I've got work here in Austin, but Grits expects there will be plenty of MSM reporters in Georgetown starting tomorrow to cover the court of inquiry alleging prosecutorial misconduct by then Williamson County District Attorney and now District Judge Ken Anderson in the Michael Morton case. See preview stories from the Texas Tribune and the Austin Statesman. For more background, see Pam Colloff's two-part Texas Monthly piece here and here, and Grits' interview with Colloff about the Morton case. Watch for Pam's coverage of the trial on the new Texas Monthly site.
MORE: Brandi Grissom from the Texas Tribune is liveblogging the event. AND MORE: From the Austin Statesman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
6 comments:
Anyone know if this is being video recorded (YouTube'd)?
It's such an interesting proceeding. It should be a CLE for attorneys.
It should be required CLE FOR ADA's who wink and nod when law enforcement doesn't send them all of the evidence, some of which is exculpatory and required to be turned over to the defense even if not requested. Law enforcement is notorious for not including facts which tend to hurt their case and ADAs are not too diligent to get that information, preferring to be willfully ignorant of it than to make their case less assured. For example why doesn't the DA send out a memo to all law enforcement agencies to send in video from officers that make stops leading to arrests unrelated to the stop? If they did, it would ruin many cases for lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop. This and other types of evidence are often destroyed if not requested within 30 days. So what happens to the guy who takes more than 30 days to hire an attorney or sits in jail unable to make bond and has an appointed lawyer who takes 900 cases per year?
What is a CLE?
Got it. Continuing Legal Education. I was sure the C would be for criminal.
Here's the most interesting comment from the Texas Tribune's live blog yet:
In some of the most dramatic testimony so far, Hardin read from a pre-trial transcript argument between Anderson and defense lawyers in 1987. In the passage, Anderson tells the judge that he would rather strike his own witness than to give the defense lawyers notes he would have to turn over if she testified.
As Hardin read through the court exchange, the lawyers in the courtroom gasped, seemingly taken aback by the lengths to which Anderson appeared to go to keep information from Morton's defense team.
Hardin harkened to a statement that Anderson made repeatedly in his deposition, that there was "no way on God's green earth" he wouldn't have shared information that pointed to Morton's innocence with the defense team.
"Is that fair on God’s green earth?” Hardin asked Arnold about the pre-trial exchange in which Anderson threatened to strike his own witness before allowing her to turn over notes.
“No,” Arnold said.
Could someone briefly explain how the "Gaskin Rule" trumps "Brady Material" if the info is favorable to the defense?
Even if the Investigator is not called to testify, shouldn't his report be available?
Post a Comment