For the past 24 years, a man named Michael Morton has sat in a Texas prison cell after being arrested, tried, and convicted of his wife Christine’s homicide. According to the Innocence Project, Mr. Morton was wrongfully convicted, he is innocent of murdering his wife, and the prosecution shouldn’t be trusted to do the right thing now because they are biased and have already hidden eyewitness evidence that would clear the man.

Innocence Project Loses Hearing Before Trial Court Judge

Williamson District Court Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield will allow District Attorney John Bradley to remain on convicted murderer Michael Morton’s case – even though the Innocence Project doesn’t believe that prosecutor Bradley can be trusted to give Mr. Morton a fair trial. The Innocence Project filed a lawsuit on this very issue over in Williamson County, asserting that DA John Bradley is biased in the case and should not be allowed to represent the State of Texas in a matter where new evidence has been found that may well prove that Michael Morton is innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted.

The Innocence Project contends that the prosecutor, who was also the former chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, is biased – arguing in a hearing before Judge Stubblefield earlier this week that Bradley is responsible for the calculated and intentional suppression of evidence that could clear Morton.

What’s the New Evidence That the Innocence Project Argues Clears Michael Morton?

It seems there is a bandanna which may free Mr. Morton. The Innocence Project argues that DNA evidence found on this bandanna exonerates Christine Morton’s husband as her killer.

The bandanna was found at the crime scene and it’s been setting in evidence for almost a quarter century. Today, scientists can distinquish between Christine Morton’s DNA – left with her hair, skin, blood, and sweat on the cloth, and that of another human’s DNA, which they believe to be her killer’s DNA.

The tests have already been done. The Texas Department of Public Safety has run these new DNA test results through the convicted-offender DNA database, which contains DNA data from across the country. It has already been confirmed that the DNA on that bandanna found at the crime scene does not match Mr. Morton: it’s a match for a man with a 3-state criminal record who has been arrested in California (and California authorities have double checked, confirming it’s their guy whose DNA is on that cloth found at the crime scene).

The Innocence Project wants to tie that new DNA evidence with a statement given by the Mortons’ young son Eric at the time of their investigation. Seems the 3 1/2 year old boy witnessed the murder and said his daddy was not home at the time of his mother’s death; instead, a “monster” was there, “hitting mommy.”

It’s a Matter of the Prosecution Concealing Evidence – Again.

The Innocence Project wanted John Bradley off the case and a Special Prosecutor appointed because they consider him biased then and now. They contend he cannot be fair in the Morton case because the son’s statement was not provided to the defense during the trial – that’s right, it was concealed from defense attorneys — and because Bradley has tried to thwart the DNA testing of the bandanna.

However, since John Bradley wasn’t the lead prosecutor on the case back then, it seems that the trial judge is going to let him stay on the case. The Innocence Project lost that battle this week.

One can only hope that the Innocence Project wins the war of getting this innocent man exonerated – and soon.

On the job 26 years and one day, it’s all over. Seems that Jim Kopp, who had been an assistant district attorney down in the Bexar County District Attorney’s office (serving the San Antonio area) since 1985, quit a couple of weeks ago after he spent some time in the Bandera County Jail, not as a prosecutor but as a criminal.

Mr. Kopp was busted by a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Game Warden while he was boating with pals out on Medina Lake. The Game Warden told the media that he pulled over Kopp’s boat to do a routine water safety check – but after he started his safety check, he noticed that Jim Kopp was acting, well, drunk. Bad sign: there were empty beer cans in the boat.

So, the Game Warden did some field sobriety tests and lo and behold, the Ass’t D.A. is being escorted back to the Hoosegow and charged with the Class B misdemeanor of boating with intoxicated.

After spending time in the local jail, the veteran prosecutor bonded out and then went to work back in San Antonio where promptly turned in his resignation.

Who knows what Jim Kopp is going to do now — but he’s left a job that he started back when Ronald Reagan was president; Madonna started her first concert tour; and Coca-Cola introduced “New Coke.”

That’s a long time to be working in the same office and now, in the span of 48 hours and some brewskis, it’s all over.

Oh, and by the way, back in 1985 according to InformationPlease:

US GDP (1998 dollars): $4,180.70 billion
Federal spending: $946.39 billion
Federal debt: $1817.5 billion
Median Household Income (current dollars): $23,618
Consumer Price Index: 107.6
Unemployment: 7.2%
Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.20 ($0.22 as of 2/17/1985)

Interesting to think that Jim Kopp was not only a former chief of criminal trials for the San Antonio District Attorney; at the time of his resignation, Kopp was in charge of putting together databases for the DWI Task Force.

The big news this month down in Alice, Texas (which lies between San Antonio and Corpus Christi, if you’re wondering) is not that former Brooks County and Jim Wells County district attorney Joe Frank Garza has made a deal with prosecutors rather than face trial on a number of felony charges. No, the big news is that Mr. Garza will be returning $2,160,000.00 he took out of the asset forfeiture funds.

That’s right: Joe Frank Garza, 64, is giving the money back. Over two million smackeroos.

You’ll recall from earlier posts that Mr. Garza got himself indicted for taking money that was piling up in the asset forfeiture funds held in the two counties for which he served as head prosecutor. Back then, however, Joe Frank Garza was confident that he had done nothing wrong — that Texas law allowed him, as district attorney, to do as he saw fit with the monies that found their way into the county forfeiture accounts.

Specifically, from our earlier posting, Mr. Garza had taken over $4 million out of this account, spent primarily in bonuses to three secretaries:

The media is reporting these tallies (the audit/investigation is ongoing, this information comes from data provided by Garza to the Attorney General’s office) from 2000 – 2007 (excluding 2002) where Garza spent $4.2 million:

1.$2.1 million was spent on “salary supplements”, and while Garza had a staff of 15 who did get bonus pay, Barrera (and the county commissioner heading up the investigation) are reporting that most of this total went to just three people, three secretaries who worked for Garza.
2.$267,449 on travel.
3.$581,000 in operating expenses.
4.$19,987 on equipment.
5.$154,213 on supplies.

On May 6, 2011, he appear at a sentencing hearing now that he’s made his plea deal with the Texas Attorney General. There, Joe Garza will be asked to fork over his license to practice law in the State of Texas, along with paying a $10,000 monetary fine. Then, per the deal, he will spend 6 months as a guest of the Jim Wells County Jail and when he is released – say in November, in time to be home for the holidays – he will be on probation until 2021.

Oh, and at that $2.16 million repayment will be taken care of during that May sentencing hearing, too.

Proposed changes to the Ethics Rules applicable to all lawyers licensed to practice in the State of Texas have been made by the Texas Supreme Court. You can read them in their entirety at the Texas Supreme Court’s website.  

Earlier this month, the Court forwarded its proposed changes to the State Bar of Texas for its consideration; by year’s end, the final version of the Amendments should be in effect.  Here’s a couple of things to ponder in all this:

1.  It’s not the Court of Criminal Appeals Deciding the Ethical Rules for Prosecutors. 

The ethical parameters of prosecutors are defined not by the highest criminal court in the state, the Court of Criminal Appeals, but instead by the Texas Supreme Court, as part of its rule-making authority. For some, this may be good news, given the recent hand slap that CCA’s Chief Justice Sharon Keller received from the Judicial Commission. 

2.  Comments to Rules aren’t the Same as a Disciplinary Rule Itself.  First, There’s Little Change to the Rule for Prosecutors. 

The main rule pertaining to prosecutors under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct is Rule 3.09, “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.” 

Here, things like it’s wrong to pursue a prosecution without probable cause and it’s wrong to fail in promptly and timely disclosing evidence to the defense that tends to show innocence or to mitigate guilty.  Sounds like this stuff should be so clear that a district attorney wouldn’t need this to be in writing (and subject to his/her loss of license for their violation) but we’ve seen how wrong that assumption has proven to be here in Texas.

Consider these examples: 

• in June 2010, DA Stephanie McFarland caught withholding evidence a second time (she’d already been caught once);
• in January 2010, Dallas DA was discovered to have told a police officer who to point out as the culprit when he took the stand; and
• in December 2009, a federal judge freed  Yolanda Madden after she had spent four years behind bars after it was shown that the district attorney had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in her case. 
• There’s more of course — just click over on the “DA Watch” section of this blog as well as my Blogger blog. 

3.  While Comments Do Give Guidance, They are Specifically Not the Basis for Complaint

Elsewhere in the 2010 Amendments, the Texas Supreme Court also addresses prosecutors in Comment 16 to Rule 3.03, giving an example in an attorney’s duty to protect the integrity of the judicial system, “… a prosecutor’s obligation in a criminal case extends for the life of a wrongfully convicted criminal defendant, in that remedial measures could remove a wrongful conviction from the defendant’s record.”

Now, Houston Chronicle’s Rick Casey recently suggested that the new Rule changes mean prosecutors will be required to apply this Comment’s example to an expert witness who learned that his testimony was wrong — that the district attorney would be ethically required to move forward this new revelation. 

In a perfect world, maybe, but for a crafty district attorney?  Probably NOT. 

You’d think that they would do that just because it’s the right thing to do.  Right?  However, not only do we KNOW that prosecutors don’t want to re-open cases and help defendants they’ve put behind bars (just read this blog) but there’s also the legality that a comment doesn’t carry the same legal weight as a rule. 

As you can read in the Preamble of the Texas Disciplinary Rules, which is left unchanged by the Amendments (see a redline version here), comments “… do not, however, add obligations to the rules and no disciplinary action may be taken for failure to conform to the Comments.”

So, while Mr. Casey makes a great point, and it may seem like form over substance, the comment cannot form the basis of an ethical violation under the New Rules, and there’s just not that much difference in the revised Big Rule, 3.09, to make any D.A. lose any sleep tonight.

In every district attorney’s office across the State of Texas, there are men and women employed as investigators for the State.  They’re gumshoes just like the private detectives you see on television — they go out and talk to people, track down facts, get information that the attorneys then use to supply evidence in support of their criminal cases.  

In other words, the investigators for Texas prosecutors are out in the front lines, and you’d expect them to be professional, exact, and trustworthy.  After all, they’re trying to find stuff to use against Texas citizens who have been accused of crimes, right? 

DA’s Drug Investigator Caught with Norco and Ativan

Wrong.  Down in Bee County, the Grand Jury has just issued indictments against Doug Phillips, who was the drug investigator for Bee County District Attorney Martha Warner.   Seems that back in November 2008, Doug Phillips was caught with two prescription drugs: Norco and Ativan.

Doug Phillips was indicted along with a woman named Tammy Ezzell, who allegedly had been getting prescription drugs on Christus Spohn Hospital forms without having the okay from the physician whose name appeared on the form.

It’s not clear from media reports exactly what the relationship is between Doug and Tammy, but reading between the lines it looks pretty clear that Tammy was not a good influence.

Former DA Investigator Faces 10+ Years in Prison and $10,000 Fine

Now, Investigator Phillips — whose job was to investigate illegal drug cases — is facing two counts of third degree felony. If he’s convicted on any of these charges, he faces up to 10 years in prison and monetary fines up to $10,000. 

Bee County DA Warner reports that Doug Phillips has been “separated” from her office.  But that doesn’t mean he’s fired — Warner has gone on record that Phillips’ has a job is waiting for him if he is found not guilty — and if a position is available.

You gotta wonder how strong the case is against this guy given that he’s worked on the State’s team for years.   The DA brought in the Department of Public Safety to work this case: you know, the agency that’s working with the FBI all over Texas on various law enforcement corruption cases.   Afterwards, a Grand Jury issued the indictments. 

At least nothing was swept under the rug here.  The District Attorney is having a state agency work the case, and the Grand Jury make the call on proceeding with charges.  We’ll have to see what the fates have in store for the former drug investigator who was caught with illegal drugs.

Former Rockwall District Attorney Ray Sumrow got caught with his hand in the till, literally, and was tried, convicted, sentenced, and thrown in jail for being a thief. 

And less than two years later, he’s out. 

Ray Sumrow has an interesting story.  He was the head prosecutor in Rockwall for SIX terms.  He was named ”Prosecutor of the Year” by the State Bar of Texa in 2001.  He survived cancer that year, too.  Pretty popular guy, right?

Well, maybe until Ray Sumrow was discovered to have stolen around $9600 in computer stuff and cash from the county he served, as well as moving $68,000 out of the county accounts and into his own personal account for awhile (though he did put the cash back of his own accord).  What was this guy thinking? 

Less than a decade after being named Top Prosecutor, Ray Sumrow went to jail.  The State Bar of Texas that had the Big Ceremony for him back in 2001, disbarred him last summer.  In January, he was quietly released from jail and is out on parole, some thinking he’s back at home in Hunt County were he grew up.  

How’d he get out so fast?

Getting out after 20 months on a 15 year sentence sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn’t it?  Well, some have been wondering about that — and the Board of Pardons and Paroles and others in the know, report that it all adds up.  He’s served a quarter of his sentence, and that’s the standard rule of thumb for someone to be considered for parole in Texas. 

How’d they count that up?

From what the media’s reporting, the officials have counted (1) his 20 months behind bars; (2) his 18 months of credit for good conduct; (3) his 10 months of credit for doing work while serving time.  Add those together, and you’ve got 48 months.  That’s gonna get you to 1/4 of a 15 year (180 month) sentence.

Wow.