HOUSTON — The case of a grocery store clerk wrongly convicted of murdering his wife has rocked the legal system across Texas, and not just because an innocent man served 25 years of a life sentence.
Supporters of Michael Morton, who was set free in October, say he might never have been convicted if a prominent prosecutor had shared significant evidence with the defense at the time of the trial.
“Mr. Morton was the victim of serious prosecutorial misconduct that ... completely ripped apart his family,” said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project in New York, which represented Morton in his appeal.
On Monday, Morton and his lawyers asked District Judge Sid Harle for a judicial inquiry into alleged misconduct by the lead prosecutor, Ken Anderson, now a county judge. They filed a report summarizing their investigation and argued that Anderson acted improperly while prosecuting Morton. Harle said he would consider the request.
The case highlights what critics say has become a recurring problem in Texas and across the nation: prosecutors concealing evidence that could undercut their cases.
The Supreme Court, in the landmark Brady v. Maryland ruling in 1963, said prosecutors have a duty to share evidence that indicates a defendant is not guilty. But critics say more checks are needed to ensure prosecutors hand over such evidence.
“We have similar problems with discovery everywhere,” Scheck said, speaking of the process in which the defense and the prosecution disclose their evidence to each other. “True discovery reform is really needed. We have to have real transparency.”
Morton, 57, was ultimately freed thanks to DNA evidence that was not available when his wife was beaten to death. But his defense team argues that early signs indicated another man was the killer.
Source: The Register Citizen, December 20, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment