Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murder for beating his wife
to death in 1986. As a result, he spent twenty-five years in prison, leaving
the couple's 3-year old son behind to be raised by someone else. In
October 2011, Morton was finally released from prison when new DNA evidence
proved he did not kill his wife.
Now, a seldom used court of inquiry is hearing evidence for whether the
prosecutor who convicted Morton, Ken Anderson, should face criminal charges
for hiding evidence in the case. Courts of inquiry are special court used
when public officials are accused of wrongdoing. It is similar to a grand
jury proceeding except that the public official is allowed to defend themselves
against the evidence presented. In addition, the State Bar of Texas is
suing Anderson because of his conduct in this case.
Anderson, who is now a district judge, allegedly knew, but failed to tell
Morton's defense team, that Morton's 3-year old son witnessed
the murder of his mother and had said a "monster" killed her
and his dad was not home at the time. Further, Anderson allegedly failed
to tell Morton's attorney that neighbors had reported that a man parked
a green van near the Morton home and walk into a wooded area behind it.
Morton's defense at trial was based on a theory that an unknown person
committed the crime; such a theory would have been bolstered by the evidence
regarding a "monster" and an unknown man walking in the woods
behind the Morton home.
Judge Anderson has apologized to Morton but denied any wrongdoing. Morton
testified during the court of inquiry and said he did not want revenge
against Anderson but that there needed to be some accountability for what
happened. He tearfully said, "I ask that you do what needs to be
done. But at the same time to be gentle with Judge Anderson."
I am not sure many people would be able to request "gentle" treatment
for misconduct that resulted in 25 years of your life being taken away.
Whether or not Judge Anderson will ever face criminal charges for his
conduct remains to be seen. The court's decision could be made as
early as this week. However, no matter what the court of inquiry decides,
Morton will never be able to replace the 25 years he spent in jail.
Criminal charges against Judge Anderson will perhaps provide a small measure
of accountability in the justice system for this case. It could send a
clear message to other prosecutors that not "playing fair" can
have disastrous consequences – not only for the suspect you are
trying to convict — but also for your job, your law license, and
most importantly for your freedom.
As for future criminal defendants and criminal defense attorneys, this
case exemplifies that a separate and complete investigation needs to be
conducted by the defense team. Everyone hopes that the prosecutor is going
to "play fair," but in order to provide a thorough defense against
criminal charges, a defense team needs to do a lot of their own work too
– interviewing witnesses, visiting the crime scene, and hiring experts
(such as DNA experts) if needed.