4 ms·

>He failed to disclose exculpatory evidence His failure notwithstanding, is there some reason why the defense didn't call the son to testify as a witness in co

>He failed to disclose exculpatory evidence His failure notwithstanding, is there some reason why the defense didn't call the son to testify as a witness in court? Not trying to defend Anderson, but genuinely curious. Also, I think this thread seems to be overly focused on eye-for-an-eye justice and laying the blame solely on the prosecutor (e.g. comments that he should be personally liable for compensation), but it seems to me that the entire justice system failed Morton, not just this one transgression. Morton received a lump sum for every year served, a lifetime annuity of $80k, job training, and educational aid. Nothing in the world is going to give him those 25 years back, including bankrupting or imprisoning the prosecutor, but at least he was compensated in some way. However, I will admit I was fairly disgusted by Anderson's plea bargain, not just because he deserved a harsher punishment but because it's not exactly a strong deterrent to prevent this sort of thing in the future (though perhaps the Michael Morton Act may help in that regard).

balabaster 11y ago
It's not an eye for an eye, it is holding the prosecutor accountable for his bad behavior and making him make it right. Making him do time doesn't make it right [besides the fact that the amount of time he was made to do was a slap in the face to the victim]... that's revenge or eye-for-an-eye punishment. It doesn't help the victim recover his life in any way shape or form. All it does is avenge what was lost - at the taxpayer's cost. Not the cost of the guilty party. I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm murdered, avenging my death isn't going to help my family. I wouldn't want him to see a day of jail time. Make my murderer go to the lengths I do to take care of my family every single day for the rest of his life, just as I would have had I not been murdered. This man lost 25 years of his life. The judge guilty of that should be responsible for fixing that. The system may be partially to blame here, but you cannot tell me that a man smart enough to be a public prosecutor couldn't discern that he was exploiting the weaknesses of that system for his own gain without regard for the human cost to this man and his family - and his wife's family? If you do something bad that fucks up someone's life, it should be on you to help fix that as best it can be fixed. This isn't an eye for an eye, this is doing what's right. Make him fix it.
- harryh 11y ago
  Just as companies are responsible for the conduct of their employees, the state is responsible for the conduct of government officials. It's the responsibility of the state to fix things as best it can be fixed.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    Just because 'that is the way things are done' doesn't make it right. You (the hypothetical you, not the real you) are responsible for your own actions. The company doesn't control how you act, you do. It's fair enough that the company is held accountable, but you should be equally held accountable for willful negligence, gross misconduct, unprofessional conduct etc. etc. That's on you. Just because this prosecutor is a Government official, doesn't immediately remove his culpability, nor his accountability. He was wilfully negligent and ruined an innocent man's life. The Government didn't do that, he did that. It should be on him to fix it. He should be held accountable to the extent of his means to make it right. If it is beyond his means to make it right, it should then fall to the Government to provide the shortfall.
    - harryh 11y ago
      There is ample psychological research that people essentially surrender there sense of self when acting as part of a larger organization. The incentives and pressures imposed by the organization are generally far more relevant to behavior than any individual motives. Think about this individual case. Did Ken Anderson end up in this prison because the prosecutor was personally out to get him? I don't think so. I think he ended up in prison because of a system that is "tough on crime" and is designed to heavily incentivize high conviction rates sometimes to the extent that it produces wrongful convictions.
      - balabaster 11y ago
        If you are "incentivized" to do something you otherwise wouldn't by an undercover cop, you're still considered guilty of the crime, and doubly so because you were caught red handed in the act, unless of course you can prove entrapment, which is extremely difficult ... when you are doing something wrong, and you know it, even if you are being pressured by those above you to do that, you still know it's wrong. This is why we have whistleblower protection and this is also why soldiers can be court-marshalled for following orders that they know to be illegal. Did he convict an innocent man due to his own wrongdoing and did he knowingly withhold evidence? Clearly. Did he prove that he was coerced into this behavior in some way, thus proving entrapment and absolving himself of any guilt in this matter? If he had, it's doubtful he would've been fined and sentenced to jail time and community service, ergo, I'd say he did not. So he did something wrong, he did so knowingly, even if he had "surrendered his sense of self" to the institution, he is still guilty of wrongdoing that destroyed another mans life - by the very same argument that the entrapped would have to prove that the entrapment led him to behave this way. What's the difference?
notahacker 11y ago
> His failure notwithstanding, is there some reason why the defense didn't call the son to testify as a witness in court? Not trying to defend Anderson, but genuinely curious. He pleaded guilty, so it presumably wasn't an option. I doubt he had much contact with his son whilst under arrest on suspicion of murder so probably didn't know what his son had seen when making the plea, and three year old's memories fade pretty quickly (the son apparently had no recollection of the incident whatsoever later in life and grew up believing the father was guilty and not having the slightest interest in the appeal process). Even if the son had been able to testify at the time I suspect most judges would advise the jury not to take a denial that Daddy was there from an infant at face value. Here's the reported confused remarks made by the three-year old: enough to change a wrongly accused man's mind about how to plead perhaps, but far from admissible testimony http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/08/son-seeks-answers-his-fathers-wrongful-conviction/ http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/08/son-seeks-answers-his...

balabaster 11y ago

It's not an eye for an eye, it is holding the prosecutor accountable for his bad behavior and making him make it right. Making him do time doesn't make it right [besides the fact that the amount of time he was made to do was a slap in the face to the victim]... that's revenge or eye-for-an-eye punishment. It doesn't help the victim recover his life in any way shape or form. All it does is avenge what was lost - at the taxpayer's cost. Not the cost of the guilty party. I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm murdered, avenging my death isn't going to help my family. I wouldn't want him to see a day of jail time. Make my murderer go to the lengths I do to take care of my family every single day for the rest of his life, just as I would have had I not been murdered. This man lost 25 years of his life. The judge guilty of that should be responsible for fixing that. The system may be partially to blame here, but you cannot tell me that a man smart enough to be a public prosecutor couldn't discern that he was exploiting the weaknesses of that system for his own gain without regard for the human cost to this man and his family - and his wife's family? If you do something bad that fucks up someone's life, it should be on you to help fix that as best it can be fixed. This isn't an eye for an eye, this is doing what's right. Make him fix it.

harryh 11y ago
Just as companies are responsible for the conduct of their employees, the state is responsible for the conduct of government officials. It's the responsibility of the state to fix things as best it can be fixed.
- balabaster 11y ago
  Just because 'that is the way things are done' doesn't make it right. You (the hypothetical you, not the real you) are responsible for your own actions. The company doesn't control how you act, you do. It's fair enough that the company is held accountable, but you should be equally held accountable for willful negligence, gross misconduct, unprofessional conduct etc. etc. That's on you. Just because this prosecutor is a Government official, doesn't immediately remove his culpability, nor his accountability. He was wilfully negligent and ruined an innocent man's life. The Government didn't do that, he did that. It should be on him to fix it. He should be held accountable to the extent of his means to make it right. If it is beyond his means to make it right, it should then fall to the Government to provide the shortfall.
  - harryh 11y ago
    There is ample psychological research that people essentially surrender there sense of self when acting as part of a larger organization. The incentives and pressures imposed by the organization are generally far more relevant to behavior than any individual motives. Think about this individual case. Did Ken Anderson end up in this prison because the prosecutor was personally out to get him? I don't think so. I think he ended up in prison because of a system that is "tough on crime" and is designed to heavily incentivize high conviction rates sometimes to the extent that it produces wrongful convictions.
    - balabaster 11y ago
      If you are "incentivized" to do something you otherwise wouldn't by an undercover cop, you're still considered guilty of the crime, and doubly so because you were caught red handed in the act, unless of course you can prove entrapment, which is extremely difficult ... when you are doing something wrong, and you know it, even if you are being pressured by those above you to do that, you still know it's wrong. This is why we have whistleblower protection and this is also why soldiers can be court-marshalled for following orders that they know to be illegal. Did he convict an innocent man due to his own wrongdoing and did he knowingly withhold evidence? Clearly. Did he prove that he was coerced into this behavior in some way, thus proving entrapment and absolving himself of any guilt in this matter? If he had, it's doubtful he would've been fined and sentenced to jail time and community service, ergo, I'd say he did not. So he did something wrong, he did so knowingly, even if he had "surrendered his sense of self" to the institution, he is still guilty of wrongdoing that destroyed another mans life - by the very same argument that the entrapped would have to prove that the entrapment led him to behave this way. What's the difference?

notahacker 11y ago

> His failure notwithstanding, is there some reason why the defense didn't call the son to testify as a witness in court? Not trying to defend Anderson, but genuinely curious. He pleaded guilty, so it presumably wasn't an option. I doubt he had much contact with his son whilst under arrest on suspicion of murder so probably didn't know what his son had seen when making the plea, and three year old's memories fade pretty quickly (the son apparently had no recollection of the incident whatsoever later in life and grew up believing the father was guilty and not having the slightest interest in the appeal process). Even if the son had been able to testify at the time I suspect most judges would advise the jury not to take a denial that Daddy was there from an infant at face value. Here's the reported confused remarks made by the three-year old: enough to change a wrongly accused man's mind about how to plead perhaps, but far from admissible testimony http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/08/son-seeks-answers-his-fathers-wrongful-conviction/ http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/08/son-seeks-answers-his...