Judicial Misgivings

During the capital trial, the appointed Judge (Janice Warder) held up proceedings several times in order to contact staff attorneys and other judges so that she could discuss the case with her colleagues.

One of these judges was Michael E Keasler, who was at that time sitting on the bench next door to Judge Warder.

According to her, at one point, one of these judge's left his courtroom in order to help her from 'seeing this case again'. In 1980, Judge Michael E Keasler sentenced Mr Nealy, then aged 16 years old, to a term of 35 years.

Judge Michael E Keasler was later forced to apologise during his campaign for election to the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals for making racist statements promoting the deselection of black jurors during the course of his work.

As Associate Justice it was a definite conflict of interest for him to participate in proceeding in deciding Charles Nealy's appeal, which was consequently denied.

This unjust interference with the trial was later mentioned by Mr Nealy to his appointed attorney (for the state writ) who, after several attempts on behalf of Mr Nealy to urge her to take action, did nothing. Clearly a conflict of interest should have been identified by any future defense acting for Mr Nealy.

Why was the examining trial allowed to take place, despite the fact that the only witness to the crime did not testify at this trial?

[NB See further documents available from the supporters of Charles Anthony Nealy on the 'Appointments of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases in Dallas County' by emailing contact@anthonynealy.com]