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 …show more content…
Three white males of Duke University’s lacrosse team were accused of sexual assault charges against a woman they hired as an escort. Michael Nifong, former district attorney, was eventually removed, disbarred, and jailed because of his criticisms towards the players. Nifong made various false accusations public to the media and worked alongside a DNA lab director to withhold exculpatory evidence. The State Bar filed two rounds of ethics charges and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper was forced to take over the case. Ultimately the case and all charges were dropped because of the prosecutorial misconduct performed previously by Nifong. Inconsistencies between evidence and suspect interviews found by Cooper proved the members of the team to be not guilty. Their names were cleared from the legal books but the men were suspended from the team and publically humiliated by the fabricated
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
“Police throughout the United States have been caught fabricating, planting, and manipulating evidence to obtain convictions where cases would otherwise be very weak. Some authorities regard police perjury as so rampant that it can be considered a "subcultural norm rather than an individual aberration" of police officers. Large-scale investigations of police units in almost every major American city have documented massive evidence of tampering, abuse of the arresting power, and discriminatory enforcement of laws. There also appears to be widespread police perjury in the preparation of reports because police know these reports will be used in plea bargaining. Officers often justify false and embellished reports on the grounds that it metes out a rough justice to defendants who are guilty of wrongdoing but may be exonerated on technicalities.”
Now, it takes a lot of courage for an investigator to stand up and admit a wrongful conviction, especially in a case that he helped to convict. That brings me to think agree with the statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehmquist “the justice system has not yet learned to confront the fact that, even when there are no easily identifiable misstep, it can produce an unjust outcome.” (Clifford 4) It is because of this reason, that manyinnocent people end up in jail. Despite the efforts to get them out, many of them are denied. It took nine years for federal agents to even consider looking into the Edward Garry conviction case. In addition, it took another three years for Garry’s lawyer to get a post-conviction motion, which was denied by a Bronx judge, saying that the new evidence wasn’t credible. And still, Garry has yet to be absolved for this crime that he did not commit despite witnesses testifying on his behalf. This is a really depressing case because of the fact that Garry has become broken. “Garry gives the impression of a man who has been inside literally and figuratively for far too long.” Twenty one years of his innocent life that he may never get back. All because this justice system has failed him as a
Reasoning: The responsibility of the prosecutor is to disclose information and evidence. If there is a promise being made by an attorney, then the information should be must be attributed to the government. The Supreme court had found that the prosecutor’s lacked to disclose evidence that was relevant to the defense. The prosecutor had also failed to correct the false evidence that had been presented at the
Police officers have a great amount of discretion. Since they are not always supervised and on patrol they choose which cases should be process and which one should just be not. Police discretion is the most important part because it determines the outcomes of the interaction between the police and the juvenile. Krisberg and Austin noted that police have five basic options in deciding what course of action to pursue with juveniles. The first one would be release, accompanied by a warning to the juvenile. The second one would be release, accompanied by an official report. The third one would be Station adjustment. Which include release to parent accompanied by an official reprimand, referral to a community youth agency, or referral to a public or private social welfare or mental health agency. Fourth would be Referral to juvenile court without detention and last referral to the juvenile court with detention.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
In the early 2000s Baylor University’s basketball, men’s team underwent tough times of investigations and was later found guilty of breaking several NCAA rules and was punished. The athlete scandal erupted after the murder of Baylor university basketball player Patrick Dennehy. He was a junior forward from the University of New Mexico due to his sophomore season in year 2001-2002. In the summer of 2003, Dennehy and his teammate who later confessed to be the killer of Dennehy said that they were concerned about their safety. However, on 25th June 2003, Dennehy’s car was found in Virginia Beach with no license plates. A confession that had been filed on 23rd June that was seeking a search warrant for Dennehy’s computer expressed that an expert from Delaware informed police that Doston who was by that time at home ...
The Duke case concerns claims by a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University who accused three players on Duke's lacrosse team of raping her during a party where she had been hired to work as a stripper. The case has prompted national outrage and discussion about racism and the rowdy behavior of privileged students at a prestigious university. The accuser is black and the three accused students are white. All but one of the players on the Duke Lacrosse team at the time were white. Attorneys for the students have contended from the start that their clients are not guilty.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
Omar Abdul Ballard had admitted to the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko; his was the only semen found. Furthermore, Ballard tried to tell police that he alone had committed the crimes. Yet despite the physical evidence and Ballard’s statements, the courts decided to continue their cases against the other four men. Even the lawyers that should have been trying to defend the Norfolk Four did little to actually defend them against the charges and instead opted to try to get them a lighter sentence. Their own lawyers seemed unable to get over the fact that the men had confessed to the crime. Even with explanations of long interrogations, threats, and lies by the police these lawyers were unwilling to believe that innocent men would confess to such a heinous crime. Instead, they were urged to “cooperate” with the police and tell the “truth”. With this type of advice the men went up to the witness stand and committed perjury lying under oath and relaying their false confessions to the jury. The problem it seems is that the police and the courts were not interested in the truth or justice, they are looking for an easy way to close a case. They were looking for someone to blame and they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong when evidence seemed to show they had a made a
In the year 2014, law enforcement in the U.S. estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes reported (“D2014VC”). Imagine all the people needed just to get to the bottom of these cases! There is an abundant amount of Americans solving mysteries every day to keep others safe. There are crimes being committed all around the U.S. at every second of the day. In John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief, he displays a firm relation between investigators and lawyers through the Criminal Justice System of acquiring suspects and evidence, indicated in the book with an exploration of the scandals of Supreme Court Justices Rosenberg and Jensen (Grisham).
Within our police system in America, there are gaps and loopholes that give leeway to police officials who either abuse the authority given to them or do not represent the ethical standards that they are expected to live up to by society. Because of the nature of police work, there is a potential for deterioration of these ethical and moral standards through deviance, misconduct, corruption, and favoritism. Although these standards are set in place, many police officers are not held accountable for their actions and can easily get by with the mistreatment of others because of their career title. While not every police abuses his or her power, the increasingly large percentage that do present a problem that must be recognized by the public as well as those in charge of police departments throughout our country. Police officials are abusing their power and authority through three types of misconduct known as malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance and these types are being overlooked by management personnel who rarely intervene even though they know what is happening. Misconduct is wrong because it violates rights and causes people to be wrongly accused of crimes or be found not guilty and set free when they are still an endangerment to other people. The public needs to be educated on what is happening in the police system in hopes that someone will speak out to protect citizens from being violated by police officers.
obligation is to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, to guard