14 Comments

  1. Brian Bouffard
    April 23, 2013 @ 11:12 am

    Unfortunate if Anderson is able to avoid responsibility for his despicable acts under color of law. But it doesn’t diminish my admiration for Judge Louis Sturns of the 213th District Court of Tarrant County, who pointed out this evil and called it what it is.

    Reply

  2. Norm DeGuerre
    April 23, 2013 @ 11:32 am

    Offending someone who believes himself to hold the moral high ground is the most serious offense of all.

    Reply

    • Mark Bennett
      April 24, 2013 @ 10:35 am

      If you don’t believe that you are at least standing on the moral high ground, you ought to be moving upward.

      Reply

  3. Mike Paar
    April 23, 2013 @ 5:00 pm

    I expect few will comment on this. Especially not current or former prosecutors whose only comments would be to defend Judge Anderson. But they won’t put their thoughts out there for everyone to read. They don’t wish for others to know their true feelings, which most of us have heard in one form or another, i.e. “Well, he may not have committed this particular crime, but he committed others and we were able to hang this one on him”.

    Others will have a line of thought somewhere along this line “I don’t blame him. After all the work he put into the case how can he be expected to sabotage it just because flimsy evidence points to his innocence?”

    Then there’s the ones who have higher aspirations themselves (like Anderson did when he prosecuted this case) “Heck fire, I’d have done the same thing myself. After all, I want to be a judge someday”.

    Furthermore, Anderson couldn’t have been the lone criminal in this case. What about his assistants? Detectives? I’d imagine if truth were to ever be told that this involved a conspiracy.

    Reply

  4. Jordan Lewis
    April 23, 2013 @ 11:17 pm

    I agree 100% with your analysis. I think it is clear that allegations that he committed crimes in the 1980’s have been time-barred for decades. I think it dangerous to argue for exceptions because we really hate this guy.

    But what if, during the closed-door meetings both he and Bradley admit they had after the DNA came back to Norwood, Anderson even suggested that Bradley should be aware of and try to keep out of public the report of the green van and the kid’s statement?

    Bradley resisted disclosure of the State’s file during the course of active litigation (the innocence claim that culminated in his release) and subsequent inquiries. If aware of the statements, would that not implicate him in a NEW scheme to REPEAT the same Tampering conduct that Anderson is alleged to have committed 25 years ago? That would seem to be within the statute, and it is new conduct and a new offense altogether. And if it was at Anderson’s suggestion, that would seem to be party conduct committed anew in 2010 or 2011.

    As for now, though, that’s not the allegation.

    Reply

    • Mark Bennett
      April 24, 2013 @ 10:37 am

      An interesting thought. Rusty had better get on it if he wants a charge within the limitations period for that.

      Reply

  5. Adrian Sloan
    April 24, 2013 @ 12:32 am

    Given that knowledge of this episode has been out there for years I don’t think a formal court finding is going to do much of anything to change voters’ minds.

    Reply

  6. Bill Hawkins
    April 24, 2013 @ 7:01 am

    I am a former prosecutor in Harris County (1983 – 2011 and fall 2012) and believe anyone that thinks my colleagues thought it was ok to hide exculpatory evidence is clueless about them. Ken Anderson’s behavior and attitude that guilt justifies the hiding of exculpatory evidence is something unique to him and those few that adopt his attitude. I can recall two “Brady” type incidents during my career in Harris County. Any time I was in a conversation with other prosecutors and the name of one of those two prosecutor’s came up, the prior Brady behavior was mentioned and not in favorable terms. The other situation was more recent and every prosecutor I know was surprised that person kept their job and continues to keep their job.

    A person that “assumes” all lawyers of a given type are the same simply steps forward to claim the mantle that goes with the first three letters of that word.

    Bill Hawkins

    Reply

  7. Michael Simpson
    April 24, 2013 @ 8:43 am

    “I have no faith that all those vot­ers who … live in the Con­sti­tu­tional back­wa­ter of Williamson County will return him to pri­vate life”.

    John Bradley might disagree.

    Reply

  8. Jordan Lewis
    April 24, 2013 @ 10:32 am

    “John Bradley might disagree.”

    But if he’d had an extra year or two before he faced the voters, instead of in the middle of active litigation on the Morton case, he might (probably?) have survived.

    Reply

    • Mark Bennett
      April 24, 2013 @ 10:38 am

      Could everyone please try to use the “Reply” button so that discussions are threaded?

      Reply

    • Michael Simpson
      April 25, 2013 @ 9:56 am

      I’d hate to speculate that Bradley would have survived an election if he had had more time to put the Morton case behind him. Morton was the biggest issue in the campaign, but it wasn’t the only one. My point was that there is a point, even in Williamson County, where the voters will say “enough”. After all, Bradley lost in the Republican primary.

      But I don’t want to make this about Bradley.

      Reply

  9. David Sibley
    June 3, 2013 @ 11:58 am

    Most of the time a credible argument can be made for discovery rule especially when the tort or crime has been concealed. There is a lot of law on that. Also, most of the time, a credible argument of "continuing" tort or crimina violation can be made. They were concealing the DNA Evidence until relatively recently. I am not sure when the child's statement came out. There are a lot arguments a creative lawyer can make, and even if contrary precedent exists, the precedent can often be changed. I am just far less certain that limitations bars this than you. This is the time for creative lawyering.  I think about 9/10 of the victory has already been achieved. It is more important in my opinion that the truth come out than that he actually get convicted. He has already been convicted in he  Court of Public Opinion.  The odds of the truth coming out in something like this is low, but this case will help others in a similar situation in the future (hopefully). 

    Reply

Leave a Reply