"Morton's attorneys — John Raley of the Houston law firm Raley & Bowlick and lawyers at the New York-based Innocence Project — allege that the Williamson County district attorney's office intentionally withheld a transcript in which Christine Morton’s mother told a sheriff's investigator that the couple’s 3-year-old son saw a "monster" who was not his father brutally attack his mother.
"The defense attorneys also claim prosecutors withheld information about Christine Morton's credit card being used and a check being cashed with her forged signature days after her death.
This week, Morton's lawyers filed subpoenas to force Williamson County District Judge Ken Anderson, who was the district attorney at the time of Morton's 1987 trial, and (Mike) Davis, who was an assistant district attorney, to testify and to provide documents related to the case.
Both Anderson and Davis filed motions to quash the depositions. Both claimed that the court had no jurisdiction to compel their testimony."
REPORTER BRANDI GRISSOM; THE TEXAS TRIBUNE;
---------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals officially exonerated Morton after DNA evidence revealed that another man was likely responsible for the killing of Christine Morton. Morton's attorneys — John Raley of the Houston law firm Raley & Bowlick and lawyers at the New York-based Innocence Project — allege that the Williamson County district attorney's office intentionally withheld a transcript in which Christine Morton’s mother told a sheriff's investigator that the couple’s 3-year-old son saw a "monster" who was not his father brutally attack his mother. The defense attorneys also claim prosecutors withheld information about Christine Morton's credit card being used and a check being cashed with her forged signature days after her death. The advocacy organization and Bradley have been at odds since he was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2009 to lead the Texas Forensic Science Commission. Bradley objected to the commission's investigation of science used to convict and eventually execute Cameron Todd Willingham for the 1991 arson fire that killed his three children. The Innocence Project, which led the charge for the Willingham investigation, sparred publicly and repeatedly with Bradley and accused him of trying to stymie the organization's efforts to improve the criminal justice system. (Texas Tribune);
----------------------------------------------------------
Both Anderson and Davis filed motions to quash the depositions. Both claimed that the court had no jurisdiction to compel their testimony. Anderson said as a judge, he had a 43 matters on his docket, and he had a previously scheduled medical procedure on the day defense attorneys requested his presence.
Davis, now a lawyer in private practice, submitted a 17-page motion in which he objected hotly to the subpoena, writing that he "is now an innocent bystander in the crossfire" of political and media battles between the Innocence Project and Bradley.
The advocacy organization and Bradley have been at odds since he was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2009 to lead the Texas Forensic Science Commission. Bradley objected to the commission's investigation of science used to convict and eventually execute Cameron Todd Willingham for the 1991 arson fire that killed his three children. The Innocence Project, which led the charge for the Willingham investigation, sparred publicly and repeatedly with Bradley and accused him of trying to stymie the organization's efforts to improve the criminal justice system.
"The service of the subpoena in this case is just another tit for tat in the battle between these lawyers," Davis wrote. He contends the lawyers have no legal authority to question him and that they are attempting to conduct an unauthorized investigation.
Davis wrote that his recollection of the trial was "very limited after 25 years." He said he had no memory of any conversation about Morton's son seeing the killer or of any issues relating to credit cards or checks.
But in the motion, Davis offered an apology to Morton for the years he spent behind bars for a crime he did not commit, and he offered to sit down with Morton and his lawyers informally and tell them everything he remembers about the case. "Movant's words can never give back to Michael Morton his lost life, his lost wife, nor his son, and a simple apology is not sufficient but that is all Movant has to offer at this late date," Davis wrote. In a letter to Morton's lawyer, Davis asked them to withdraw the subpoena.
Further, Davis argued that Morton's lawyers' investigation of prosecutorial misconduct in the case is moot because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already exonerated him.
Separately, Maureen Ray, special administrative counsel for the State Bar of Texas, confirmed a report in the Austin American-Statesman today that the organization is gathering abd reviewing information "regarding allegations of misconduct in the Morton case".
The story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
