Justice: It Should Happen More Often
For the first time ever, Mark Godsey of The Innocence Project writes at HuffPo, a prosecutor will go to jail for wrongfully convicting an innocent man:
Today in Texas, former prosecutor and judge Ken Anderson pled guilty to intentionally failing to disclose evidence in a case that sent an innocent man, Michael Morton, to prison for the murder of his wife. When trying the case as a prosecutor, Anderson possessed evidence that may have cleared Morton, including statements from the crime's only eyewitness that Morton wasn't the culprit. Anderson sat on this evidence, and then watched Morton get convicted. While Morton remained in prison for the next 25 years, Anderson's career flourished, and he eventually became a judge.In today's deal, Anderson pled to criminal contempt, and will have to give up his law license, perform 500 hours of community service, and spend 10 days in jail. Anderson had already resigned in September from his position on the Texas bench.
What makes today's plea newsworthy is not that Anderson engaged in misconduct that sent an innocent man to prison. Indeed, while most prosecutors and police officers are ethical and take their constitutional obligations seriously, government misconduct--including disclosure breaches known as Brady violations--occurs so frequently that it has become one of the chief causes of wrongful conviction.
What's newsworthy and novel about today's plea is that a prosecutor was actually punished in a meaningful way for his transgressions.
The problem:
Rogue cops and prosecutors going unpunished is the rule rather than the exception. In Illinois, two police officers whose improperly grueling interrogation techniques led to the wrongful conviction of Juan Rivera and others were not penalized when their 3rd degree tactics came to light. Rather, they were recently hired at taxpayer expense to teach interrogation courses to other police officers around the state.
What's newsworthy and novel about today's plea is that a prosecutor was actually punished in a meaningful way for his transgressions.
10 days in jail after making a flourishing career for 25 years ruining someones life is meaningful punishment? Hell, even that guy Rajat Gupta got punished more than that. He at least has to pay $5.5 mn(or some figure in that range) to the attorneys of Goldman Sachs, plus a few other millions to other undeserving bums. Wonder what he will have left with him after that. The punishment Bernie Maddoff got - now that is meaningful punishment. If this prosecutor turned judge has to turn over all his property to this guy or compensate this guy for his lost earnings from his personally earned(or ill earned) money, and spend at least 10 years in prison, I'll consider that as meaningful punishment. But hey, 10 days in prison is a start
Redrajesh at November 9, 2013 1:45 AM
Redrajesh is right - this isn't "meaningful" - 10 days in prison. Ha! That's a joke, right?
However, this - "intentionally failing to disclose evidence" - is very meaningful. It isn't about justice or what is right or wrong. It is all about winning the case, at any cost, that matters to too many lawyers, prosecutors, law officers, etc. The truth be damned if it gets in the way of their career.
I do hope that, in addition to losing his law license, he loses his judge's pension - now, that would be meaningful since his career was (partly) built on a lie.
Charles at November 9, 2013 6:34 AM
I agree with Red -- 10 days is a joke compared to the 9500+ days for the victim.
I did see this on a major news channel. Apparently the 10 days is the limit because of the statute of limitations involved. Another portion of the plea agreement is that the his former office will review every single case that he was involved in over his career.
I hope there is a civil lawsuit that will occur as well.
Jim P. at November 9, 2013 7:04 AM
Agree with Radra.
As this man was supposed to be an interpreter of the nations laws, and therefore all that was ethical, his punishment should be that much more severe.
The time the innocent man served, while a factor, is not really the issue. The issue is that he was sent to jail for a crime he didn't commit, on the basis of actions committed by this "pillar" of the legal community.
Nothing done now will ever make up for a lifetime spent in prison, but I think all this prosecutor's assets should be transferred to the victim, as in house, car, bank account, investments, pension, everything. I don't think a statute of limitations should apply in this case. I also think this prosecutor should be made to pay for the court's costs of reopening all cases through hard labor, and be made to spend the next 25 years doing so. An eye for an eye, in this case, is very fitting, and I don't think a 25 year prison sentence is unreasonable.
wtf at November 9, 2013 8:41 AM
I don't know where to begin.
If you fail to disclose evidence, you should be required to serve the same sentence as those you ensured were wrongfully convicted, AND lose all property and assets you held up until the convicted are exonerated.
AND serve the same sentence as the actual criminal (if known) for any crimes that were committed by them after the crime for which the innocent man was convicted.
What baffles me here is that there was a witness who said 'he didn't do it, I saw it', and the goddamn defense never heard about it.
Holy shit.
Robert at November 9, 2013 12:49 PM
Leave a comment