Anderson (left); Morton (right)
Sunday I posted a story about a court of inquiry being conducted against a sitting judge accused of covering up evidence against a defendant who was falsely convicted of murdering his wife. He served 25 years in prison before being released. A good addition to 2306's upcoming look at the criminal justice system in the state.
Here's an update on the proceedings from Texas Monthly:
- Court of Inquiry Begins: The court of inquiry will function essentially as a grand jury, in that it will determine if criminal charges should be brought. But unlike a grand jury, it will be conducted in open court. There will be no jury, only a judge. And Anderson’s legal team can present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. A visiting judge from Fort Worth, state district judge Louis Sturns, has been appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to oversee the inquiry. Legendary defense attorney Rusty Hardin will serve as the “attorney pro tem” who will present witnesses and evidence to help Sturns “determine if an offense has been committed,” according to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Day One: A court of inquiry into Anderson’s alleged prosecutorial misconduct began yesterday with Michael Morton taking the stand. Trial lawyer Rusty Hardin—who is serving as the inquiry’s “attorney pro tem,” and who must present witnesses and evidence to state district judge Louis Sturns to determine if an offense has been committed—asked Michael about several documents that have come to light which his defense lawyers never saw at trial. ....
- Court of Inquiry Continues: The third day of the court of inquiry into alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the Michael Morton case began with startling testimony. Williamson County Court at Law Judge Doug Arnold recounted a conversation he had years ago with then-D.A. Ken Anderson, who, according to Arnold, told him that he had used an unusual trial strategy on more than one occasion in criminal cases he had prosecuted: Anderson said he would deliberately not call the lead investigator in a case to the stand so that he would not have to turn over the investigator’s reports and notes to the defense. (According to state law, the defense has the right to see an officer’s notes before cross-examining him or her.)
