Limitations, Really?? Ken Anderson Appeals Court of Inquiry's Contempt of Court Finding in Michael Morton Prosecutorial Misconduct Case

Alfred Hitchcock made movies about this:  the innocent man caught up in the system, no one believing his innocence.  John Grisham has made millions with the same scenario.

However, for Michael Morton it was the real thing: not only did Mr. Morton endure the murder of his young wife, the mother of his young son: he was arrested, charged, and convicted of that homicide by the State of Texas.

While his son became a man, Morton sat in a cell having been found guilty of the horrific beating death of his wife with a stick of wood.  No one believed his story that a stranger had killed her after Morton had left for work.  No one listened to the tiny boy explain that it wasn't his dad but a "monster" that hurt his mommy.

There's no air conditioning in Texas prisons, did you know that?  Think about spending 25 summers behind bars in a hot Texas summer where temperatures get well over 100 degrees: it's what Mr. Morton did until Houston civil trial lawyer John Railey almost single-handedly proved him to be an innocent man.

Now Michael Morton is free and dedicating his time to spreading the word about wrongful convictions and how easily these things can happen.

If there's not a movie being made of his story, then there should be.  Thing is, the story's not over.  

Enter the Black Hat.

Long ago, in that criminal courtroom where Morton heard the jury foreperson announce that "guilty" verdict, a man named Ken Anderson sat at the prosecution table.

Anderson went on to run for district judge, and served many years on the Williamson County bench overseeing trials of other citizens.  Until the Morton case came back to bite him.

Last week, Judge Louis Sturns - presiding over a special Court of Inquiry ordered by the Texas Supreme Court - issued his ruling in the case.  Judge Sturns found that Ken Anderson intentionally hid evidence during that murder trial long ago that would have kept Morton out of jail.

Judge Sturns found a prosecutor intentionally held back evidence and in doing so, allowed an innocent man to go to jail for the murder of his wife, presumably to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Clearly, Ken Anderson didn't lose much sleep over the decisions he made back then; he campaigned for higher office and he's fought against these charges of misconduct.  No admissions here, no chagrin, no remorse.

And if I felt any compassion for Judge Anderson, and it's pretty hard to find that right now, it just went out the window as I read today about his appeal of Judge Louis Sturn's ruling.

Get this.  Anderson is arguing that the Court of Inquiry has essentially been an albeit interesting waste of time because none of it matters.  Anderson's argument?  Time bar.

That's right:  Ken Anderson is arguing that he's immune from the contempt order (and its accompanying jail time) because the statute of limitations shields him from any punishment.

|  Read the Court of Inquiry ruling here.  |

This shocks me.  I understand being terrified of going to jail as a longstanding prosecutor, that's not only humiliating, it's also very dangerous.  I get it.  I get fighting against that possibility.

However, for someone who has served as prosecutor and district judge for all these many years, I expect some sense of honor and integrity and respect for the system.

Limitations?  Really?  

Consider by comparison the actions of Travis County's District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, 63, after she was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) earlier this month.

She wrote a letter to the County Attorney and "the Judge of any Court of Jurisdiction," stating in part (read the full letter here):

Please accept this as my Plea of Guilt to the Charge of Driving While Intoxicated, arising from my arrest on 4/12/13, for whatever level of offense is determined to be justified by the facts. 

I enter this unconditional Plea without request for delay, without legal argument by counsel, without any plea bargain, and without any request for leniency or consideration of any type.

I am guilty of DWI and of acting unreasonably and the fault is all my own. I am deeply sorry for my actions.  I apologize to the citizens of Travis County and specifically to the dedicated officers and employees who had to deal with my violation and any disrespectful conduct after my arrest.

Further, I agree to appear, without delay, to enter this plea and I accept whatever assessment of jail time is deemed appropriate by the sentencing Court.

In addition, I agree to waive any right to consideration of probation and waive any right of appeal of my guilt or my punishment, whatever it may be.

Austin's District Attorney did the right thing, in my opinion, and did so with dignity.  She has been sentenced to serve 45 days in the local hoosegow for driving drunk, and I expect she'll serve that term honorably, too.    Too bad that Ken Anderson isn't cut from the same cloth.

Casey Anthony Trial - Here is What the State Has To Do To Prove Its Case Under Florida Law

In the Casey Anthony trial, the prosecution must provide the jury with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes for which she was charged were indeed committed by defendant Casey Anthony.  I'm providing two helpful links here for those wanting to follow along with the trial as the state puts on its case.

What Casey Anthony Has Been Charged With - First Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

From a CNN article, I found a listing of the grand jury indictment's seven counts:  Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four (4) counts of providing false information to police.  First degree murder in Florida carries the possibility of the death penalty (see below).

(By the way, when I found this article I re-read something that I had forgot:  Casey was arrested after she switched cars under an overpass shortly after the indictment came down - wow.  Forgot all about that one.)

Florida Prosecutors Burden: What They Must Prove With Admitted Evidence To Win Their Case

The Florida Supreme Court's website includes the current jury instructions that are to be used in Florida criminal trials. From these instructions you can find each prong of the case, or element of the crime, that must be shown by the reasonable doubt standard.  Just surf through. 

• You can read the section under Homicide and get an idea of the prosecution's duty here, it's in somewhat of an outline format but easy enough for following along with the current proceedings. 
• Search the Florida Supreme Court's instructions to find First Degree Murder as well as Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: Florida Supreme Court - Jury Instructions. 

For First Degree Murder, for example, you will find:

"There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

"1. (Victim) is dead.  (State will have to put in evidence that Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.)

"2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). (State will have to put in evidence that Casey caused Caylee's death and this was by a criminal act.)

"3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim). (State will have to put in evidence that this was premeditated.)

"Definitions.

"An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing. "

What are jury instructions? 

Jury instructions take the actual statutes and place them into a format for the jury to use in their deliberations, as they assess the evidence presented to them.  There is a charge conference between the lawyers and the judge (at least that's what we do here in Texas), where the jury instructions are debated by the lawyers and after arguments, finalized by the judge.  The charge will include the instuctions as well as question like you hear on Law n Order all the time:  "how do you find" type of thing.

For example, here is the Florida statute for murder which can result in a life sentence or the death penalty which you can see dovetailed into the Jury Instructions for Homicide (above):

Florida Statutes 782.04

Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.

(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment. (emphasis added)

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
History.—s. 2, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2380; GS 3205; RGS 5035; s. 1, ch. 8470, 1921; CGL 7137; s. 1, ch. 28023, 1953; s. 712, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-724; s. 14, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 76-141; s. 290, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 82-4; s. 1, ch. 82-69; s. 1, ch. 84-16; s. 6, ch. 87-243; ss. 2, 4, ch. 89-281; s. 4, ch. 90-112; s. 3, ch. 93-212; s. 11, ch. 95-195; s. 18, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 98-417; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 16, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-236; s. 2, ch. 2001-357; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 12, ch. 2005-128; s. 1, ch. 2010-121.

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Indicted for Bribery - But Is She the Evildoer Here? Do We Have A Witch Hunt?

It's always nice when the gray clears into black and white, and we find ourselves with a clear case of right and wrong.  And that looks to be exactly what's happening up in the Dallas metroplex. 

Specifically, in a North Dallas suburb and Republican stronghold (last Democratic Presidential candidate to carry the county was LBJ in 1964), where a district judge and the local district attorney are squaring off like a Wild West gunfight at High Noon.

Judge Suzanne Wooten v. DA John Roach

Officially, we're talking  Collin County, Texas -- McKinney is the county seat, if you've been there -- and the big story revolves around State District Judge Suzanne Wooten who was suspended with pay this Monday after being indicted by a grand jury last week on 6 counts of bribery along with 1 count of organized criminal activity. 

You read that right:  a Texas judge has been indicted on 7 felony counts -- of import, the single organized crime count alone carries a life sentence. 

Along with Judge Wooten, facing the same charges are two of her backers, David and Stacy Cary, along with her campaign manager, James Stephen Spencer. 

Is this a Political Agenda or a Crusading District Attorney?  We're Gonna Find Out ....

Judge Suzanne Wooten claimed victory in 2008 over Charles Sandoval, who had presided over the 380th Judicial District Court for the past twelve years.  Wooten is a Republican and the first opponent that had challenged Sandoval in an election since 1996. 

A Republican won in a recognized Republican stronghold.  An officeholder loses the first time he's faced with an opponent.  No big news yet, right?

July 2010: Judge Wooten Seeks Special Prosecutor to Investigate Possible Criminal Wrongdoing by DA Roach

According to papers filed of record in July 2010 by Judge Wooten, the morning after Election Day Charles Sandoval was over at the office of John Roach, Collin County District Attorney, voicing his belief that Wooten had cheated to get elected. 

Two and a half years later, Wooten is filing papers alleging that Roach was trying to force her resignation, that he was "intimidating and harassing her," and that she was requesting the state Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to look into the goings-on in Collin County for possible criminal wrongdoing by the District Attorney's Office. 

October 2010:  DA Roach Gets Grand Jury Indictment Against Judge Wooten - Felony Charges

DA Roach's follow up has culminated in the October 2010 grand jury indictments that claim the Carys handed over $150,000 to Wooten's campaign manager via a series of payments (listed in the indictment) with the intent that Wooten would rule in their favor once she took the bench.  (No details on what cases, if any, the Carys had/have pending before the 380th.)

Someone is Doing Bad Things Here, Folks

Well, well, well.  Isn't this scenario fascinating?  First of all, I'm really interested to know what imminent danger the Carys were facing that needed alleged judicial sway worth $150,000 to them. 

After all, the general idea that political contributions of any size carry with them the hope that maybe the judge will be swayed when the time comes isn't big news.  Tell it to the plantiffs' bar as they contribute millions to political campaigns.  Tell it to any lobbyist. 

I want to know what was so special about the Carys' situation.  If they're just political benefactors without any specific case or claim that had the potential to come across the judge's bench, then these bribery charges are gonna start stinking with the big ugly smell of "trumped up." 

I'm not buying "organized criminal activity" here already -- alhtough I'm no criminal lawyer, that sounds like a charge that's gonna get dropped.  Please, this isn't the Mafia here.

Defense Bar Publicly Supports Judge Wooten With Standing Ovation

Meanwhile, I'm reading that a big bunch of defense attorneys strode en masse into Judge Wooten's courtroom bright and early Monday morning led by the president of the local Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association.  After their standing ovation, the association president stood to speak, telling Judge Wooten that she had their support and publicly voicing the attorneys' collective opinion that this is a "witch hunt."

Interesting.  Very interesting.  Because these folk work in this courtroom all day long, going against the prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office.  They know the skinny.  Their action here makes me think that Judge Wooten isn't the bad apple in this barrel. 

Commission Suspended Wooten With Pay

Another thing to consider:  the State Commission on Judicial Conduct DID suspend Judge Wooten this week.  But they did it with pay, which they didn't have to do.  I'm betting that they were forced to suspend her since she was indicted.  No option on their part to suspend, but they gave her as much of a break as they could.

Read Justice Sharon Keller's Response to the Judicial Commission

Justice Sharon Keller, through her Jackson, Walker lawyer, has filed a response to the claims pending against her at the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. You can read it here.

And, you can read some very good arguments regarding Justice Keller's written response (especially her request that the State of Texas pay for her attorneys' fees) here:

Houston attorney Mark Bennett's Defending People

The New York Times' blog The Lede

Why Not Blow Off Jury Duty?

I don't know about your jurisdiction, but here in San Antonio, it's really not smart to blow off jury duty. Just ask Liz Chavarria, who didn't show up for the first day of trial after she was picked as a juror for a criminal case.

Yep, everyone had to set around and wait on her that day: the judge, the clerks, the court reporter, the attorneys, the witnesses, the defendant, the bailiff, and the 11 jurors who did show up.

So, Judge Vasquez-Gardner ordered her to over 100 hours of community service - in the Central Jury Room, where everyone who's called for jury duty sits around, waiting to be called for a panel - but no fine, because the Judge figured that Liz's parent would end up paying it. Liz also has to write 14 letters of apology: one to each juror (including Liz's alternate, who replaced her) and one to each of the attorneys (prosecutor and defense counsel).

Me? Cool Judge, I particularly like the letters of apology, and Liz is lucky she didn't get jail time. Other judges here simply send out the Bexar County Sheriff to arrest those who fail to show up - they are in contempt of court - and let them spend some time in the local jail.

Now Here's An Innovative Judge - $1000000 for 1 month

Wow. Lou Pearlman, con artist of boy band fame (Backstreet Boys, 'NSync, O'Town), was sentenced today to 300 months incarceration - with the proviso from the Judge that one month would be knocked off the sentence for each $1,000,000 that Pearlman provided in restitution.

Since Pearlman was found to have looted $300 million from his victims, the Judge pointed out, this was conceivable a Get Out of Jail Free card.

I'm lovin' this Judge -- of course, Pearlman has to still HAVE the money for this to be anything more than cocktail party fodder.

For more info, including the sentencing statement and the judge's comments from the bench, go here.