"Scheck alleged that Morton would not have needed modern DNA tests to prove his innocence if Anderson had followed the law about disclosing the police interview and other information, including a police report about a man acting suspiciously in the Morton neighborhood, before the 1987 trial.
Anderson, now a district judge in Georgetown, took strong exception to the allegation.
"You know, Mr. Scheck, you make these statements and these accusations, and you are acting like I have done something wrong," Anderson said. "I am upset about an innocent man being convicted. I don't have the language to express my feelings about this.""
REPORTER CHUCK LINDELL; THE STATESMAN;
----------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Michael) Morton was the victim of serious prosecutorial misconduct that caused him to lose 25 years of his life and completely ripped apart his family. Perhaps even more tragically, we now know that another murder might have been prevented if law enforcement had continued its investigation rather than building a false case against Mr. Morton,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. “This tragic miscarriage of justice must be fully investigated and steps must be taken to hold police and prosecutors accountable.” In August, the Innocence Project announced that DNA testing on a bandana found near the Morton’s home where the murder occurred contained the blood of the victim, Christine Morton, and a male other than Morton. According to the papers filed by the Innocence Project yesterday, new DNA testing has connected the male DNA on the bandana to a hair that was found at the crime scene of a Travis County murder that was conducted with a similar modus operandi after Morton was incarcerated. Morton always maintained that the murder was committed by a third-party intruder. In the filing, the Innocence Project charges that Morton would never have been convicted of the crime if the prosecution had turned over as required evidence pointing to his innocence. Newly discovered evidence that was uncovered through a Public Records Act request that was not given to the defense includes: • A transcript of a taped interview by the chief investigator, Sgt. Don Wood, with the victim’s mother where the mother says that the couple’s three-year-old child witnessed the murder and provided a chilling account of watching a man who was not his father beat Christine to death. • A handwritten telephone message to Williamson County Sherriff’s Office (WCSO) Sgt. Wood dated two days after the murder reporting that what appeared to be Christine Morton’s missing Visa card was recovered at the Jewel Box store in San Antonio, with a note indicating that a police officer in San Antonio would be able to identify the woman who attempted to use the card. • A report by WCSO officer Traylor that a neighbor had “on several occasions observed a male park a green van on the street behind [the Morton’s] address, then the subject would get out and walk into the wooded area off the road.” • An internal, typewritten WCSO message to Sgt. Wood and follow up correspondence reporting that a check made out to Christine Morton by a man named John B. Cross was cashed with Christine’s forged signature nine days after her murder. The Innocence Project. (Morton's lawyers contend the Williamson County District Attorney at the time, Ken Anderson, withheld evidence that would have exonerated Morton. Lawyers have questioned Anderson, now a district judge, and others involved in the case to determine if there was misconduct involved. That process continues.)
----------------------------------------------------------
"Under eight hours of occasionally tense questioning, former prosecutor Ken Anderson testified that while his memory was foggy on details, he believed Michael Morton's trial lawyers were provided all necessary information about evidence pointing to his innocence," the Statesman story by reporter Chuck Lindell published on November 29, 2011 under the heading, "Anderson and Morton lawyers spar over DA's role in wrongful prosecution," begins.
"According to draft transcripts of his deposition provided to the American-Statesman, Anderson repeatedly sparred with defense lawyer Barry Scheck over his handling of the Morton case and a prosecutor's duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant," the story continues.
"Many of Scheck's questions focused on a taped police interview — which surfaced only recently — indicating that Morton's 3-year-old son witnessed his mother's 1986 murder and said his father was not home at the time.
Morton was recently freed after serving almost 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife, Christine, after new DNA evidence pointed to another man for the crime.
Scheck alleged that Morton would not have needed modern DNA tests to prove his innocence if Anderson had followed the law about disclosing the police interview and other information, including a police report about a man acting suspiciously in the Morton neighborhood, before the 1987 trial.
Anderson, now a district judge in Georgetown, took strong exception to the allegation.
"You know, Mr. Scheck, you make these statements and these accusations, and you are acting like I have done something wrong," Anderson said. "I am upset about an innocent man being convicted. I don't have the language to express my feelings about this."
"Now," Scheck interjected, "could part of your bad feelings about what happened in this case arise from the fact that you now realize that you did not turn over to Judge (William) Lott or the defense a whole series of reports that were exculpatory and might have led to Michael Morton's acquittal?"
"I can't imagine I did that," Anderson said.
Morton's lawyers with the Innocence Project in New York expect to file a final version of the two-day deposition, conducted under oath and on videotape, with a District Court in Georgetown today or Thursday. A lawyer for Anderson provided a draft version of the testimony to the American-Statesman on Tuesday.
In his deposition, Anderson said he did not recall any pretrial conversations with Morton's lawyers about potentially favorable evidence.
He also said he did not remember the police interview between sheriff's Sgt. Don Wood and Christine Morton's mother, Rita Kirkpatrick, conducted 11 days after the murder. According to Kirkpatrick, 3-year-old Eric Morton said a "monster" he did not recognize hit his mother until she stopped crying.
But Anderson insisted that he would have followed his usual practice of informing defense lawyers about the Kirkpatrick interview. "This whole thing is something that you would typically tell a defense attorney about," he said.
Morton's trial lawyers said Anderson never discussed Kirkpatrick's conversation or Eric's version of the attack on his mother, according to court briefs previously filed by Morton's appellate lawyers. Such information, particularly coming from the victim's mother, would have provided a key and memorable break in a case in which no physical evidence tied Morton to the crime, the briefs said.
William Allison, Morton's lead trial lawyer and now a University of Texas law professor, declined to discuss the case Tuesday.
In his deposition, Anderson said he was not required to provide defense lawyers with a copy of the transcript because the law required him to provide only admissible evidence. No court would have declared such a young boy competent to testify, he said, and rules against hearsay-based testimony would have precluded his grandmother from discussing the conversation on the stand.
"Do you not feel," Scheck asked, "that you had a responsibility to at least communicate that there was actually a transcript of that recording about what Eric said?"
Anderson replied, "I can't recall from 25, 26 years ago."
"So even today, if you were retrying this case," Scheck said, "you still would not turn over a copy of the Kirkpatrick interview?"
"I've been a judge for 10 years," Anderson replied. "I don't think like a prosecutor. I have no idea what I'd do today."
Anderson's testimony was the result of an agreement, apparently unprecedented in exoneration cases nationwide, between Morton's lawyers and John Bradley, Williamson County's current district attorney.
After two court challenges failed to quash a subpoena requiring his testimony, Anderson was deposed for six hours on Oct. 31 and two hours on Nov. 11. Wood and Mike Davis, a former assistant district attorney who assisted Anderson in Morton's trial, also have been deposed.
Wood testified that he estimated that the reports, notes and information he collected during the six-week investigation of Christine Morton's murder would have been 4 inches thick.
That testimony led to the area of harshest disagreement between Scheck and Anderson — an order by Lott, Morton's trial judge, to review details of Wood's investigation.
Defense lawyers had asked Lott, who died in 2009, to review Wood's file to determine whether it included any evidence favorable to Morton. Lott agreed and ordered Anderson to provide the "Wood report" and any accompanying field notes made during the investigation.
On the first day of trial, Lott ruled that he reviewed the file and found no evidence favorable to Morton. The file, sealed as part of the appellate record, wasn't opened until this summer, revealing only a five-page report detailing Wood's first day of investigation, and no notes.
Anderson insisted that he complied with Lott's order, which he said never included Wood's entire investigative file, and said he was shocked to discover that the file contained no notes.
"You have no independent recollection about what you turned over, when you turned it over, at all, do you?" Scheck asked.
"Absolutely not," Anderson replied."
The story can be found at:http://www.statesman.com/news/williamson/anderson-and-morton-lawyers-spar-over-das-role-2002497.html
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;
