, individually or corporately, but they don't appear to be. While keeping a lawyer's litigation history in the public record is in the public interest, cf. United States v. Foster, 564 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2009) (Easterbrook, C.J., in chambers), Wikipedia is not a consumer report.


 * With that said, while I do strongly feel that we should be minimizing extraneous content, and this strikes me as such, I'm not wedded to exclusion. And I appreciate your willingness to exclude. The collegial way to press forward on this, I think, is to request additional input, and I will file a request for a third opinion presently. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point as to whether the names of the attorneys should be included even if the issue is whether or not they blundered. I, do not believe that there alleged or potential blundering would relieve Ms. Keller of some culpability in that the issue was her alleged unwillingness to make any provisions for a late filing.  A court of last criminal appeal is not a 7-11 or a Wallmart, moreover, they were expecting the appeal and had already started deciding it.  Additionally, she did not contact the judge who was designated or assigned to this case.  Whether the attorneys should have or could have found away around the impediment she placed in their path, does not mean that she is absolved of placing the impediment there.  Her position is that she was not informed of the nature of the inquiry.  If that is true, I guess it might absolve her.  As for the notability factor, I would think that the attorneys that handle all of the death appeals in Texas might be notable, however, again, I'm not wedded to including them.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion as requested on wp:3o. wp:exclusionism is not a policy, but a name for a common opinion. wp:inclusionism is another common opinion. My own opinion is that material does not have to be relevant to everyone reading the article, but it should be conceivable that the material would be relevant to a fraction of readers. In this case, one of two editors believes the material to be relevant, so as long as it is properly cited and doesn't violate any policies, my recommendation is to include the material. --Elplatt (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I will defer to consensus. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Criner case
Have we yet established exactly which case it is that Keller sat on? Given that we say she brushed with the Criner controversy in 1998, presumably the case is in the Southwestern Report with "Criner" in the caption and designated "Tex. Crim. App. 1998." Within the limits of WP:OR, we really should find and examine it, at very least as deep background. I'm really not comfortable making statements about what the case held based purely on third party descriptions, none of which hide their biases, without having. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiable, third party references are the "bedrock" of Wikepedia. Bias is in the eyes of the beholder's own biases.  The limits of original research are very strict and it would appear to me to prohibit any personal examination by editors.  If you are talking about finding other published accounts which are "less biased", that makes sense.  I'm not sure what your question is as to what case Keller sat in on?  Do you mean other than the Criner case?Mysteryquest (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bias is bias. It exists independently of the bias of the reader, although if the reader's biases happen to match the writer's, the reader may not perceive it so readily, while if the reader's biases are different, it will more readily be perceived. What's more, even if a journalist has the best of intentions, law is a complex and nuanced cluster of topics, one that most journalists lack the training to report accurately. Just look at the sloppy reporting of Ledbetter, for instance, or Leegin, or Ricci, or the Indiana voter ID cases. Or, for an example closer to this article, a USA Today report on Keller and Richard said that the Supreme Court granted cert in the Richard case until I emailed them to correct it. (It granted cert, of course, in Baze, not Richard; indeed, the same morning the court agreed to hear the former, it refused to hear the latter.)


 * I'm more comfortable having read law review articles about the case. Those articles are hardly written by people free of bias, but they are at least written by people encumbered with, well, competence. Thus, for example, Karen Christian, "And the DNA Shall Set You Free": Issues Surrounding Postconviction DNA Evidence and the Pursuit of Innocence, 62 Ohio St. L.J. 1195 (2001), is illuminating, and I will interpolate material from it shortly. It cites what is almost certainly the case at issue here as Ex parte Criner, No. 36,856-01 (Tex. Crim. App. July 8, 1998). The caption makes sense, and the date matches. Yet there is nothing at all that I can find in Lexis or Westlaw, using that or any other search parameters I can imagine (including Christian's caption, text purportedly from the opinion, Criner's name, or even a search for any opinions written by Keller in 1998 (there are, for the record, 14)). All I can find are the opinions of the courts from direct review (for the record, Criner v. State, 816 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1991) and 860 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). It's possible that this was an unpublished opinion, but Lexis usually carries unpublished opinions.


 * All of which makes me uncomfortable about describing a case that none of us have read, and repeating insinuations about what that case says about Keller's judgment (this is a WP:BLP, remember), based purely on what third-party sources have said about it. Something seems amiss. There are too many reliable sources that describe the case for it to have not happened, but we glimpse the case and what was said in Keller's opinion but through a glass darkly. Fragmentarily, in fact. The lines we have are presumably reported accurately, so far as they go, but one can mislead by ommission as well as commision. What was their context? We don't know without having read the opinion.


 * Moreover, the fact that the original source material is so seemingly obscure and difficult to obtain makes me wonder where the sources we have quoting it got their text. We should be careful to avoid grandfathering in error to the encyclop&aelig;dia by relying on third, fourth, fifth, umpteenth-hand sources that aren't directly quoting the Keller opinion, but rather, in truth, quote another source that in turn quoted yet another source, and so on. Journalists are, alas, not bound by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and so when one reads in the Times that Keller said XYZ in the Criner case, one has to wonder if the journalist means that another journalist's article that they found in Lexis says that Keller said XYZ.


 * I am well aware of the limits of WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Nevertheless, we must adequately understand the subject to write about it; we must know the story in order to parse it from a collection of reliable sources, and just as we could were we journalists, as Wikipedians we can use a broader range of sources for deep background than we can actually cite in the article. I will call the clerk tommorow and see if they can furnish a copy. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we are not really writing, we are editing. Keller's interview with Frontline shed much light on her position, i.e., that once a jury has convicted a person, regardless of the competency of the evidence that conviction might have been based on, or new evidence that directly contradicts it, the person is now presumed to be guilty. Moreover, the bar she sets for even a new trial, never mind reversal of the conviction, is proof of innocence.  That is the proverbial trying to prove a negative.  The fact that she would try the prosecutor's case for them, after the fact, by pursuing theories they didn't, to explain away DNA evidence that would tend to exclude Cliner, is fairly compelling evidence of her views.  Additionally, she has made other decisions which support this: When she claimed that a defendant was entitled to competent counsel but that the counsel does not necessarily need to handle the case competently.  A fairly absurd assertion.  I'm an attorney myself and I recognize that law can be turgid, however, her positions do not require any particular expertise to plumb.  By all means, if you can find the opinion, it would help, perhaps even provide some illumination on her position.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, hold on: that the presumption of innocence disappears on conviction is--or ought to be--common ground. See, e.g., Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 399 (1993). If Keller's position was merely that a petitioner seeking collateral review lacks such a presumption, I don't think anyone would seriously challenge that. And Keller's concern for finality is hardly novel, see, e.g., Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 629-30 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting). To be sure, the frontline interview is interesting and illuminating, but it's not a substitute for the opinion itself, in my own view. Keller has her views - but what did she actually say, as applied to that case? What did her colleagues sign on to? How was it couched? It would be useful to know this stuff, because it would help us to make sense of the secondary sources. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a presumption of innocence is eliminated by a conviction, I'm not disputing that. However, Keller appears to give too much weight to the presumption of guilt after a conviction, i.e., she sets the bar to a successful attack on the conviction, collateral or direct, unreasonably and unrealistically high.  Finality of a conviction though desired, certainly does not trump the appeal process and the prospect of imprisoning, or even worse, executing an innocent person.  Keller's desire for finality appears to make her annoyed with the appeal process itself!  Our criminal judicial system is based on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty people free that it is to convict one innocent one.  Now, of course, that is at the trial level, however it should extend somewhat into the appeal process.  Conclusive proof of innocence as a requisite to a new trial is too high a bar.  A DNA test which excludes a convict as the donor of the sperm in a rape/murder victim should warrant a new trial unless there was other weighty evidence in the record supporting the conviction.  Of course the opinion might indicate that there is, but she didn't appear to refer to such evidence.  Was there evidence in the record that the victim was promiscuous?  It appears as if that was a result of her own construct.  Moreover, positing that the suspect could have worn a condom appears to make her impartiality suspect.  At a new trial, the prosecution could have put on evidence to support such an argument or that she was promiscuous.  I believe the results of DNA test warranted a new trial.  I agree that her views as expressed on Frontline, though alarming, are not a substitute for her actual opinion and of course if it could be produced it would contribute the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FTR, the answer to two of these points appears to be: yes, there was evidence in the record that she was "promiscuous," and no, Keller didn't "posit[] that the suspect could have worn a condom" - the state did, and the court adopted the argument. Both of those points are now in the article, supported with citations. As to the standards for a new trial - I don't know what Texas law is on standards for new trials. Nothing I have read, even from Keller's most ardent critics, has contradicted her statements about the standard of review. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well couple problems, it does not appear that the state argued that the victim was promiscuous at the trial nor is that contained in the opinion. The state argued it ONLY after the DNA evidence made their prior theory of the case suspect.  Now Keller thinks this is okay, since they did not have to at the time of the trial.  The problem is, the jury never got a chance to consider and of course did not base their decision on it.  So Keller is denying a jury the opportunity to deal with it.  Moreover, because the case was not presented at trial, it is not part of the trial record.  If it had been presented at trial, the mother would have been cross-examined and perhaps impeached and the jury may not have given her testimony credence.  The issue here in deciding whether or not a new trial is warranted is whether or not the new evidence would make a difference to a reasonable juror in deciding whether or not to convict.  It certainly appears as if that evidence would have changed a reasonable juror's decision.  I'm not arguing about the standard on review, the argument is that the standard was abused or not followed.  Keller claims that Criner's admissions to his friends were much more than they are (overwhelming, direct evidence.) When one considers the Court of Appeal opinion (Criner I) which examined the actual record of the testimony of those witnesses, it is clear that the testimony was quite shaky as to time, location and description of the victim.  I will explore that in the text soon.  Moreover, Criner denied that the woman he raped was the victim.  Additionally, the statement that it is evidence that no other rapes reported is laughable when one considers that rape is notoriously underreported.  I deleted your sentence where you cited to the case which contains the standard on review.  That is original research.  It would be tantamount to me to cite to an article stating that rape was notoriously under reported to attack Keller's statement that no other rapes was reported.  I see that you posted Criner III however, on my laptop it comes up as damaged.  I can host it myself or could you repost it.  Also, I would like the dissent posted as well. Mysteryquest (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As to whether "the state argued that the victim was promiscuous at the trial nor is that contained in the opinion": it is stated expressly in Criner III, and neither Criner I nor Criner II contradict it. To claim otherwise, we would have to accuse the majority of lying (which might well be a WP:TE problem); what's more, we don't have the record (so we don't have a reilable source to impeach the majority's assertion), and even if we did, it would beyond all doubt violate WP:OR to trawl through it in search of something disproving the majority's claim. The majority says it was in the record, and what's more, Bob Burmann - in what can only be called an admission against interest given his utter antipathy for how the Criner cases were handled - admits that there was an offense report to that effect.


 * As to Keller's supposedly "denying the jury the opportunity to deal with new evidence" - there is nothing exceptional about how Criner was handled without an assertion that Criner III was not handled as such cases are normally handled in Texas. As you point out, "the argument is that the standard was abused or not followed." Quite. Yet no one has made that argument. No one has explained why the majority's citation of Ex parte Elizondo was inapt (unfortunately, you have removed that observation from the article; I recognize that there's an OR problem with it, but that's an issue for tommorow), or their assesment of the posture of the case and its governing law was wrong. I presume that if there was a serious argument for that claim, Judge Baird would have presented it in his dissent. In that regard, it's just like the Richard case - for all the fuss, no one has managed to present a coherent explanation of what exactly Keller did wrong and what exactly Keller did contrary to established process. The fact that yet more exculpatory evidence came to light after Criner III, leading to a pardon, does not mean that Keller (or the other judges who joined her opinion) did anything erroneous. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, isn't it interesting that for all the hoo-hah made since, even the dissenting judges appear to have thoguht this case was relatively routine? Why is the opinion unpublished? As I understand it, the reccomendation of any one judge of the CCA will suffice for the court to suggest publication, and two joined the dissent. Yet although they regarded it as important enough to write a dissent, they didn't think it was worth publishing. Oh, I know what you're thinking: then why dissent? Well, consider the sequence of events. The dissent was written before the majority opinion. The court was going to dismiss the appeal by simple order, but Judge Baird wrote a dissent, the majority says on page one, so we'd better say something about it. I'm glad they did. Nevertheless, I can't help wondernig if the dissent was designed to pick up more votes and flip the court, rather than because of any belief that this case raised issues worthy of publication. If it had been the latter, why no publication? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure why you referenced the cigarette butt. The fact Criner did not smoke would have made it exonerating.  Additionally, the screwdriver was probably not entered into evidence because tests on it were negative or inconclusive.  It's amusing to ask the ME if a screwdriver could have caused the injuries.  Of course it could have, so could have many other instruments apparently.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean, why is the cigarette mentioned in the description of the original trial? I would have thought that was obvious, see Chekhov's gun. Re the screwdriver, if you read the Burtman piece, he claims that the state later confessed that no tests were ever done on it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A few changes to the section
Mainly copyedit, but a few substantive changes. We now cite the Frontline interview directly, rather than second-hand, although I must admit that reading it, one feels a deep sense of anxiety about its strength as a source. It looks like an explosion in an ellipsis factory: virtually every answer is subducted under one, and several have inline alterations. This may be as good a source as we can get, but I would be much happier if the original, unaltered transcript was available, or better yet, video.

One of the changes highlights why it's so important that we try to get the original opinion. user:Mysteryquest observed above that Keller "pursu[ed] theories" that the state hadn't raised "to explain away DNA evidence that would tend to exclude Cliner...." Did she? Because our only quotes from the case are second hand at best (and, more likely, third hand, sourced from second-hand contemporaneous reports), it's not clear what was cited to explain that passage, or what was said around it. In the frontline interview, Keller indicates that the condom / failure-to-ejaculate theory was raised by the state. If we had the original opinion, we might not have fallen into that trap. Concededly, we might still have; the court may have failed to attribute the theory, in which case we'd have to go to the brief and argument transcripts to be certain. But the opinion ought to suffice. I hope to have time to call the clerk's office later today to see if they can provide it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is curious that the state would raise the condom/failure to ejaculate theory at the trial level since there was sperm in the victim. I assume Mr. Dodd is saying they raised it in the brief opposing the granting of a new trial.  If that is the case, then Keller is not necessarily making a case the prosecution did not make themselves, however, the proper forum for the prosecution to make such a case would be at a new trial and thus such an argument should not have precluded the granting of a new trial, which the DNA evidence warranted.  Citing to the video or the complete transcript of the Frontline production should be easy enough.  Hopefully, the actual opinion can be located.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with quoting such wide passages from the interview since each of us, on opposite sides of this issue, can choose quotes which support their position. Thus, we could end up in a quote war.   In other words, selective quotes from entire interview could be easily used to bolster our positions. Perhaps we should simply paraphrase her position or the article could get very long.  There is a section on Wikepedia policy covering the use of excessive quotes which I do not have time to cite or read at the moment. For example: "Essentially, his confessions were the evidence against him. . . That was essentially what he was convicted on.  If a person confesses to a crime, the conviction should be affirmed on appeal if there's corroborating evidence that the crime actually occurred.  So, yes, that's sufficient evidence on appeal. . .  How can Roy Criner establish his innocence? I don't know. . ."  What corroborating evidence is she referring to?  The fact that the crime occurred?  That is a circular argument.  False confessions are a endemic problem in the criminal justice system, either invoked under threat by prison or police authorities, made by persons who are of a diminished mental capacity, either temporarily or permanent, or even worse, "given" to third parties (many of whom whom are not uninterested parties who might be trying to deflect suspicion from themselves or curry favor with the authorities to get reduced sentences) and admitted under the hearsay exception.  I'm sure there are many law review articles on this subject.  To indicate that a confession, when contradicted by other evidence, is conclusive proof of guilty is a scary proposition.  Especially when Keller herself can not think of anyway Criner could prove his innocence. Mysteryquest (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you've hit on the concern I have with the Frontline story. "I don't know. . . " - not "I don't know," period, "I don't know," ellipsis. Compare the answer directly below, which ends in a period not an ellipsis. "Essentially, his confessions were the evidence against him. . . That was essentially what he was convicted on" - not "essentially, his confessions were the evidence against him," period, new sentence, "that was essentially what he was convicted on," but "essentially, his confessions were the evidence against him," ellipsis, "that was essentially what he was convicted on." This kind of redaction makes me concerned, particularly in so loaded an interview format. This was an interview that was designed to fit into the context of the show, a show that had a point, a thrust, an editorial line spoken or not. And that makes me suspicious about what is being removed. I'm not saying we can't use it as a source, just that care is warranted. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Simon" will suffice. No need to stand on formality here. :) That said, and while I know it's a minor niggle, it's just "cite." One doesn't--and, lexically, couldn't--cite to (something) to the court. One cites it to the court. I don't know where this habit of placing the verb in the infinitive at gunpoint insinuated itself into legal writing (the earliest case I know that uses the locution in that erroneous sense is Anderson v. United States, 724 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1983)), but it's mighty ugly. Think of the rhetorical gymnastics it forces, often to merely write something unexceptional. For instance: "The cases appellants cite to support their argument ... are not controlling" (United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969)). If the correct verb form was "cite to," you would have to write: "The cases appellants cite to to support their argument," and while you could substitute "in order to" for the second "to" (or "in support of" for "to support"), the need to engage in such clever footing should be a red flag even if the rhetorical clunkiness is not.


 * For the record, I'm not saying that I think they raised it at a particular stage - that's not the point. I'm saying that we have an interview with Keller where she says the state raised it (I agree with you about where logic says they must have argued that, if they did), and we have a fairly inscrutable quote from an opinion, shorn of context. And while we have that quote from multiple sources, the obscurity of the original opinion (unpublished, not available in standard caselaw databases) makes me wonder about the reliability of those sources - did they expend time and effort to track down the opinion? Or did they simply quote the line they found quoted in other secondary sources? Journalistic incentives and time pressures would seem to make the latter a more natural choice, particularly when the real object of things like the Times' treatment is to bring heat on Judge Keller rather than light on the case.


 * On the good news front, I just spoke to the clerk's office and TSSL, and both were exceedingly helpful. I believe we'll be able to get a copy of the opinion, although whether we can publish and cite it or not (both within the court's rules and Wikipedia's) I do not yet know. I think the answer is likely "yes," but the most important point is that we see what was really written, in context. How did the court understand this case, what did it believe was the legal framework in which it arose, and how did they process these things? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We can get into a position here of "abusing" our standing as lawyers here. This article is not a law review article, and thus is not necessarily the proper forum for legal arguments either pro or con.  Most laymen are not going to understand the legal precedents contained in cases cited.  Obviously, the legal aspect is important in order to understand the rationale of Keller regardless of whether that rationale is justified.  Also, we appear to be close to performing original research.  Of course the Frontline show cannot completely delve into the issue exhaustively, however, it is what we have and those are the limits of Wikepeida and sources such as those are the ones that are relied upon.  Anyway, as Judge Baird points out in the transcript of his interview, the argument that Criner wore a condom or didn't ejaculate or the victim was promiscuous was not presented to the jury.  Thus it would appear that Keller, in siding with the state and in denying a new trial, is usurping the jury system's role in the judicial process.  Those argument should be made before a jury in a new trial.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think our obligation here is to write the article as simply and directly as possible, excluding extraneous detail, minimizing how much new stuff the intelligent lay reader has to learn to understand the case, and explaining what they unavoidably have to learn to them in terms they can understand. Substitute "generalist" for "lay reader" and that's true for briefs, too. ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Simon, you are correct "cite to" is improper usage. Also, you are also correct that journalistic or hearsay depictions of the opinion (or the source) are inferior to the actual opinion and I'm hoping that you will be successful in acquiring it.  It is interesting that an opinion that has provoked such a firestorm is not readily available.  Also, quotes with ellipses can be very hard to follow and one wonders if the ellipses result from pauses or material which has been consciously omitted.  That provokes thought on what was omitted and why and was it justified.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the Keller opinion (but not yet the dissent - that's coming separately) and some additional sources pulled from Lexis, but I have no time to deal with them tonight, so will work on integrating them tommorow. Just wanted to update. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, I'm curious to see it. I went on Casemaker and downloaded the two prior cases cited in the text and linked the actual opinions:  The 1991 Court of Appeal opinion vacating the conviction and the 1992 CCA opinion reinstating it.  I also found a link to the law review article.  I have also referenced the transcript of the interview with Charles Baird who dissented and quoted that.  I would say that those are references which are not second hand.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
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)

Original Research-Unverified Claims
I have a big problem with citing to material which can not be revealed, or is non-publishable and only you or I or another attorney are privy to. All sources are supposed to be verifiable and of course, this one cannot be verified since you do not have permission to publish it, and if you and I, with our resources cannot find it, then it certainly will be hard to find for anyone else. One of the problems is you are able to "cherry pick" from the record to cite a "confession" where they is not one, inasmuch a Criner denied that he committed that crime, yet the statements he made though perhaps somewhat incriminating are not a confession. You also state that the Criner said the girl he picked up was "blonde" when in the opinion overturning the conviction, it was clearly shown that the witnesses were impeached when it came to whether or not the victim was indeed blonde, there were also big issues with the timeline of when Criner made his statements to them. I, or another editor, are unable to cite issues in the opinion contradictory to the ones you have chosen to contribute. My position is that if you cannot "publish" the opinion in its entirety, it should not be used, ironically for the same reasons you wanted to use it before. It is not enough that you send it to me as we are not independent, verifiable third-party sources. Moreover, our perusing and citing an opinion we cannot publish and that others cannot find, strikes me as original research. You have cited several other sources without any url? Where are those sources to be found so they can be verified and extracted from? It appears you got them from Lexis. So only somebody with a Lexis subscription can get them? That strikes me as a serious impediment to verifiability. If you are going to cite to sources you got on Lexis, you should print them out, put them on a website, so other editors and readers can have access to them. Mysteryquest (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What sources do you have in mind as being unverifiable? All the sources I added give full citations (date, title, publication). They're stories in the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Press and USA Today. Those are all sources that pass muster under WP:RS and WP:V. Nothing in either of those policies requires that sources be available for free, online - if it was otherwise, most books would not pass muster as sources. When you have a theory that produces absurd results in known good scenarios, question the theory. And I don't know that the stories aren't available online, come to think of it. They may be. I found them in Lexis, and that's good enough so long as they're adequately-cited (it's also good enough for published opinions, although I recognize that unpublished opinions are a thornier issue), but if they can be linked, super.


 * I stated that Criner told Pitts that his victim was blonde because that's what Criner I says: "Pitts testified that [Criner] stated that he ... had picked up a blond-haired girl...." 816 S.W.2d at 131. To be sure, the opinion goes on to say that the defense sought to impeach Pitts' testimony, but unless I'm overlooking something, the opinion says nothing that directly contradicts that specific aspect of his testimony. I'm happy to drop that point from the article if you feel strongly about it (trying to explain our way around it would be unnecessary, and it's not a critical point, so better to omit it entirely if it's a problem in its bare form), but it's what the sources say. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, a copy of the Baird dissent is on its way. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Will I can't dispute your position on the articles you received from Lexis and I did indicate that making sources available on line was not Wikipedia policy, but I will go to the law library today, download them and make them available. As for the opinion in Ex Parte Criner, unless you post, then it will not be available or verifiable inasmuch as most people will not be able to readily access it.  It is not sitting on a shelf somewhere.  So I would object to it being used as a source, unless it is somehow made available.  In the Court of Appeal case it was established that the testimony that the victim was blonde came after the fact and was in fact impeached.  If you do not retract it, I will simply refute it with quotes or paraphrasing from that opinion.  The article is going to get very long, since everything taken out of the Ex Parte Criner opinion can be contradicted by other opinions.  It was the same with quoting from Keller's interview.  Quotes form Baird's interview contradict her scenario.  I wonder if it would not be better to have a compromise narrative or paraphrase that would be neutral and then let the reader check the sources and form their own opinion.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Copies of both the majority opinion and dissent are now linked from the article. Let's talk about the blonde claim. Pitts testified to many things, and Criner I is explicit that one of those things was that Criner said the girl was blonde. By contrast, the opinion makes vague reference to Pitts' testimony being impeached generally. It does not say that the specific testimony we're talking about was impeached. Thus, nothing we can add to the article from Criner I will refute that point; the material just isn't there to do so. What may end up happening, I suspect, is that you'll add a lengthy chunk of text attempting a post facto impeachment of Pitts' testimony, I'll revert it, and an edit war will ensue. That's silly given that it's such a minor issue; there has to be a better way to move toward consensus. Here is my suggestion: why don't you post here on the talk page what you would propose to add if the blonde claim stays. If you'll do that, we'll have a more concrete basis for saying whether the article benefits more from adding your text or simply removing the blonde claim entirely. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I would suggest you remove the blonde claim completely but now being able to view the source for much of your information regarding the blonde claim, there is much information that could be added to the article much more important that the blonde claim. I will review the Criner I examination of the record to see if the blonde claim was successfully impeached however, conceding that one of the witnesses said the victim was blonde, that is hardly a concrete description.  Each witness testified that Criner offered no other description, that would include height, weight, facial features, etc.  There is also information that the jury foreman was interviewed and testified that the DNA evidence would have changed his mind.  More importantly, there is the fact that the information Keller relied on to state that the victim was promiscuous, was from an affidavit from an D.A. investigator, which was included in the state's opposition to a new trial. Obviously this was not part of the trial record and was information the jury never heard.  Keller's reliance on it is suspect as I would think that the judge is to rely on the trial record, when reviewing a case, not information that was not in it.  Would it have been proper for her to rely on the fact that Pitts later stated that Criner had an alibi, though the defense attorney didn't bother to bring this up at trial?  I don't think so, since again, the review should be confined to the trial record.  There is also information regarding the fact that the cigarette butt was withheld from the defense and that other evidence or tests on evidence which might have been exculpatory to a jury, was withheld.  This all belongs in the article if we are going to re-litigate the trial which seems to be your aim.Mysteryquest (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tabling all other points for the moment, on what are you resting your claim that "the information Keller relied on to state that the victim was promiscuous[] was from an affidavit from an D.A. investigator"? I don't see that anywhere in the materials we have. We do have a statement from the Burtman piece that there was an offense report consistent with Keller's statement, but that doesn't sound like an affadavit, Burtman doesn't say whether it was in the trial court record, and Keller's majority opinion doesn't cite it as the basis for her statement. We also have the majority opinion itself, which says that "there was testimony [at trial] that the victim had had many boyfriends and that she had said that she 'loved sex'" (Criner III, slip op. at 4). The only way to read that part of Criner III' is as a claim that the trial record contained some kind of testimony to that effect. Are you, perhaps, overreading the datum in the Burtman piece? Or am I missing something? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Also, of course, and just to confuse matters, this was back in the dark days between Ohio v. Roberts and Crawford v. Washington, so our intuitions about what could and couldn't have been introduced at trial should be checked carefully. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC))


 * There is information in the Burtman piece that indicated that the "promiscuity" claim came from an affidavit:


 * McDougal denies, for example, that his office has ever impugned the reputation of Ogg. Any contention to the contrary, as he told KPRC radio talk show host Mike Richards, is "an absolute falsehood." As for where Keller got her information about the victim's promiscuity, McDougal isn't sure. "I don't know where she got her stuff she was talking about," he says. "I think there's something, somewhere, from somebody."


 * That something may be the motion his office filed in opposing a new trial for Criner, which included an affidavit from D.A. investigator John Stephenson that made note of Ogg's proclivities. "I have reviewed the offense reports in this case," Stephenson wrote. "One report reflects that the deceased had lots of boyfriends and was very sexually active."


 * I believe that supports the text I placed in the article.


 * The majority opinion contradicts itself, inasmuch, as though it states that: "there was testimony [at trial] that the victim had had many boyfriends and that she had said that she 'loved sex'" it ALSO states that there was no testimony at trial concerning the victim's promiscuity. I thought that was clear but I will quote it for you from footnote 4:  "For some reason, the dissent finds it significant that the State did not put on evidence at the time of trial that the victim had consensual sexual relations with men.  Well, of course it [the state] didn't put on evidence tending to suggest that the sixteen year old victim was promiscuous; there was no reason at that time to do so."  In addressing Baird's dissent, the court agrees wholeheartedly with his contention that there was no evidence concerning the victim's promiscuity introduced at trial. I merely pointed out that contradiction.  Following that logic, the "offense report", was evidence of the victim's promiscuity thus it could not have been introduced at trial since both majority and dissent appear to agree that no evidence of promiscuity was introduced. Additionally, if the "offense report" had been introduced at trial, certainly McDougal would not be wondering where Keller received "information about the victim's promiscuity" Of course, one would think that he would remember the contents of his motion opposing a new trial so he appears to be backtracking.  However, McDougal's comments are not needed to support the assertion that the the "offense report" was not introduced at trial. Mysteryquest (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the text to better illustrate the contradiction. It would certainly appear that Keller is confused regarding the source of the information regarding Ogg's promiscuity believing it was in the trial record when it was actually in the DA's motion opposing the granting of a new trial.  As she pointed out in the opinion and we have discussed before, there was no reason whatsoever for the state to put on such evidence at trial.  The testimony of Ogg's mother that she was a "wildcat", as I remember in a source somewhere, was elicited for the purpose of showing she would have vigorously fought a rapist and that could explain why the rape ended in aggravated assault.  The phrase was not meant in any sexual connotation including to indicate Ogg's promiscuity.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the answer to my question is that your claim rests on an overreading of the Burtman article. That article does not "indicate[] that the 'promiscuity' claim came from an affidavit," it indicates only that there was an affidavit containing that claim. To rest on that datum the claim that said affidavit was the only information in the record about Ogg's alleged promiscuity, or that the majority opinion's observation rested on that affidavit, seriously overreads the source. Your reading tries to squeeze a half pound of juice out of a quarter pound orange. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I claimed that the promiscuity came from the affidavit, I simply proposed that the affidavit was a potential source of the information which is supported by the text when especially one considers that Keller seems to quote it quite closely. I will go back and review the text to eliminate any such "claim."Mysteryquest (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is text I placed in the article:


 * "Mike McDougal, the district attorney, denies that his office ever "impugned the reputation of Ogg" and claims not to know where Keller got information about the victim's purported promiscuity. However, the motion he filed in opposing a new trial for Criner, included an affidavit from D.A. investigator John Stephenson that stated he had reviewed "the offense reports in the case," and "One report reflects that the deceased had lots of boyfriends and was very sexually active."[8]"


 * I fail to see where I claim anything. I simply paraphrased and quoted the Burtman article and left it up the reader to draw their own conclusion.  The "However" is designed more to indicate that Keller's sudden bewilderment is suspect.  If you see a "claim" on my part in that language, please point it out.  There is a suggestion, but I believe that to be wholly supported by the references.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You "do not believe [that you] claimed that the promiscuity came from the affidavit"? You wrote--claimed--above that "there is the fact that the information Keller relied on to state that the victim was promiscuous, was from an affidavit from an D.A. investigator" and that "[t]here is information in the Burtman piece that indicated that the 'promiscuity' claim came from an affidavit." (You make a few other claims, too, but let's stay focused.) I was referring to those comments; I hadn't realized you'd interpolated those claims into the article, and will go take a look now. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I say in the talk page does not reflect what is in the text. I have not interpolated anything into the text that is not firmly anchored by a reference and I have made no claims in the text of the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of Well-Sourced Text
I put back in text to illustrate the contradiction in the Keller opinion in whether or not there was evidence of the victim's alleged promiscuity in the text. This information was a direct quote from the opinion. How this is not relevant is beyond me inasmuch as other parts of Keller's opinion are quoted. There is a contradiction in the opinion and all this does is point it out quoting the contradiction. I also put back in the clearly referenced comments from the DA that he indicated he did not know where Keller got the information about the alleged victim's promiscuity from and that there was an offense report included in the DA's motion opposition the trial which appears to be quoted in the opinion. This is well referenced and very relevant as there is in issue as to where the information came from. Just because an editor does not like information, that is not a reason to delete it.

I put back in the quote from the Jury foreman where it belongs. It was not POV to put it there. How is Keller's conclusion that no evidence to indicate innocence is relevant and the juryforeman's is not? There is no POV in including it and it gives the article balance does not distract from it.

These inclusions did not unbalance the article, they simply portrayed an opposite view which is either directly quoted from reliable references or clearly supported by them. Mysteryquest (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can explain to me how referencing the very text of the opinion and stating what it states is original research? Or poorly written?


 * If you don't understand why it's original research to accuse the majority of contradicting itself based solely on your own analysis of material from within the opinion itself, please read WP:OR. Repeat until comprehension is achieved. The other material was removed because it's irrelevant and detracts from the flow of the article. As I said at teh top of the page, material should be weighed to see if it sheds light on issues relevant to the subject; the text you're pushing does not and raises POV and concision problems in a section that is already longer than I would like. I recognize that much of that length is a product of the case requiring more description than some other cases to understand fully, but that increases the incumbency on us to write concisely, excluding extraneous material. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no problem citing material that bolsters Keller's opinion, however, you have a problem when I cite material that calls her reasoning into question. That is what makes the article long.  You don't get to make your points and then not have someone else make their points.  The information I put in was relevant, perhaps its not relevant to your position, but that does not make it irrelevant.  The opinion stated that there was testimony at trial (a position adopted by you) that the victim is promiscuous and then it states there was no evidence offered at trial as to her promiscuity.  That is a contradiction contained in the text of the opinion, which requires no analysis.  However, I took out the language pointing out the obvious contradiction in the text and merely pointed out that the majority does not dispute Baird's assertion that the state did not put on evidence as to the victim's promiscuity at trial which is right in text.  This is obviously relevant to the "issue."  Especially since, the victim's purported promiscuity is at the heart of Keller's and the majority's analysis and rationale.


 * You have a way of taking quotes out of context or extrapolating them in a way that changes their context. The way you inserted that quote regarding "offense report" from the Burtman article was out of context and made it appear that the report was offered at trial, when the article indicates it was part of an affidavit that was offered in the motion opposing the trial.  When I added text to point this out, you say its irrelevant?  When I add text to point out that the District Attorney who opposed the new trial claims to not know where Keller got information about the victim's promiscuity and that he never impugned her reputation, you say its irrelevant?  It directly contradicts Keller!  So its relevancy is blatant.  If there was no testimony at trial about the victim's promiscuity then the offense report wasn't introduced at trial since it would have had to be accompanied by testimony at least laying a foundation for it to be admitted.  I deleted your reference to the report because of how it was taken out of context.  Feel free to put it back on as long as you include the context.


 * Another instance of your extrapolation of quotes, you inserted this text: "At trial, her mother described her as a "wildcat."  This was placed next to the a quote indicating that Ogg had a lot of boyfriends and liked sex.  However, when one looks at the actual quote: "Patricia Ogg described her daughter as having at times a strong temper. Deanna could act like a "wildcat." The description of wildcat had no sexual context whatsoever!.  Additionally, there is no evidence that the majority opinion depended on this testimony inasmuch as it is not cited in their opinion.  This is a good example of original research, synthesis and POV.  Ironically, one of the reasons you wanted to get the original opinion was that you were concerned about the possibility of quotes being taken out of context and having too many ellipses in them so that the true meaning could be shrouded.  Apparently, that has not stopped you from doing the same thing.  Quotes should be complete sentences henceforth.  I am going to delete the wildcat quote as it now superfluous.  If you wish to put it back in, go ahead.Mysteryquest (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no problem putting in analysis. You wrote that the Brady argument was "swiftly" dismissed and "ill-fated" which was not in the text in the opinion and is just your analysis and editorializing.  You indicate that with Keller's perception of the victim's promiscuity in mind the court agreed with the state.  That was analysis. I deleted both instances.Mysteryquest (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your deciding how the interviews should be ordered is arbitrary. Judges are not deities and the seniority system of the CCA or any court has no bearing on this article whatsoever, so that's not a reason to order the interviews.  Your depiction of the jury forman's opinion as POV is interesting.  It's POV because it contradicts Keller?  Because he's not a judge, he's a mere mortal?  His opinion is a relevant as Keller's if not more.  Jury members do not need to be experts on Texas appellate law to serve.  His opinion that the DNA evidence would have had an impact on the his decision is highly relevant.  Moreover, it should come after Keller's analysis as it is a direct counterpoint to it.  It appears you want to relegate it to the back to protect Keller's reasoning from assault.  You delete the Frontline producer's response to Keller (that you put in) that "you are not the jury" because its POV because it impeaches Keller.  If it impeaches Keller that's all the reason should be in the article.  She's not a golden calf and if she's impeached, its relevant.  You are quick to wave the POV sword or the irrelevant sword when you wish to banish text that attacks Keller and the majority.  It might just be a case of projection. Mysteryquest (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As to edit summary "This information is sources and relevant because it illustrates that a case, which was so controversial was overturned without a written opinion, and if it wasn't for Judge Baird there would have been none" So what? How does that help illustrate the case and its relevance to Keller, the subject of this article? The sequence simply isn't relevant to understanding what happened, and should therefore be excluded. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You would like to confine the issue to the opinion, but its bigger than that. The article goes to the attitude of Sharon Keller toward the justice system and persons convicted by it, as illustrated by certain cases including Roy Criner.  The fact that Keller and the court would not feel the need to even issue a written opinion in a case such as Roy Criner's is illustrative of that attitude and is thus relevant.  She felt it was relevant since she put it in the opinion along with a long footnote explaining it was not "unusual" to not issue a written opinion.  So it was relevant to her and that should be good enough for you.  Moreover, it takes hardly any text.  I do not buy your assertion that it is not relevant.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Expansion
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)


 * 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)

Order of interviewees
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Wikipedia Polity on POV Does Warrant Deletion of Text ONLY Because it is POV
A certain editor has been deleting well sourced text claiming it is POV. Thus I have set forth below Wikipedia policy governing Neutral Viewpoint below with my emphasis. Clearly, all views are to represented and text is not to be deleting solely because it might be POV.

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.  The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view &mdash; it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.