TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:Sorry you're right I should of said convicted of because every other charge was dropped.

I'm going to file that under More evidence of why people don't trust the "system"

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

That resulted in a man losing 25 years of his life. Saying it was "only contempt of court" is extremely offensive.

Not when that's all he was charged with. He wasn't charged with withholding evidence or false prosecution or wrongful conviction, he was charged with contempt.

"The former Williamson County district attorney was charged with tampering with and withholding evidence in the murder trial of Mr Morton in 1987. Mr Morton spent a quarter of a century in jail before he was exonerated over the murder of his wife by DNA evidence."

It would still be offensive even if that was all he was charged with but it wasn't according to the article.

Only a fellow attorney or other player from within the system would think it is not offensive.

Sorry you're right I should of said convicted of because every other charge was dropped.

Probably by plea bargain agreed to by other sharks in the system. I find it interesting you seem to refuse to acknowledge the travesty of justice in this case. Would you be so nonchalant about it if someone stole 25 years of your life just to get another conviction notch on your belt?

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

That resulted in a man losing 25 years of his life. Saying it was "only contempt of court" is extremely offensive.

Not when that's all he was charged with. He wasn't charged with withholding evidence or false prosecution or wrongful conviction, he was charged with contempt.

"The former Williamson County district attorney was charged with tampering with and withholding evidence in the murder trial of Mr Morton in 1987. Mr Morton spent a quarter of a century in jail before he was exonerated over the murder of his wife by DNA evidence."

It would still be offensive even if that was all he was charged with but it wasn't according to the article.

Only a fellow attorney or other player from within the system would think it is not offensive.

Sorry you're right I should of said convicted of because every other charge was dropped.

Probably by plea bargain agreed to by other sharks in the system. I find it interesting you seem to refuse to acknowledge the travesty of justice in this case. Would you be so nonchalant about it if someone stole 25 years of your life just to get another conviction notch on your belt?

You are just plain reading something into my statements that are not there. You want to know why that was the only charge that stuck? Not because they took it easy on a former colleague. It was because the other charges would be almost impossible for them to prove. Unfortunately they couldn't make the other charges stick and that's a shame but then again how nonchalant would you be if people were hollering for your blood over charges that can not be proven? They got him on what they could show he did which was contempt of court. For that, not something they can't prove, as far as I know 10 days seems reasonable.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Probably by plea bargain agreed to by other sharks in the system. I find it interesting you seem to refuse to acknowledge the travesty of justice in this case. Would you be so nonchalant about it if someone stole 25 years of your life just to get another conviction notch on your belt?

You are just plain reading something into my statements that are not there. You want to know why that was the only charge that stuck? Not because they took it easy on a former colleague. It was because the other charges would be almost impossible for them to prove. Unfortunately they couldn't make the other charges stick and that's a shame but then again how nonchalant would you be if people were hollering for your blood over charges that can not be proven? They got him on what they could show he did which was contempt of court. For that, not something they can't prove, as far as I know 10 days seems reasonable.

Obviously the charge was plea bargained. I doubt it was entirely because "contempt" was the only charge they could prove. If that was the case, the defendant probably wouldn't have agreed to being disbarred...a very unusual outcome for a mere contempt charge, which indicates he wanted to avoid the other possible charges very badly. The other charges could opened the door for him to face federal charges for civil rights violations as well as the other state charges. I think he got a "sweetheart" deal, because at this stage of his life, losing his license to practice law is not going to be as severe a punishment as it would have been earlier in his career.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

That resulted in a man losing 25 years of his life. Saying it was "only contempt of court" is extremely offensive.

Not when that's all he was charged with. He wasn't charged with withholding evidence or false prosecution or wrongful conviction, he was charged with contempt.

That's because there is no crime for withholding evidence, or wrongful conviction or false prosecution, as far as I know. It is a violation of rules of court, duty of a lawyer etc. but not a penal matter.

Prosecutors are obliged to turn over to the defense all the evidence they possess, especially that which might exonerate a defendant. This is only right, since the State has the investigative resources to find all this, and defendants other than OJ rarely do. Look what happens when they do!

Police officers sometimes "improve their lie" as golfers put it, in order to get the dirtball they know is guilty, and prosecutors sometimes do as well. Sometimes a co-defendant is promised certain benefits to stretch the truth against another defendant judged even more culpable. This occurred in San Diego a few years ago when the DA allowed a defendant in custody who was a witness in another gang case to enjoy unsupervised visits from his girlfriend in the DA's offices. A couple of FBI agents in Boston made up a story to get someone they wanted. It happens.

"Only contempt of court" is not a trivial thing, as you will discover should you commit one. It's not a crime and certainly not a capital offense.

I have had experience with this person, I am so glad he had finally been found guilty of something, anything. Now, maybe, Williamson county will realize he isn't the god he would like to be seen as.

I suppose/hope even maybe there is a possibility that many of his previous cases will have to be looked at again?

SewTexas wrote:I have had experience with this person, I am so glad he had finally been found guilty of something, anything. Now, maybe, Williamson county will realize he isn't the god he would like to be seen as.

I suppose/hope even maybe there is a possibility that many of his previous cases will have to be looked at again?

I read that the prior cases will be reviewed, audited, to see if they are similarly infected.

This is entirely proper, as the system of justice is not perfect. We have the disquieting and disturbing episodes of innocent people being released all too often, after years of incarceration, now it being proved beyond all doubt that they were innocent, by DNA etc To realize that in some few cases the convictions were the result of deliberate fabrication or falsification or hiding of probative evidence is grossly unacceptable. It's bad enough for prosecutors to get it wrong in all good faith. After all, they often don't KNOW what happened other than what is before them as evidence. But when they do know and get convictions anyway, that's unacceptable.

I think my problem with him, is that alot of my bubbles were bursting, but I still believed in our justice system....Williamson County was suppose to be one of the best back in the mid-90's. Well....he burst that bubble, too, in a rather horrible way.

Guess that's why I'm so cynical now. well, one of the reasons anyway.

SewTexas wrote:I think my problem with him, is that alot of my bubbles were bursting, but I still believed in our justice system....Williamson County was suppose to be one of the best back in the mid-90's. Well....he burst that bubble, too, in a rather horrible way.

Guess that's why I'm so cynical now. well, one of the reasons anyway.

It is hard to restore confidence once savaged in such a fashion. That's how I felt for a long time after those crooks in San Diego were uncovered and booted. One of them had a daughter who went to school with my sons. I feel that way over a law school classmate who stole $130,000 from his clients, and another fellow years ago who did the same Those guys at least went to jail for a good long time.

Anyway, it is constant effort, constant vigilance to keep and maintain the kind of justice system we want. Accept nothing less. Write your legislators if you are of a mind to do so, telling them how you feel and what ought to be done.

DAs are elected. When one gets too big for his or her britches, vote 'em out. That gal in Travis County needs that right now. The people have to say certain conduct is unacceptable in an elected officials, and that's that.

Of course, we have the example of one Alcee Hastings, a fellow who joined the very few who have been impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate and removed from the Federal Bench, for taking a bribe, for crying out loud. He has served in Congress now for 11 or 12 terms, apparently on the theory that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The people keep electing him.

talltex wrote:Obviously the charge was plea bargained. I doubt it was entirely because "contempt" was the only charge they could prove. If that was the case, the defendant probably wouldn't have agreed to being disbarred...a very unusual outcome for a mere contempt charge, which indicates he wanted to avoid the other possible charges very badly. The other charges could opened the door for him to face federal charges for civil rights violations as well as the other state charges. I think he got a "sweetheart" deal, because at this stage of his life, losing his license to practice law is not going to be as severe a punishment as it would have been earlier in his career.

It sounds like the common people have very good reason not to trust the system.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Orwell

JALLEN wrote: That's because there is no crime for withholding evidence, or wrongful conviction or false prosecution, as far as I know. It is a violation of rules of court, duty of a lawyer etc. but not a penal matter.

Prosecutors are obliged to turn over to the defense all the evidence they possess, especially that which might exonerate a defendant.

Wouldn't the DA's intentionally withholding evidence, that might have exonerated the defendant, be an "obstruction of justice" ? And is that not a chargable offense?

The system is corrupt to the core. The surprise here isn't that his punishment was lite, but that he is one of the corrupt prosecutors that are so very rarely punished at all.

talltex wrote:

JALLEN wrote: That's because there is no crime for withholding evidence, or wrongful conviction or false prosecution, as far as I know. It is a violation of rules of court, duty of a lawyer etc. but not a penal matter.

Prosecutors are obliged to turn over to the defense all the evidence they possess, especially that which might exonerate a defendant.

Wouldn't the DA's intentionally withholding evidence, that might have exonerated the defendant, be an "obstruction of justice" ? And is that not a chargable offense?

That's about how I feel about it. Dunno what the law actually says.

Another thing that I noticed was that Mr. Anderson doesn't have to turn himself in until December 2th.
That way he can spend Thanksgiving with his family, while Mr. Morton missed the last 25 years with his.

yep, they purposefully set it up so that he doesn't miss any of the holidays.