Texas Judge Under Investigation For Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct That Led To Innocent Man Being Sent To Jail 25 Years Ago

District judge Ken Anderson of Williamson County, Texas is now formally under investigation for his alleged role in a gross injustice as a prosecutor. It is an all-too-rare case where a former prosecutor is actually called to account for an injustice. In this case, an innocent man, Michael Morton (shown here), now 58, was wrongly convicted in 1987 for the murder of his wife. Prosecutors failed to turn over key evidence showing that his son clearly stated that it was not his father. Instead, they took a tragic murder of a mother and magnified it by incarcerating the grieving father. Anderson was later selected as “Prosecutor of the Year.” We previously discussed the case.

Christine Morton was found beaten to death in her bed in 1986. Police and prosecutors immediately focused on the husband and noted that he had left a note , Sheriff Boutwell was among the first at the scene. Mr. Morton has said that expressing disappointment that she had fallen asleep during a romantic interlude the night before. They did not seem to wonder why a killer would leave such a note if he had the wherewithal to commit the other acts of deception in the case.

Morton sat in prison for 25 years before he was exonerated. In the meantime, Anderson enjoyed a successful career and became a judge. He was appointed to the bench by Gov. Rick Perry in 2001.

In his 1997 book, “Crime in Texas: Your Complete Guide To the Criminal Justice System,” Anderson wrote “In reality, I don’t see much brilliance in the courtroom. Trials are won and the truth is exposed because of detailed, painstaking preparation done before the first witness is sworn in.”

While Anderson has “apologized,” he denies any wrongdoing. He insists that he did not know about the statement of the boy, which is curious since the boy was the eyewitness to the murder and said emphatically that it was not his father. It appears that the “painstaking preparation” did not include reading the account of the eyewitness in the case.

Source: New York Times