Judge in Ken Anderson Inquiry: Testimony Will Be Public
GEORGETOWN — Williamson County State District Judge Ken Anderson sat with his back to the audience in court Tuesday as lawyers discussed how the court of inquiry examining his role in the 1987 wrongful conviction of Michael Morton ought to proceed.
"We are trying our darndest to get ready," said Eric Nichols, Anderson's lawyer and a former prosecutor with the Texas Attorney General's Office.
In court, Nichols argued that he needed increased access to the files of Morton's lawyers to determine precisely what Morton's lawyers knew and when during the 1987 trial. And he asked Tarrant County ...
Comments (9)
David Kaplan
Wait a minute! There is a dispute about whether or not the Court even ordered that the information be turned over? This sure has not been highlighted in any of the articles I have read. That seems like a
pretty big deal to me.
If true, why wouldn't part of the focus be on the actions of the innocent man's attorneys? If I was accused of a serious crime, and all my attorneys had to do to get exculpatory information turned over was to have to Court order it, I would be pretty upset if they failed to do so. If any of your excellent reporting on this case has touched on this I have missed it.
Shuldn't the Defendant's original attorney's issued a subpoena to the Sheriff's Department?
david sibley
The bar has absolutely no moral standing in this case. It is guilty of very similar ethical misconduct. A child stated to his mother that some lawyers had told him to lie in ways designed to put his mother in prison (her lawyer possibly also). The child was nearly 6. The child was indisputably intelligent and honest. Judge Adams held it was frivolous to believe the child and attacked both the mother and the child for presenting evidence of the child's statements in court. If the child had been ignored, the mother and her lawyer may have gone to prison. The child's statements were never significantly impeached and they in fact were corroborated in several ways (the only contrary evidence was general denials).
There is absolutely no law stating that it is frivolous to believe a child, and there were no facts making this child non credible. The bar was involved in concealing the child's statements to cover up what the child said (conduct very similar to what Judge Anderson stands accused). Judge William Adams made the corrupt order but there is evidence that he and the bar conspired. Judge William Adams made this corrupt order in favor of his personal lawyer (an obvious conflict of interest).
The Judicial Conduct Commission bears responsibility also. Tom Cunningham knowing of Judge Adams' lawless ruling designed to cover up what the child said wrote an opinion stating that Judge Adams makes decisions reasoned and based on the law (obviously not true). He made a decision not founded in the law at all and obviously influenced by an extreme conflict of interest.
The same lawyer who told the child to lie that his mother "touched" him was Judge Adams' lawyer in his efforts to obtain custody of his younger child.
If Judge Anderson concealed the evidence of a 3 year old that would very possibly have changed the result of the trial 25 years ago, he very definitely deserves punishment, but the unethical and literally corrupt lawyers at the bar and the judicial conduct commission deserve discipline also.
As for the comment about, a court order is not necessary. A prosecutor is supposed to turn over exculpatory evidence regardless of any court order. This is considered a constitutional right of the defendant. Normally, they will produce what they claim is all their evidence, but sometimes they don't.
Of course, if Judge Adams and the bar are correct, the statements of the child are not material evidence because it is frivolous to believe a child. That of course is total nonsense.
david sibley
A child uncorrupted by manipulation often is some of the best and most credible evidence that exists (short of a video). The criminal justice system has procedures it seems to manipulate child testimony. The questioning at the child advocacy center sometimes is not impartial. Sometimes, there is repeated questioning until they get what they want. Sometimes, the child is coached or given clues on the expected or desired answers. Authority figures such as police officers, parents, and others can influence a child. The complete isolation of the child from the defendant facilitates manipulation of the child. There are definitely problems with child testimony but ignoring it is a complete denial of due process.
The grandmother I think is the one who talked to the police. Was this the paternal or maternal grandmother? How did she question the child? There are all kinds of potential issues. But, this issues need exploration. It is absolutely corrupt to simply ignore a child's testimony which is exactly what Judge William Adams did when he said it is frivolous to believe a child (which the bar supported). Of course, in this instance, the child in hindsight was obviously correct. The "monster" even has a mustache.
Judges like Judge William Adams and lawyers like James Ehler and Marie Haspil who corrupt our courts need to be dealt with and the system does so with no reliability. The system engages in retaliation. I am no fan of Judge Anderson (I don't know if the allegations against him are true but it is hard to imagine the defense lawyers ignoring the statements of the 3 year old if they had been told). I just think he is one of many including the bar lawyers who need discipline.
The notion of unethical lawyers like the lawyers at the bar attacking lawyers even unethical lawyers is just offensive. They should have some moral standing, and they clearly don't. It apparently took some very good lawyers from out of the State to get this accomplished. A local lawyer very likely would have been attacked by the bar for attempting to address this very serious issue. The bar is obviously used as much for concealing evidence and a tool for corruption as enforcement of ethics.
Ron Maloney via Texas Tribune on Facebook
What a case. I didn't get to watch Barry Scheck in my court of inquiry! *envy*
Adam Franklin
Here is what we publicly know about Morton son. http://imgur.com/a/VcfSd
Adam Franklin
I apologize, here is the excerpt from Andersons response to Mortons new lawyers. http://imgur.com/a/Jtfqv
Benjamin Keith via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Everything inside me wants to see this guy disbarred and possibly sent to jail for ruining this guys life. But on the other hand, I'm trying not to stoop to his level and convict someone in the court of public opinion before they get their due process.
Chris Eddleman
I'm glad Mr Anderson gets his 15 minutes of shame , maybe they will throw him in jail with the people he so passionately prosucuted. There he can explain the judicial systems failures and he experience it first hand.
Wendy Weinman
Nichols has a history of assisting corrupt DAs....does the name John Roach seem familiar? And is Abbott paying this bill for Anderson's defense?