Today's Austin American-Statesman reports, "DA files, retracts motion called hindrance to Morton case inquiry." It's by Chuck Lindell.
Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley filed, but later withdrew, a motion to speed Michael Morton's appeal after Morton's lawyers objected Thursday, calling the move a cynical attempt to short-circuit an investigation into alleged misconduct by former county officials.
Morton, freed last week after serving almost 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, has made the investigation a priority in hopes of fleshing out charges that evidence was hidden that could have prevented his guilty verdict in 1987, his lawyers said.
Bradley denied trying to impede the investigation and said Morton's lawyers overreacted. Still, he said via email that he was "sorry for the misunderstanding."
Thursday's contretemps surrounded an agreement, negotiated two weeks ago between Bradley and defense lawyers, that allowed Morton to go free on only a signature bond. The agreement acknowledged that recent DNA tests pointed to another man as the killer of Morton's wife, Christine, in the bed of their Williamson County house in 1986.
The agreement also gave defense lawyers limited time to pursue an investigation into their allegations that then-District Attorney Ken Anderson, now a district judge in Georgetown, hid evidence that could have established Morton's innocence. Morton's lawyers also claim investigators ignored leads that could have caught the killer.
But the agreement stipulates that the investigation would end if the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were to establish Morton's innocence, which it did Wednesday.
Morton's lawyers believe they have until Nov. 7, when the court issues its mandate and the ruling becomes official, to complete their investigation, which was to be overseen by District Judge Sid Harle.
But in a motion filed late Wednesday, Bradley asked the appeals court to "immediately" issue its mandate on the Morton case.
The motion said the request was being made for Morton's good, freeing him from the conditions of his bond and allowing him to more quickly seek state compensation for his wrongful conviction.
And:
Morton was prepared to delay his release from prison to ensure that his claims of misconduct were investigated by the courts, the brief said. He agreed to the signature bond only because he believed his lawyers would be allowed to conduct the same investigation, the brief added.
"Mr. Morton is entitled, at a minimum, to hold the State to its promise to let him make a limited inquiry as to how and why he was wrongfully convicted in the first place," the brief said.
"The State should not be permitted to use this Court's procedural rules to short-circuit that process," the brief said. "Mr. Morton did not request, and does not agree to, an expedited issuance of the mandate under these circumstances."
The objections prompted Bradley to withdraw the motion to expedite.
"Bradley Withdraws Motion to Rush Morton Case," is the Texas Tribune post by Brandi Grissom.
Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley this afternoon withdrew a motion he filed on Wednesday asking the court to quickly finalize its decision to exonerate Michael Morton.
The filing drew quick criticism from Morton's attorneys, who worried that Bradley was attempting to stymie efforts to investigate allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
In the two-page withdrawal motion filed today, Bradley wrote that his filing to expedite the dismissal of the case "was a simple misunderstanding of the terms of the agreement" he had made last week with Morton's lawyers.
And:
In his motion, Bradley — who was not the prosecutor at the time of Morton's original trial — wrote that an expedited dismissal would benefit Morton because it would release him from the personal recognizance bond of the court and allow him to "immediately pursue any compensation" from the state for the nearly 25 years he was wrongfully imprisoned.
John Raley, a Houston pro-bono lawyer, and Nina Morrison and Barry Scheck, of the New York-based Innocence Project, however, argue in an unusual court filing opposing Bradley's request that his motives are not purely to help the newly exonerated man move on with his life. The request to hurry-up the process, they indicate, is an effort to stymie an investigation into whether prosecutors intentionally and illegally suppressed evidence that could have prevented Morton's wrongful conviction.
Morton's lawyers allege that the district attorney's office withheld a transcript of a conversation between Rita Kirkpatrick, Christine Morton's mother, and a sheriff's investigator in which she told the officer that Morton's 3-year-old son saw a "monster" who was not his father attack and kill his mother.
They also allege prosecutors withheld information about Christine Morton's credit card being used in San Antonio two days after she was killed and about a check made out to her that was cashed with her forged signature nine days after her death.
Bradley's office has denied allegations of wrongdoing. Ken Anderson, who was the prosecutor at the time of Morton's trial and is now a Williamson County district judge, has not commented publicly.
In an agreement that Morton's lawyers said they negotiated over a three-day period with Bradley, the two sides agreed that an investigation into the alleged wrongdoing would continue while the appeals court was considering the motion to overturn Morton's conviction. If the discovery process was not completed by the time the appellate court issued an order, then the two sides agreed the investigation could continue for at least 30 days. Typically, the court takes a month or longer to issue a decision, but in this case, the court took just a week.
The ABA Journal focuses on another issue, "Ex-Prosecutor, Now a Judge, Accused of Hiding Exculpatory Evidence." It's by Mark Hansen.
A former Texas prosecutor, now a sitting judge, has been accused of withholding exculpatory evidence in the prosecution of an Austin-area man who spent 25 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.
Lawyers for Michael Morton, whom DNA evidence has exonerated in the 1986 murder of his wife, Christine, say former Willamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson, now a sitting judge in the same county, failed to turn over evidence to the defense that cast doubt on Morton's guilt, the Associated Press reports.
The evidence includes a statement by the victim's mother, who told investigators at the time that her 3-year-old grandson—Morton's son—had described seeing a "monster" beat his mother to death. It also includes evidence that the victim's credit card was used in San Antonio two days after her murder and that a forged check in her name was cashed a week later.
"I think everybody can see how offensive this conduct is, if true," said Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck, one of Morton's lawyers. "I am profoundly troubled by this. Profoundly troubled, and determined to get answers."
Earlier coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration begins at the link.
Comments