Prosecutorial Discretion and Law Execution

1305 Words3 Pages

Prosecutorial Discretion
Whitebread and Slogobin state that the job of executing the law at the federal and state levels rests with the prosecution. This means that the prosecutor makes the decisions about the charges. Prosecutorial discretion means that the prosecutor decides whether someone should be charged for a crime and what that individual should be charged with (Whitebread & Slogobin, 2000). The Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978) case established some guidelines for using prosecutorial discretion. This case basically states as long as the prosecutor has probable cause to charge someone and what to file against them is at his discretion. Amongst the responsibilities of the prosecutor is the ability to decide how to bring the charges, such as, joinder of charges or joinder of parties. I will be discussing the choices that prosecutors must make when prosecuting a crime (Whitebread & Slogobin, 2000).
Sometimes the prosecutor will make the decision to forego prosecution. This could be done through a plea bargain or through dismissal of the charges. Plea bargains are agreements between the defendant and the prosecution, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. There are some that feel that plea bargains don’t serve the interest of the Criminal Justice System because it is overburdening it (Whitebread & Slogobin, 2000).
A dismissal usually occurs when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction; 75% of all cases result in dismissal by the prosecution. Many times there is enough evidence to place an individual on trial, but it would be a waste of time and resources to try a case you can’t win. Dismissing charges has its limitations and restrictions, so tha...

... middle of paper ...

...nce is sought because there is rarely a benefit for the defendant in this situation. However, joinder of defendants can be highly prejudicial due to reasons such as: a confession by one defendant can show guilt for both defendants, a testimony by a defendant that clears the codefendant may not be introduced into evidence, both defendants are convicted out of confusion of charges or evidence, or one defendant is convicted because of association with the codefendant (Whitebread & Slogobin, 2000).

Works Cited
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 US 357 (1978)
Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 US 386 (1987)
Oyler v. Boles, 368 US 448 (1962)
Wayte v. United States, 470 US 598
Falls v. Town of Dyer, Indiana, 875 F.2d 146 (7th Cir.1989)
United States v. Robinson, 311 F.Supp. 1063 (W.D.Mo.1969)
Whitebread, C. H. & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure. New York: Foundation Press.

Open Document