Williamson County DA dragged kicking and screaming toward justice

John Bradley did his best to keep Michael Morton locked up behind bars. Even while presiding over the (emasculated) Texas Forensic Science Commission, the Williamson County District Attorney fought efforts by Mr. Morton's attorneys to conduct DNA testing on evidence introduced during in 1987 trial. Mr. Morton was charged with and convicted for the murder of his wife.

But it was all to no avail.

Mr. Morton is a free man once again, having been freed from the state penitentiary after Travis County prosecutors linked evidence found at the scene of the Morton murder with evidence found at another murder. That's right. Not Williamson County prosecutors. Prosecutors from down I-35.

There are also allegations that Williamson County prosecutors withheld evidence that might have exonerated Mr. Morton at trial. Apparently no one in the office thought they needed to turn over evidence that one of Ms. Morton's credit cards was used in San Antonio two days after her death or that someone cashed a check by forging her signature nine days after she was murdered.

Details. Details. Details. I mean, you can't possibly expect prosecutors to tie up every last loose end can you? We need to move these cases along. We need closure, dammit!

Bexar County Judge Sid Harle offered Mr. Morton his apologies after setting him free.

"You do have my sympathies," Harle said. "We don’t have a perfect system of justice, but we do have the best system in the world."

Unless you're behind bars for over two decades for a crime you didn't commit, I suppose.

Of course Mr. Bradley sought to deflect criticism for his role in keeping an innocent man behind bars. We all know that Mr. Bradley is very interested in seeing that justice is done. Just take a look at his record while turning the forensic science commission into a coffee klatch.

According to a story in the Texas Tribune, Mr. Bradley was wrapping himself in the flag and acting the part of the hero after Mr. Morton's release.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said that the new developments - which he said were a lightning bolt type of discovery - warranted a reversal of Morton's murder conviction. 

"It is my just, as district attorney, to make sure that justice is done," Bradley said after the court action today.

Well, I guess it's too late to worry about whether justice was served when Cameron Willingham was murdered by the state of Texas for a crime he didn't commit. After all, he was already dead, what good is justice when you're six feet under?

Mr. Bradley has some nerve to characterize the evidence the way he did after he fought tooth-and-nail for six years to prevent DNA testing. Where was his desire to see justice done then?

Tragedies such as Mr. Morton's are what happen when we worship at the altar of finality rather than justice.

Morton Findings

See also:

"Free! But damn! 25 years," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 4, 2011)

"Belated justice in Williamson County for innocent man delayed for years by DA opposition to DNA testing," Grits for Breakfast (Oct. 3, 2011)

"Morton to be freed from prison today," Austin American-Statesman (Oct. 3, 2011)

"John Bradley called too biased to fairly evaluate DNA innocence claim," Grits for Breakfast (Aug. 17, 2011)

Hear the one about the guy who thought he was innocent unless proven guilty?

Innocent unless proven guilty? Really?

Try telling that to Jose Torres. Mr. Torres was charged with aggravated sexual assault. It was alleged that he visited a house as a sales rep for a cable company and then went back two days later and raped a 14-year-old. The only problem was, he didn't do it.

The results of a DNA test confirmed that Mr. Torres was innocent.

But not until he had served two months in jail. No before he lost two jobs and his apartment.

Mr. Torres had never been arrested. He had a clean record. Like most folks, he just assumed that "the system" worked fairly well and he never worried about being falsely accused of a crime. No one does. That just doesn't happen to good people.

But it does happen. Our criminal (in)justice system sits logic on its head. Once you're arrested you ain't innocent unless proven guilty. No, you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Let's slap a high bond on you so that you can't fight your case from the outside. Let's put pressure on you to accept a deal for a crime you never committed. After all, how could the state and its allies, the black-robed prosecutors, possibly be wrong?

Mr. Torres is very fortunate. He is fortunate he is free and his case was dismissed. He is fortunate to have had  my colleague, Juan Guerra, as his attorney. He is fortunate that DNA tests were run. He is fortunate he didn't have to live the nightmare of so many other exonerees who stood and listened to juries pronounce them guilty and who sat in prison for years until someone took up their fight.

Once upon a time the grand jury system was devised as a way of protecting the reputations of those accused of crime unless there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Nowadays the grand jury is nothing more than a de facto division of the DA's Office who takes its marching orders from the prosecutor presenting the case.

You could argue that in this case "the system" worked as it should. Just don't try telling that to Mr. Torres.

Book Review: False Justice

Jim Petro is a rock-ribbed Republican who is a former Attorney General of Ohio. He is the most unlikely person to get involved in the innocence movement -- but involved he is. In his book False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent, Mr. Petro takes us on a journey that shows how innocent folks find themselves in prison and the struggle to exonerate them.

The eight myths to which Mr. Petro refers are:

1. Everyone in prison claims innocence
2. Our system almost never convicts an innocent person
3. Only guilty people confess
4. Wrongful convictions are the result of innocent human error
5. An eyewitness is the best evidence
6. Conviction errors get corrected on appeal
7. It dishonors the victim to question a conviction
8. If the justice system has problems, the pros will fix them

Mr. Petro spends a good deal of ink discussing the problems with eyewitness testimony. He points out that 25% of rape suspects are cleared when their DNA is tested against crime scene DNA prior to being indicted. He notes that 30% of witnesses choose one of the "fillers" in lineups.

In Manson v. Braithwaite, the US Supreme Court held that even if eyewitness identification process is unduly suggestive, the testimony will be heard if it meets a five point "reliability" test. Those five points are:

1. The witness' opportunity to view the suspect at the time of the alleged crime,
2. The witness' degree of attention,
3. The accuracy of the witness' prior description of the suspect,
4. The witness' level of certainty at the time of identification, and
5. The time between the alleged crime and the identification.

Ironically enough, research has indicated that the level of the witness' certainty at the time of the identification bears no relationship to the accuracy of the identification.

Another myth that deserves being addressed is this notion that somehow questioning the legitimacy of a conviction dishonors the victims of the crime. As Mr. Petro points out, if the person convicted of the crime is, indeed, innocent, that means the real perpetrator is still on the loose. A false conviction means that an innocent man suffers, a criminal walks free and other people may have been victimized.

Of course, because the book is also an autobiography, we are subjected to Mr. Petro's political exploits in stunning detail. But, I suppose, anytime the theme of your discourse is taking the other fork in the road, you have to set yourself for the great conversion. Just read the first half of The Autobiography of Malcolm X and you'll see what I mean. It is, however, just a minor quibble, because, no matter how Mr. Petro arrived at that fork in the road, he clearly took the right path.

As a postscript to the book, in December 2010, Dean Gillispie was once again denied a new trial.

Adding insult to injury

It's not enough that the State of Texas took 18 years away from Anthony Graves for a crime he didn't commit. Now Susan Combs, the state comptroller, has decided Texas will not reimburse Mr. Graves for the years he spent behind bars.

The state calculated that 18 years of Mr. Graves' life was worth about $1.4 million. But then Ms. Combs decided that because the order releasing Mr. Graves didn't state that he was innocent that he wasn't entitled to one red cent.

If you'll recall, Mr. Graves was convicted of capital murder in 1994 but that conviction was overturned by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 on the grounds that the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory material to the defense and relied on perjured testimony. The state was prepared to retry Mr. Graves in 2010 but the charges were dismissed in October and Mr. Graves was ordered released.

The man responsible for robbing Mr. Graves of his liberty, Charles Sebesta, is still practicing law with very little chance the State Bar will ever disturb him.

The irony is that the current District Attorney for Burleson and Washington Counties, Bill Parham, acknowledged Mr. Graves' innocence when he and Kelly Siegler stood around soaking up praise for (finally) doing the right thing. Apparently that's not enough for Ms. Combs.

Mr. Graves can't go to Governor Goodhair for a pardon because he would have to admit he was guilty -- which we all know he isn't.

So, Bill and Kelly, if you really want to deserve the unearned praise you received, now's the time to do the right thing and petition for Mr. Graves to be compensated for the years he lost.