Are The Courts Broken?

Prison life: blank walls, bars, and guards. While most people know what the inside a prison looks like, living inside one for decades is something totally different. Micheal Morton has spent the last 25 years of his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit. The now 57 year old man has lived almost half his life in prison for murder, despite the fact that he was innocent the entire time. Though Morton was exonerated last month on recently found DNA evidence, it took our system 25 years to realize he did not do the crime. How could a system dedicated to justice have such unjust results? Is the Texas justice system broken? Let's take a look at Micheal Morton's case specifically.

Morton was initially arrested and convicted of the 1986 murder of his wife. At the time, DNA testing was not advanced enough to be used as evidence, thus discovering this evidence--which is obvious now--wasn't even considered at his trial. However, the recent testing found DNA that points to another man who has a history of violence. Because of this evidence, Morton was exonerated last month--meaning that he can leave prison, but must conform to certain restrictions, such as he must stay inside the state.

One shocking aspect of the case is that his lawyers sought to have the DNA testing done for six years before it happened. Also, Morton's son, who was three years old at the time and witnessed the crime, told his grandmother that a "monster"--which was not his father-- killed his mother. The prosecution did not admit this into the case, and the defense didn't know about it. The prosecution also omitted the fact that charges had been made to Mrs. Morton's credit card using a forged signature shortly after Mr. Morton was put in jail. All three of these issues are being raised in a list of grievances The Texas Coalition on Lawyer Accountability filed with the State Bar of Texas on Monday, according to a Texas tribune article by Brandi Grissom entitled "Lawyer Group Files Grievances in Morton Case."

So it seems the justice system is working to correct the wrong done at some level, but why did this even happen in the first place? Aren't there laws about the prosecution sharing with the defense all the facts they find? Yes, there are; they are called discovery laws. According to another Texas Tribune article ("Morton Case Sparks Calls for Texas Evidence Law Reform") the US Supeme Court decision Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to provide defendants with "exculpatory evidence," meaning any information that could prove that they are innocent. The problem is that the state of Texas does not have an official definition of "exculpatory evidence," so the interpretation of this phrase is usually left up to trial judges or prosecutors. The state does not even mandate basic information sharing such as police reports. Even so, many district attorneys in Texas have mandated that their lawyers share information with the defense. In the end, some prosecutors in Texas have no obligation to share much information at all.

Why hasn't it been fixed? Well, since 2007, legislators have proposed more than a half-dozen measures that would have expanded access to discovery, but none of them passed, largely blocked by legislators. The article above ("Morton Case Sparks Calls for Texas Evidence Law Reform") explains the motivation behind uncooperative prosecutors by interviewing Sen. Rodney Ellis (who is a lawyer). He says, “The role of the prosecutor is to discover the truth. But oftentimes there’s more interest in getting a conviction.” He goes on to say that many Texas prosecutors view a conviction as a win.

So is the Texas justice system broken? I would say that, as we see in the case of Micheal Morton, the system does function, but must be reformed in this area to prevent any further injustice. The laws about discovery must be revised so that there is a clear standard of what is "exculpatory evidence," and legislators might consider enacting further laws that ensure all the facts are presented.

Money Can't Buy Everything

Kids are important. Schools are important. We all agree with this, and it's beyond dispute that Texas does not have a very good public school system.

Today, I will be addressing an editorial written by my colleague, Mr. Martinez, on Texas education. His arguments basically came down to: we have a sad education system, and we need someone who will actually fix it. While I agree with his basic premise, I have one main critique of Mr. Martinez's post.

In his second to last paragraph he stated, "The problem with Texas education is the lack of funding ... the only way we will be able to greatly improve K12 education is to increase funding." This seems a reasonable conclusion, but let's see if funding really has a very significant impact on academic performance.

A May, 2011 article published in Fox News entitled Public School Per-Student Spending Increases as State Funding Decreases, spoke on elementary through high school funding while looking at a U.S. Census Bureau report. Fox specifically compared Utah (which spends very little per student) to New York (which spends a lot), "In Utah, the lowest per-student spending state, 21 percent of schools failed to meet the goals set under that federal education law. In New York, the highest per-student spending state, 38 percent of schools fell short." Utah actually has a very noticeably higher percent of succeeding schools!

Although it's compelling, looking at only two states is not conclusive on whether or not funding significantly improves education. Let's take a broader look at per-student funding across the US. Senior policy annalist Jennifer Cohen, of The New America Foundation, published the following chart in September, 2010 after looking at data from The Federal Education Budget Project. The chart shows each state's annual per-student spending (on the left side), and contrasts it with the high school graduation rates (on the bottom).

 

The article (entitled "Examining the Data: State Per Pupil Expenditures and State Graduation Rates") which contains the chart, concludes, "...the scatter plot [seen above] makes it abundantly clear that states are not guaranteed a certain graduation rate depending on how much they spend per student." Though this analysis is only for high school graduation, it still make the point that money cannot buy everything, especially when it comes to education. Further analyzing the data, Ms. Cohen claims, "Instead, how a state (and school district, and school) spends its money matters significantly more than how much money it actually spends."[emphasis added]

In the end, Mr. Martinez's point may be the answer. To "greatly" increase performance, we might need more funding, depending on how you define "greatly." By looking at the above chart, however, it's plain that there are many states that spend less than Texas per student but have higher graduation rates. Therefore, I conclude that our school system isn't necessarily in need of more funding, but maximizing resource use would make a more long term difference.