Michael Morton

 

Anderson 'upset' by sheriff's Morton investigation

By ANDREW McLEMORE 11/30/11 5:11pm

In his second deposition, Williamson County Judge Ken Anderson said he was “upset” that some evidence from the Michael Morton case was never fully investigated or turned over to defense attorneys.

Judge Anderson, who prosecuted Mr. Morton as district attorney in 1987, said it is “highly troublesome” that an innocent man was convicted and served 25 years in prison.

Mr. Morton’s attorneys questioned the former prosecutor for nine hours on October 31 and for another three hours on November 11.

Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which represents Mr. Morton, posed increasingly pointed questions to Judge Anderson about evidence of Mr. Morton’s innocence that his original attorneys never saw at trial.

The judge suggested near the end of the second deposition that he was frustrated by Mr. Scheck’s questions.

“You know, Mr. Scheck, you make these statements and these accusations, and you are acting like I have done something wrong, and it just — you know, I am upset about an innocent man being convicted,” he said. “I don’t know how to convey that in the form of a deposition.”

Judge Anderson also continued to deny any memory of what evidence he reviewed before trial.

In the first deposition, he said Sheriff Jim Boutwell would have had access to all the evidence and didn’t always tell him about every detail of his investigation.

When asked by Mr. Scheck about another police report never seen by Mr. Morton’s attorneys, Mr. Anderson, who said he doesn’t remember ever seeing that evidence, suggested the sheriff was to blame.

SCHECK: Would you not agree that this report concerning the observations of the green van being behind the Morton residence prior to the murder on several occasions and an individual walking around that wooded area off the road, that this report, especially if there was no follow-up done on this report, would be information that should have been disclosed to the defense?
ANDERSON: I don’t know how — you know, of all the reports this is the one that bugs me the most. There should have been — I can’t imagine there wasn’t a follow-up on this, and it should have been a written report that followed. So I don’t know if Boutwell, who wasn’t really good about writing reports, did it on his own and didn’t write a report or what… it hopefully was really troublesome to me 25 years ago and just screams out for somebody to follow up on.

At Mr. Morton’s trial, his defense attorneys repeatedly requested that all reports from Sgt. Don Wood, the case’s chief investigator, be turned over to them. They believed that some evidence relevant to their defense of Mr. Morton had not been turned over.

Mr. Scheck asked the judge what his obligation was to tell the trial judge, William Lott, that Sgt. Wood had additional evidence that the court hadn’t seen.

“I don’t know what I thought my obligations were 25 years ago,” Mr. Anderson said.

Judge Anderson also said he was upset by the way investigators seemed to handle certain evidence that support Mr. Morton’s innocence, including a check made out to Christine Morton than was cashed nine days after her murder.

An unsigned sheriff’s office memo about the check seemed to suggest it wasn’t worth investigating.

“They seem to think that Chris' purse was stolen, course, we know better,” the memo said.

That statement was “the most unprofessional statement I can recall ever seeing in a police report,” Judge Anderson said, driving him “absolutely crazy.”

“I’m sick about it,” he said.

SCHECK: Now, could part of your bad feelings about what happened in this case arise from the fact that looking at this record you now realize that you did not turn over to Judge Lott or the defense a whole series of reports from Sergeant Wood that were exculpatory and might have led to Michael Morton’s acquittal?
ANDERSON: I can’t imagine I did that.
Mr. Scheck also questioned the judge about conversations he had with District Attorney John Bradley after Mr. Morton’s defense attorneys revealed DNA evidence linking another man to the murder.
Judge Anderson downplayed the seriousness of his discussions with Mr. Bradley. In an earlier deposition, the assistant prosecutor of Mr. Morton, Mike Davis, said he’d heard the two men speaking with “raised voices” about the new DNA evidence.
Mr. Scheck’s questions suggested he was already familiar with the conversation between Mr. Bradley and Judge Anderson.
SCHECK: Did you not turn to Mr. Bradley at this point and say, do you think I did something wrong?
ANDERSON: I don’t recall ever saying that.
SCHECK: You are absolutely sure of that, huh?
ANDERSON: I can’t recall the specifics of that conversation, but I don’t think that was said.
SCHECK: All right. And you were upset with Mr. Bradley at that time?
ANDERSON: I don’t know that I have ever been upset with Mr. Bradley over this.
            …
SCHECK: Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. Are you sure that you had no conversations during this period with Mr. Bradley where he said things to you like, Ken, you are in denial about this. You have got to take this seriously and — anything like that?
ANDERSON: I don’t recall anything even remotely like that.

county@wilcosun.com