Case Study: Anderson V. Ken Anderson
According to the file there was just one evidence against Morton and that evidence was a note found at the crime scene. That note was signed with “I L Y,” for I love you, and “M,” for Michael, who was Christine’s husband. (Bazelon, 2012). That note was all about a husband’s anger over his wife as she did not let him have sex with her at the night of Morton’s birthday. But that of course was not an enough evidence to prove someone guilty of homicide. It was possible that Morton left note for Christine so that she could read it after he had left for work. But the Sherriff started treating him like he was the real culprit.
There were few shocking evidences as well that Ken Anderson kept confidential and did not present in front of the jury.
1. The biggest and most authentic evidence in favor of Michael Morton was the statement of his own son Eric. In a police report it was mentioned that the mother of Christine had told the investigators that the three year old Eric eye witnessed the murder. Eric described the scene in words like a huge monster with a big moustache killed his mother.
In the report, Eric says “He hit mommy”. …show more content…
The question arises that why he did this. He was not a personal acquaintance of Morton still he tried his best to prove him guilty. Berry Scheck, the lawyer of the innocence project said that “some people break rules just because they wanna win”. (CBS NEWS, 2014). The rule breaking is not easy for a common citizen because of the fear of law but there are departments that work with some kind of immunity for the legal work. Prosecutors also have the immunity from being investigated. That is why he was sure that nothing could harm his career. He had not to worry because of the ruling of the Supreme Court that allow prosecutors the absolute immunity from civil law suits. This was the base of his decisions against law because he knew law won’t question