The wrongful murder conviction of Michael Morton in Williamson County more than 25 years ago is at the heart of state legislation designed to open more avenues of justice for people who are victimized by the criminal justice system, according to the bill's author.

State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who filed the bill Feb. 26, called the Morton case "a prime example" of what can happen when the justice system fails.

"This is a common-sense policy to advance justice to those who have been wrongfully convicted," Whitmire said.

Morton was incarcerated for nearly 25 years for the murder of his wife, Christine, until DNA testing in 2011 proved that he was innocent. He has since become an icon in the criminal justice community, a symbol of egregious error, and, some allege, bias against the accused in the court system.

"I appreciate Senator Whitmire filing this legislation," Morton said in a statement. "This is an important step to ensuring that even when delayed, justice should always be served. As long as somebody is in prison as a result of fraudulent or illegal activity from an over-zealous prosecutor, they shouldn't have their ability to have their day in court taken from them."

Then-prosecutor Ken Anderson is the subject of a special inquiry into whether he purposely withheld evidence that could have helped Morton his original trial. Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley has been publicly criticized for fighting DNA testing that, once it was used, eventually exonerated Morton.

The bill requires that the four-year statute of limitations for wrongful convictions start when the accused is exonerated or released from jail—not when the offense occurred—allowing the person more time to access lawyers and resources after they are out of jail.

The bill would also require that any prosecutor found guilty of withholding evidence that could help a defendant be subjected to a public reprimand.

Bradley lost his bid for re-election in 2012 and has kept a low profile since, but he testified in early February during the inquiry that Anderson, now a judge, was an ethical and religious man.

During the hearing, Bradley was forced to defend his fight against the DNA testing.

"There was no DNA statute, even at that point," he told the court. "There was little, if any, case law or anything for you to know about, so it was an intriguing new issue."