Self-defense in criminal cases.
One of the frustrations faced by many businesses is that after the perpetrators of crimes have been identified, the District Attorney's office will not pursue the case. One option is for victims to sue the DA in an attempt to compel him to prosecute, but this would be costly and proving dereliction of duty would be difficult. The DA is effectively immune. Other options are more promising. The law should encourage (and prosecutors' offices should welcome) private preparation of criminal cases. Prosecutors' budgets simply do not allow vigorous prosecution of all the available criminal cases. Logic and evidence show that in private law, plaintiffs win about 50 percent of the cases that are tried. This is because the parties are more likely to settle lopsided cases out of court. Public prosecutors, by contrast, win far more than 50 percent of their trial cases because they have budget constraints and so elect whenever possible to go to court with only the cases they are likely to win. Victims should be allowed to hire private attorneys and other professionals to prepare cases against the accused and thereby extend public prosecutors' resources. The attorneys can be retained pro bono (for the good) or for compensation. This is already done in some white collar cases where financial complexities exceed the prosecutors' expertise, such as complicated embezzlement cases, some oil and gas swindles and cases involving the misapplication of construction trust funds.
At present, many cases are never prosecuted for one reason or another. For example, in about 40 percent of federal embezzlement and fraud cases, charges are dropped because of insufficient evidence to convict, given the resources at hand.85 In some instances prosecutors "deputize" attorneys to try cases, too. Many private attorneys have criminal experience as former prosecutors or public defenders. A logical extension of private preparation for trial is the complete privatization of the prosecutor's job by contracting out. Private attorneys, of course, are often appointed on a pro bono basis for criminal defense. Private attorneys could be deputized for a single trial or for ongoing prosecutor's work, either pro bono or under contract.
The same remedies are available to finance criminal prosecution as civil litigation. Commercial insurance policies could be exp...
... middle of paper ...
...ting witnesses before a grand jury, or the person being investigated, has become a well orchestrated, even cynical, minuet.
The first and most important task may be overcoming the cynicism of so many lawyers in and out of government to whom concern for "fairness" somehow signifies weakness. It is a cynicism that government lawyers should not have the luxury of acting upon. In reality, a commitment to fairness is a highly reliable sign of strength and confidence in the merits of one's position, and it is usually those who fear the fairness of the forum who most fear outcomes based on merit. Recently, a controversy has erupted over whether Justice Department lawyers are bound by state codes of ethics and analogous local federal court rules of practice. The issue stems from rules that restrict contact by lawyers with parties known to be represented by counsel, including corporate parties. In essence, the government is seeking to exempt its own lawyers from state and federal court ethical restraints in ways that would go far beyond issues of witness contact. Courts, thus far, have been unsympathetic to this government effort at unilateral exemption from the rules of ethics.
Most of these defendants couldn’t afford private attorneys and depended upon public defenders. For instance, Joe Moore had two prior convictions and was facing a maximum of a 90 year sentence for selling three grams of cocaine. However, Moore begged his public defender to call Eliga Kelly to stand in his defense. Moore claimed that Kelly witnessed him shoe Coleman off of his property. For whatever reasons, his public defender never bothered to call Kelly to the stand or even question him privately. After all, Eliga Kelly was considered a star witness for the prosecution, but, as a result of that negligence, Moore was sentenced to 90 years. Unlike most criminal informants, Eliga Kelly refused to lie under oath and in a subsequent trial for a different defendant, the prosecutor called Kelly to the stand. Kelly contradicted Coleman’s testimony by naming several defendants, including Joe Moore, who refused to sell drugs to
Freedman, Monroe H., and Abbe Smith. Understanding Lawyers' Ethics. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis, 2010. Print.
Therefore, under these ethical standards, prosecutors cannot file charges if there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, they also do not file if it is not in the public interest to do so. This is what makes the possibilities limitless; however, three key factors also play a part in determining which cases to prosecute. If prosecutors follow these three factors in determining cases then the contradiction of limitless discretion and high ethical standards should be remedied for others. These are factors that should be followed are as followed: the seriousness and nature of the offense, the offender’s culpability, and the likelihood of being able to obtain a conviction at a trial. “Ethical conduct, then, must be the core of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Therefore, even though prosecutors have almost limitless discretion in their decisions, they still must
.... J., & Langton, L. (2010, Sep/Oct). A national assessment of public defender office caseloads []. Judicature, 94(2), 87-91. Retrieved from
Harris, George C. "Testimony for Sale: The Law and Ethics of Snitches and Experts." Pepperdine Law Review (2000-2001): 28. Online.
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Prosecutorial misconduct is when a prosecutor wrongfully convicts a defendant based on information he or she may keep concealed from a judge and/or jury. Ask the average citizen, and they are totally unaware that such a thing ever happens. The public is often persuaded to believe that all prosecutors are honorable people who are committed to ethics, justice, and upholding the law. But prosecutorial misconduct and misdeeds happen, and they occur more frequently than anyone would imagine. Judge Konzinski, stated to the Washington Post, “Prosecutorial misconduct is a particularly difficult problem to deal with because so much of what prosecutors do is secret. If a prosecutor fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, who is to know? Or if a prosecutor delays disclosure of evidence helpful to the defense until the defendant has accepted an unfavorable plea bargain, no one will be the wiser.” No wonder society is naive to the prosecutorial misconduct that transpire
Reaching epidemic proportions and spreading like a disease, prosecutorial misconduct has cut across geographic and socio-economic areas with the effect of infecting the criminal justice system (Lawless, 2008). Prosecutorial misconduct takes place when a prosecutor breaks the law or code of professional ethics during the prosecution stage. Legal and ethical violations can weaken the conformity to the law and rules that are to be followed within the criminal justice system (Cromwell, P. F., Dunham, R. G., & Palacios, W. R., 1997). In this paper, existing research focused on factors related to prosecutorial misconduct will be presented. This paper will also examine potential remedies that exist to confront prosecutorial misconduct.
This problem affects everyone, but only benefits four types of people; the judges, the lawyers, the clients paying thousands more to the lawyers to win their case, and the police. Judges today are not playing fair, and they are accepting bribes from equally corrupt lawyers that are desperate to win a case and improve their case winnings over their losses. The lawyers are asking for more money from the clients so that they can secretly hand over cash to the lawyers and ask for “favors” in the courtroom. With all of this injustice, comes fear implanted in the client, who is then willing to spend more on a lawyer to guarantee their success in a case; “fear and injustice equals more money for lawyers and judges”(Sachs).
The four criminal law elements of self-defense are nonaggressor, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Nonaggressor is when the defender did not in any way provoke or stray an attack. When it comes to self-defense it is only available when it comes to unprovoked attacks. If one provokes someone they cannot use self-defense to defend themselves from the attack because they provoked it. However there is one exception and that is the withdrawal exception. The withdrawal exception is when the initial aggressor withdrawals completely from the attack they provoked they can defend themselves against their initial victims. An example of nonaggressor self-defense is Melody hanging out at the bar by herself and Samantha comes up to her trying
New York is in the grip of a litigation explosion that is clogging their courts and slowing their economy. According to the “Tort Reformer” over 84,000 new lawsuits are brought every year...that’s the equivalent of more than 300 suits being filed on every business day. When a deranged tort system destroys an industry – driving people out of jobs, panicking customers – and does so based on junk science admitted to the courtrooms by injudicious judges – there really is the possibility of making sure it doesn’t happen again.
“The quality of representation often matters in criminal cases, and money often is crucial in determining the quality of representation” (Chemerinsky 2680). Money does matter in criminal cases; specifically when, the public defender’s office gets less than half the yearly budget of what the district attorney’s office gets (Houppert 156). This huge discrepancy in pay is a big problem when it comes to providing a pertinent investigation: research, paying investigators, DNA testing, fingerprint samples, and spending time with clients. In Chasing Gideon, author Karen Houppert writes about Douglas Anderson, a public defender, who admitted that he did not have enough funds to hire an investigator in over 240 cases in one year (19). Furthermore, Travis Williams in the award-winning documentary Gideon’s Army, tricks the district attorney’s office in to paying for a finger print test in one of his cases because his office could not afford one. Remember-- less money equals fewer public defenders, fewer public defenders equal huge caseloads, huge caseloads equal unjust trails, unjust trials equal more constitutional violations; furthermore, a job with low pay and heavy workloads would attract incompetent people to fill those positions, because not very many other people would want the job (Chemerinsky 2683). It is easy to understand why the public defender office is working at such a disadvantage compared to the district attorney office—profit from
We concur with Justice White's interpretation of Tennessee State law. However, we propose that more restrictive standards should be used by policemen when dealing with imminently dangerous circumstances.
The prosecutor’s role within the criminal justice is meaningful. According to "The National Center for Victims of Crime" (2012), prosecutors are lawyers who represent the state or federal government (not the victim) throughout the court process from the first appearance of the accused in court is acquitted or sentenced. Prosecutors must determine if they should pursue a case or drop the charges based on evidence that law enforcement provides. It is their duty to present evidence in court, question witnesses, and decide if they should negotiate a plea bargain with the defendant ("The National Center for Victims of Crime,”2012). Prosecutors cannot allow their personal belief to interfere with the case. Their main objective is to seek justice.
The United States Constitution gives us the right of due process under the Fifth Amendment. The right to an attorney is something that should never be taken away. So how do attorneys help their clients? What standards are set to protect them? There are strict guidelines that attorneys must follow to avoid legal misconduct. These standards are stated by the American Bar Association in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. It is very important that attorneys decide carefully before taking on a case for many reasons. They must remember that they have to carefully consider the needs and problems of their clients and uphold their ethical responsibilities to their profession and the criminal justice system. It is when a lawyer does not balance the needs of the client with the ethical aspects of his or her profession that misconduct can occur.