Vindicating Proseuctoral Vindictiveness
“Becoming Aware Of Malicious Prosecution”
Defined by the Supreme Court, “vindictiveness” or to be “vindictive” means “that a prosecutor has retaliated against a defendant for the exercise of a legal right, denying him/her due process” according to Doug Leib, author of Vindicating Vindictiveness: Proseuctoral Discretion and Plea Bargaining, Past and Future, of the Yale Law Journal (Leib,1016).
There is a near, almost invisible line that has been ignored by many individuals whom have the right of power and those of whom manipulate his/her power because of his/her employment position. For example, there might be a Prosecuting Attorney that will seek justice that is written within the guidelines of the law, yet still have the ability does his/her job with the professional standards, and the compassion that is needed to treat the victim as well as the, constitutional rights of the defendant, without any aggression or prejudice , and maintaining the integrity that it takes to earn and uphold the respect of the citizens of the United States of America, thus giving back to the meaning of “And Justice For All” , allowing the restored faith of that citizens of the United States, to flood back into its Criminal Justice System. However, this is not a picture that is painted so pretty. For some, proseuctoral power is taken over and the thin invisible line is crossed. To some, the power they have behind their position, causes them to lose all the moral and ethical pursuit of the objectives. The problem then is, that they find them selves in a battle of proseuctoral power VS. acceptance of responsibility.
In the Columbia Law Review, an essay written by Ronald F. Wright, titled “Sente...
... middle of paper ...
...rial Lawyer 10.3 (2012): 19-20. Legal Collection. Web. 2 May 2014.
"Sixth Amendment -- Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel -- Tenth Circuit Holds That A Defendant IS Prejudiced When His Lawyer's Deficient Performance Leads Him To ForgoA Plea Bargain And Face A Fair Trial -- Williams v. Jones 571 f. 3d 1086 (10th cir. 2.."Harvard Law Review 123.7 (2010): 1795-1802. Legal Collection. web. 2 MAY 2014.
Taddei, John P. "Beyond Absolute Immunity: Alternative Protections For Prosecutors Against Ultimate Liability For § 1983 Suits." Northwestern University Law Review 106.4 (2012):1883-1926. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 May 2014.
Vorenberg, James. "Decent Restraint Of Prosecutorial Power." Harvard Law Review94(1981):1521.Legal Collection. Web. 2 May 2014
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
At the time of the murder of which David Milgaard was accused of committing he was just 16 years old. He was a hippie, constantly in trouble. Even before he was a teenager he was getting into trouble. His parents and teachers considered him impulsive; he resisted authority (Regina Leader Post, 1992, as cited in Anderson & Anderson 1998). He was removed from kindergarten because he was considered to be a negative influence on the other children. When he was thirteen he spent time in a psychiatric centre (Anderson & Anderson, 1998)
Where justice is putting a stop to the perpetrator for what they have done wrong. “Justice-as logically, legally and ethically defined-isn’t really about getting even or experiencing a spiteful joy in retaliation. Instead, it's about righting a wrong,” from Leon F.Seltzer’s “Don’t Confuse Revenge With Justice: Five Key Differences.” In other words, justice is not about getting back at anyone with retaliation but correcting a wrong to restore balance.
This trial was between a group called the Mau Mau and Great Britain. Great Britain colonized Kenya in 1895. Great Britain's colonization of Kenya had major effects, good and bad.But in the early 1900’s, the Kenyans wanted independence. They formed a independence group called the Mau Mau. The Mau Mau were mostly made up of a tribe called the Kikuyu. As they tried peaceful protests and demonstrations, the Mau Mau were usually attacked by the British. Britain believed in order to stop the Mau Mau from their independence movement and the violence they were causing on the Britain's, Britain needed to use force. The purpose of this trial was not to make a decision about if Britain's violence was justifiable or not, but to figure out if the Mau Maus
Decision: The prosecution had suppressed the evidence in the supreme court and the court held that it went against the Brady’s Due Process of the fourteenth Amendment right. The Court also stated that according to the Maryland state law, Boblit’s confession would not change or exonerate Brady, so the decision for reassessing Brady’s sentence was appropriate
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
“may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one” (as cited in Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150).
In conclusion, either while watching television or listen to the news you hear of how certain things are tainting our criminal justice system or that certain things or people are being corrupted in the system.
Gary Leon Ridgway may not be a household name, but the infamous Green River Killer is one of the most accomplished serial murderers in U.S. history. In 2003, Ridgway confessed 48 accounts of aggravated first degree murder (more confirmed murders than any other American serial killer) during a two-and-a-half-year period in the early 1980s near Seattle, although it is believed he slaughtered even more. The majority of his victims were runaway teenage girls and hookers whom he picked up on the interstate and strangled to death. But Ridgway was spared the death penalty as part of a plea bargain three years ago, in exchange for his assistance in leading investigators to his victim's remains and revealing other information to help "bring closure" to the grieving families ("Green River Killer Avoids Death in Plea Deal").
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
Time may pass and personal morals may change, but one of the strengths of the United States of America is its unwavering dedication to justice. Throughout time, this country’s methods and laws have grown and adapted, but the basis of the law enforcement’s work has remained the same: the safety and interest of the people.
It is often said that power brings corruption, but in reality it is an individual’s lack of character, self-discipline, and integrity that leads to corruption. Law enforcement can bring many temptations on the job, and maintaining an up most level of personal integrity can often times be very difficult. The very nature of the job surrounds officers with all of the bad things that society, produces. There can be an endless amount of training and rules put into place to try and deter officers from committing unethical acts, but in the end it really just comes down to the specific individual and their willingness to do the right thing.
In deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings, a prosecutor must balance two competing responsibilities. He must vigorously prosecute individuals reasonably suspected of significant criminal activity, but must avoid harassing or disturbing innocent citizens. In weighing these fac-tors, he is obligated to look beyond the immediate problem of winning a case and consider in-stead the fair and efficient administration of criminal justice.
...Available By: Acker, James. Contemporary Justice Review, Sep2008, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p287-289, 3p; DOI: 10.1080/10282580802295625
Criminal Justice professionals are in positions of power and exercise power and authority over others. Therefore, it is important for them to study ethics because they must be aware of the ethical standards needed in making critical decisions involving discretion, force, and due process. It is also a fact that criminal justice professionals who exercise power and authority over others can be tempted to abuse their powers.