Introduction
Wrongful convictions within the Criminal Justice System are on the rise as a result of prosecutors’ withholding of critical evidence, contempt of court and miscarriage of justice, that result in innocent persons charged, prosecuted and convicted to years in prison for crimes they did not commit. The Michael Morton Act passed by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, and which became law on September 1 st 2013, was designed to ensure open proceedings and processes in the investigation of crimes, such that existing barriers to the presentation and the use of evidence are done away with. Prosecutors are therefore required by law to keep their files open to defendants and records of any evidence disclosed have to be kept and filed for future reference. Prior to the Michael Morton Act was the enacted Brady vs. Maryland law by the Supreme Court (1963), which required the prosecutors to provide defendants with any material evidence that pointed to guilt or to the punishment of the accused. The Michael Morton Act requires the disclosure of all evidence, such as statements by witnesses as well as police reports, whether or not the evidence was material and indicated guilt ( Thomas, 2014).
The Michael Morton Case
Michael Morton is widely known within the criminal justice system as a man who was wrongfully accused, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, Christine Morton, spending 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. DNA results revealed that Morton was innocent, evidence that had been hidden by the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, who was forthwith convicted of contempt of court . The DNA evidence helped to link another man, Mark Norwood to Christine’s murder. Norwood was charged, prosecuted and convicted of the murder of Christine (1986) as well as the murder of Debra Baker (1988). Norwood was found to have murdered these women under the same circumstances; by beating them to death in their beds (Orr & Rodery, 2014).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Criminal Court Case Building
Contrary to the proceeding of building up a civil case, criminal cases are built on intensive investigations which are often compounded by an exploitation of procedures that are not primarily designed for the specific cases. Processes such as requests for admissions, depositions and interrogatories in criminal cases are only done in theory ( Reamey, 2015) . The requirements of the due process of the law for prosecutors to disclose any material information and/or evidence to the defendant are almost irrelevant as the prosecutor may or may not comply, with which effect he may or may not be discovered. In terms of timing and scope, when prosecutors do comply, the information they provide is often too limited and it often comes a little bit too late to be helpful to the accused. The importance of open files and full disclosure is that the defendant is able to arrive at a reasonable settlement with the due confidence that they would not be ambushed with unknown evidence that would ultimately change the projected outcome. The involved parties would also minimize on wastage of resources on the litigation of issues which they would be in agreement of ( Luna, 2017) .
While truth finding is the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system, it is often not the highest value that is served by the parties involved. Existent within the United States Criminal Justice System are exclusionary rules that are meant to keep defendants and those in search of the truth from accessing material, crucial and probative information and/or evidence in regard to either the innocence or the guilt of the accused. In regard to the jury, there exist simple rules that would prevent their judgement on all facts, even those that would be helpful in ascertaining truth. Reamey (2015) presents such simple rules including the exclusion of hearsay as evidence and the failure to go through important and crucial documents because they are unauthenticated. While these rules and proceedings are important in keeping out what is untrue as evidence, they are also an impediment to justice as they may keep out what is true (Reamey, 2015). To this effect we can conclude that the criminal justice system would rather be harmed by the truth not being found rather than the risk of admitting to everything.
In the case of Morton, his son did not describe his father as the perpetrator of the crime, he described a ‘monster’, yet his account was disregarded. The prosecution also did not provide the evidence that there was a suspicious green van that had been parked behind the house and that a blood-soaked bandana had been found near where the van was found. This information provides evidence that was undisclosed, yet it would have been influential in the case proceedings of Morton, in which he would have been found innocent ( Reamey, 2015) .
The Michael Morton Act: Focus on Law Reforms
The impetus for change in regard to evidence disclosure was the result of the 1986 murder of Christine Morton in which the primary witness was her three-year old son, Eric. Morton immediately became the key suspect of the crime, despite the fact that his son insisted that he was not at home at the time of the murder and thus did not murder Christine. Morton was then arrested, tried and convicted of murder, even though none of the evidence presented by prosecution substantiated his crime and some of the evidence presented contradicted this suspicion.
Given that the Morton Act resulted from a call for reform because of systemic failure, it is crucial to come up with a solution that fixes these failures ( Luna, 2017) . The Morton Act was timely in its release in October 2011 due to the publicity and extensive media coverage of the wrongful conviction of Morton resulting from the failure of investigations, which ultimately led to law reforms. The provocations to reform the law in Texas were widely featured in the public array of an innocent man who suffered the loss of his wife, separation from his young son and the loss of 25 years of his freedom in Texas prisons (Orr & Rodery, 2014) because of failure to disclose evidence that would have exonerated him of the murder. This call for reform was further propagated by Morton in the respectful, persistent and forgiving demeanor, in which he rallied for reforms so that none would have to suffer the same fate that he did. The final brick was the provision of DNA evidence that linked Norwood to the murder of Christine and his subsequent conviction, which led to legislative action. Legislative action was made even more acceptable by the linking of Norwood to the murder of another woman, Debra Baker, under similar circumstances.
Conclusion
In going the extra mile to reduce the number of wrongful convictions in criminal proceedings, twelve inmates have been exonerated from their crimes and handed their freedom in Texas since 1973. When criminal defendants are availed all material evidence that is relevant to their case, there would be more settlements, less wastage of time in litigation of issues and less wrongful convictions that ultimately discredit the United States Criminal Justice System. In the interest of everyone, criminal court proceedings should be carried out to an informed and fair ruling. The investigations and proceedings that came to light in the process of exonerating Morton revealed that the prosecuting district attorney withheld exculpatory evidence, either deliberately or ignorantly. This undisclosed evidence saw to the release of Morton after he had served 25 years of his life imprisonment and the benching, 10-day jail term with community service and surrendering of law license of the former district attorney Ken Anderson, who was charged with misconduct and contempt of court.
Reamy (2015) asserts that if the truth is to set one free, in the criminal justice system, if the truth can prevent the wrongful conviction of an accused person, then any and all information possessed by the state that is fully disclosed serves the interest of justice better than when the scope of information disclosed is limited. To this effect, the Michael Morton Act, in full acknowledgement of the withholding of vital information in the case of Michael Morton, mandates the state of Texas to present any and all material information relevant in their possession that is relevant to a case, upon the request of the defendant.
References
Luna, E. (Ed.). (2017). Reforming Criminal Justice . Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.
Orr, C. E. H., & Rodery, R. G. (2014). The Michael Morton Act: Minimizing Prosecutorial Misconduct. . Mary's LJ , 46 , 407.
Reamey, G. S. (2015). The Truth Might Set You Free: How the Michael Morton Act Could Fundamentally Change Texas Criminal Discovery, or Not. Tex. Tech L. Rev. , 48 , 893.
Thomas, S. (2014). Addressing Wrongful Convictions: An Examination of Texas's New Junk Science Writ and Other Measures for Protecting the Innocent. Hous. L. Rev. , 52 , 1037.
