Roundup: Coverage of prosecutor misconduct investigation in Michael Morton case

The articles linked below collectively cast a great deal more light on the prosecutorial misconduct investigation in Williamson County surrounding Judge Ken Anderson and his role prosecuting an innocent man, Michael Morton, for murdering his wife in the '80s. Most Grits readers are familiar with the story: With an innocent man locked up, the real killer went on to commit more crimes, including another murder in the Austin area. Now that DNA has exonerated Morton, his lawyers are investigating alleged prosecutorial misconduct that led to their client's false conviction. A lot's been happening on that front this week, with Judge Ken Anderson's much-anticipated deposition finally released; here are a few recent links for those looking to stay abreast of the controversy:

• Wilco Watchdog: "John Bradley: 'Grasping at straws'"
  
• Wilco Watchdog: "The Ken Anderson Deposition: The Truth Will Set You Free, Part I"
• Wilco Watchdog: "The Ken Anderson Deposition: Part II"
  
• Wilco Watchdog: "John Bradley: What he never told us about the Morton case"
  
• Wilco Watchdog: "Ken Anderson acknowledges the obvious"
• Texas Tribune: "In deposition, Morton prosecutor can't recall specific details"
• Your News Now Austin, "'Don't recall,' 'Can't remember' seem themes of Anderson's deposition"
• Your News Now Austin, "Anderson acknowledges evidence withheld from defense"
• AP: "Former Williamson County DA says he didn't withhold evidence in wrongful conviction"
• Williamson County Sun: "Anderson 'upset' by sheriff's Morton investigation"
• Williamson County Sun: "Anderson remembers little in nine-hour inquiry"
• Austin Statesman: "Anderson and Morton lawyers spar over DA's role in wrongful prosecution"
• Austin Statesman: "Duty says she's 'strongly considering' running for DA" [against Bradley]

• Ken Anderson Deposition Part 1
• Ken Anderson Deposition Part 2

This amnesiac response from Anderson is especially odd since we know from Don Wood's deposition that Anderson personally attended a meeting before his deposition where all the principles on the prosecution team were given an opportunity to go over old records and discuss the case together, supposedly to refresh their memories (as opposed to getting their stories straight or agreeing to an omerta pact). How can Anderson recall so little, one wonders, having so recently read through the file, discussed it with the principal investigator, etc.?

Grits predicted after Sgt. Don Wood said he remembered nothing about the case that Judge Anderson's memory would probably "turn out to be similarly impaired," and indeed that's how it played out. At best these claims of memory loss come off as dubious, at worst as pure CYA. Judge Anderson remembers nothing about the case except he remembers for certain he did nothing wrong? If he really has no memory, how can he be so sure? Right now, the paper trail argues strongly that Anderson cheated to win and an innocent man spent a quarter-century in prison as a result. Given the evidence now available that Williamson County prosecutors fought for years to conceal, it will take more than blanket denials and claims of memory loss to dispel that singular impression.