Sordid details in a Texas death penalty case read like a bad John Grisham novel. The judge and prosecutor were sexually involved during the murder trial. Twenty years after the murder trial and almost on the eve of the convicted man’s execution hitherto secret details of a sordid extra marital affair is shining a blindingly harsh light on the Texas justice system.

Texas law requires a judge's recusal whenever "his (her in this case) impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or if "he (she) has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party." The test here isn't whether the judge thinks she's biased (although the judge later admitted she should have recused herself). It's a constitutional "ick" test: How bad does the conflict of interest look?

The condemned man was convicted of two murders in 1990, and sentenced to death. When the sexual affair came to light the judge and prosecutor lied and it took until 2008 for the pair to admit their situation only when put under oath.

The condemned man has already been granted a new sentencing hearing because the Texas appeals court has acknowledged that the jury instructions were improper.

In any event, having nincompoops on the bench and at the prosecutors table smells to high heaven and brings back the infamous admonition that there’s the law and then there’s Texas law.