Continuing to hold prosecutors accountable
By the time the dust settles the case of Michael Morton may end up being one of the most significant in the history of Texas Criminal justice. On it's face, Morton's case does not appear to that much different from the scores of other exonerations over the last few years. What is different is the focus on how he got convicted in the first place - which was due mostly to prosecutorial misconduct. That involved not only withholding evidence at the first trial, but also fighting efforts to secure DNA testing.
The most recent development is the order granting a court of inquiry to look into the activities of the former District Attorney - Ken Anderson - who is now a sitting District judge. A court of inquiry is an unusual proceeding, which is aimed at investigating misconduct. They are seldom used, and I can't remember a situation where it has been used to investigate a prosecutor's actions in handling a criminal case. Instead, in the past prosecutors have essentially been granted a free pass, no matter how egregious the conduct.
I've written before about the lack of any meaningful sanctions for misconduct. If a defendant is lucky he might get a new trial, but that was not even a given. Prosecutors were rarely criticized, and if they were, nothing was done. The result was the creation of a culture of invincibility; they could do anything, and no one would question them. I'm hopeful that is starting to change, and this is one more more instance that gives me hope.
I don't know whether prosecutors are starting to take their duty to deal fairly with defendants more seriously; I can't imagine they aren't following these cases. Surely if a sitting judge can be called to task that would suggest no one is immune. We still have to see what the outcome is, but I think the message is clear. The attitude of obtaining a conviction at all costs is not without risks and that can only be a good thing.
