Has Anyone seen Skeletor and Mike Anderson in the same place?
Mike Anderson Personnel File-Bert Graham Memo
The February 1986 handwritten memo was placed into Anderson’s personnel file. The memo discusses a meeting between Anderson, Sid Crowley, Rusty Hardin, and Graham. The meeting was held to “discuss Mike’s handling of several serious felony cases” because Sid, Anderson’s immediate supervisor, “expressed concern” to Rusty, their Division Chief.
The memorandum recounts a meeting where the three men questioned Anderson on his decision-making and performance. When Anderson attempted to excuse his conduct, Sid did not support his explanation.
The conclusion was that “Rusty, Sid, and I [Graham] agreed that in our opinion Mike had not been straightforward.”
Mike Anderson Personnel File-Sid Crowley-Part1
Mike Anderson Personnel File-Sid Crowley-Part2
A six-page detailed memo by Sid Crowley, Anderson’s direct supervisor, follows Graham’s memo. Crowley itemizes four cases, two murders and two sexual assaults, which were incorrectly handled by Anderson.
The first case involved a defendant charged with one murder and two attempted murders. Anderson issued subpoenas for a December 9, 1985 trial date on November 26, 1985. It is important to note that Thanksgiving Day was November 28 in 1985, which meant that the subpoenas would likely be served just days before trial. On the trial date, Anderson realized that the witness was in prison; so, the case was reset to February 4, 1986. On January 30, Anderson gave the files to another prosecutor and instructed him to work up the case. The day before the new trial, Anderson told his supervisor that the other prosecutor could try the attempted murder cases first, which made no sense because all of the cases arose from the same transaction. Most likely to get another delay, Anderson asked the court coordinator to bench warrant the witness when he was told that the witness had been in the Harris County Jail since September 28, 1985. So, on the day of trial, Anderson interviewed the witness who refused to testify, which necessitated the dismissal of the cases.
In the second case, another murder, Anderson dismissed the case when the chief was absent. Anderson failed to file any subpoenas and nothing showed that he looked for any witnesses.
The third case was a sexual assault involving a brother and sister. Anderson was assigned a case by his supervisor. It is clear that Anderson knew that the case was assigned to him because he completed a subpoena application and an investigator request form. However, no subpoenas for the trial date could be found in the file. When the case was called to trial, Anderson told the judge that the case belonged to another prosecutor and became “angry” when told that the case was assigned to him.
In the final case, an aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child, Anderson failed to issue any subpoenas. Additionally, he never asked his investigator to look for the witnesses.
At the end of Graham’s original memo, he said that Sid told Rusty that he “could have been mistaken about controverting Mike’s explanations since he had talked to Mike and realized he remembered some things incorrectly.” First, the errors detailed in Sid’s memo are not things based upon memory or recollection – they are straight facts based upon court files. Second, why, after three months would Sid suddenly say that he “could have been mistaken?”
Now, all three are supporters of the Anderson for District Attorney campaign.
Sid Crowley
12.5.11 – $100.00
5.16.12 – $100.00
Bert Graham
11.29.11 – $10,000.00
3.21.12 – $100.00
4.5.12 – $1,167.00
4.17.12 – $1,000.00
4.27.12 – $7,000.00
9.17.12 – $1,000.00
Rusty Hardin
1.18.12 – $5,000.00
4.5.12 – $2,000.00
So, why would three men who concluded that Anderson was not “straightforward” support his campaign for District Attorney?
I really respect the fact that Rusty, Bert, and Sid did not use the word “liar” when it clearly applied.
Mike Anderson Republican DA Candidate assaults victim in a courtroom