Prosecutor’s Withholding of Evidence May Have Resulted In 25 Years in Prison For Man

Krux(‘ns:centro’, ‘dataprovider.exelate’);

Texas opens court of inquiry into claims of prosecutor misconduct

  • Email
Michael MortonMichael Morton, left, was exonerated in the beating death of his wife after 25 years. Monday he attended a Texas court of inquiry focused on the prosecutor in his case. (Ricardo B. Brazziell / / February 4, 2013)
Your take?
Should prosecutors face consequences when innocent people go to jail?
See more »
By Molly Hennessy-FiskeFebruary 4, 2013, 6:58 p.m.
GEORGETOWN, Texas — In emotional testimony Monday, a Texas man told a judge how it felt spending 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.“Brutal,” Michael Morton said. “But after a couple decades, I got used to it.” Morton, 58, who grew up in Los Angeles, was convicted in the 1986 beating death of his wife, Christine, at their home. He was exonerated and released almost a year and a half ago after DNA tests confirmed his innocence. Another man has since been charged in connection with the killing. Now the man who prosecuted Morton, Williamson County District Judge Ken Anderson, faces an unprecedented “court of inquiry” about 30 miles north of Austin in which a judge will decide whether the then-district attorney lied and concealed evidence that could have cleared Morton. It is the first time the state has convened such a hearing for prosecutorial misconduct. Although part of Texas law since 1965, the court of inquiry has typically been used to consider allegations against elected officials. Some hope this week’s hearing will lead to a greater examination of alleged misconduct by prosecutors not just in Texas, but nationwide. “This is going to be a significant case for prosecutorial misconduct. It could lead to judges giving more specific orders about turning over evidence,” said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project, who attended Monday’s hearing. Texas District Judge Louis Sturns, who is presiding over the court of inquiry, must determine whether state laws were broken in Anderson’s prosecution of Morton. If so, the judge must issue an arrest warrant, potentially leading to a criminal trial. Morton’s attorneys — including several from the Innocence Project — appealed for the court of inquiry after uncovering evidence they believe should have been disclosed under the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brady vs. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to share evidence favorable to the accused with defense lawyers. Rusty Hardin, the special prosecutor appointed for the court of inquiry, asked Morton on Monday how he felt when he learned that information that could have cleared him was not shared with his attorneys during his 1987 trial. That evidence, Hardin said, included an interview the lead investigator conducted with Morton’s mother-in-law in which she recounted how his 3-year-old son, Eric, at home at the time of the murder, claimed his father wasn’t there but that he saw a “monster … hurt Mommy.” “I was stunned,” Morton said. “All those years … the primary thing that kept hitting me was why? What purpose, what motivation?” On the stand Monday, Morton occasionally choked up, but remained mostly composed, at times smiling. He sat facing Anderson, who appeared impassive. Anderson has apologized, but also denied wrongdoing in the case. Last fall, the State Bar of Texas filed a lawsuit accusing Anderson of professional misconduct in Morton’s prosecution. A date has yet to be set for that civil trial. Anderson’s attorney, Eric Nichols, a former prosecutor with the Texas Attorney General’s Office, focused his questions Monday on what the trial judge, who has since died, ordered Anderson to turn over. He argued that Morton’s lawyers ruled out relying on his son as a witness before his trial and emphasized that Innocence Project lawyers, not Morton, have been pursuing charges against Anderson. Nichols noted that two Innocence Project claims about concealed evidence that could have cleared Morton were recently found to be false. “You are not interested in seeing someone prosecuted on insufficient evidence?” Nichols said. “Correct,” Morton said. Hardin argued that even if the evidence couldn’t have cleared Morton, it should still have been turned over before trial. Morton said he’s not out for revenge, just accountability.
Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times
  • Email
  • Mediterranean diet, with olive oil and nuts, beats low-fat diet
  • Microcar sells for world record in weekend auction
  • Mitt Romney to resurface with high-profile appearances
  • Kelley Blue Book: Cars that will be cheapest to own over 5 years
  • New Google campus planned, turning the Googleplex into a megaplex
Comments are filtered for language and registration is required. The Times makes no guarantee of comments’ factual accuracy. Readers may report inappropriate comments by clicking the Report Abuse link next to a comment. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Written by

Ray Lopez has practiced since 1990, with prior experience as a Hillsborough County assistant State attorney and lawyer for the Tampa Police Department. He handles all criminal charges, from traffic violations and misdemeanors to serious felonies and federal drug charges. He practices in all state and federal courts of the Tampa Bay area and throughout Florida, as well as criminal appeals, juvenile court, administrative hearings, and civil forfeiture proceedings.

No Comments Yet.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.