If you are one of the many (possibly majority) who believe that the ends of punishment of bad guys justifies any means and that ignoring technicalities like rules of evidence is okay when it comes to convicting criminals (“hey, they didn’t give due process to their victims, did they?”), then ... stop reading... S’long.
Anybody left?
The public’s negative image of lawyers in the criminal justice system, “informed by” (I love that phrase - it so often means “misinformed by”) pop culture references, has focused on defense lawyers.
Our profession always scores below used car sales on the integrity scale. Some deserve the shame, although I have found that lack of competence, effort, and concern for the client are habits that are far more pervasive than cheating to win-at-all-costs behavior.
BUT ... Today’s L.A. Times contains an article that is not news to many of us who have labored in the justice system for any length of time. A study conducted at Santa Clara University School of Law concluded that misconduct by prosecutors in California was widespread — tolerated with a shrug by the courts, their peers and superiors, and mostly by the public.
The article contains a few quotes from prosecutors in their own defense. One, who had been criticised in several appellate cases, shrugged that the court didn’t find that his misconduct resulted in an erroneous conviction.
I thought that was funny, like the doctor saying the patient would have died anyway, so what’s the rumpus! Chick Hearn’s dictum: “No harm, no foul.”
Yes, it is true that in the vast majority of cases, appellate courts find any misconduct by prosecutor’s to be “harmless error,” i.e., not enough to reverse a conviction because the appellate judges have reviewed the trial evidence and decided that the defendant was guilty anyway.
This result is not completely surprising, considering that almost all appellate judges are recruited from the ranks of prosecutor offices. Many consider their duties as judges simply to be an extension of their careers as prosecutors — they are still “administering” the law.
Thus, their view of evidence and their conclusions as to what a “reasonable” jury would have done if the prosecutor hadn’t concealed, misled, distorted, lied, and / or knowingly violated substantive rules of law is drastically skewed.
Even when prosecutors are caught committing serious misconduct they are rarely disciplined by their superiors. The culture — like that of the police — supports the “tough on criminal” mentality. Part of the reason for this state of mind lies in the perception that the system is biased in favor of the defense.
The culture bridles at traditions like “presumption of innocence”, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, and unanimous verdicts, which are perceived to place too high a burden on overworked and underpaid prosecutors.
The public’s perception in this case is based on realities that haven’t existed since telephones had rotary dials. Judges haven’t been “too liberal” in California since the 1960's.
A succession of conservative governors and draconian initiatives which constitute wish lists for prosecutors have tilted the scales of justice so far in favor of the prosecution that the most ambitious law students interested in criminal law careers almost invariably seek jobs as prosecutors rather than defense lawyers.
Public defender offices are now housed with shell shocked inmates, terrified of receiving yet another losing case.
Defending is no tea party. Sorry.
Showing posts with label prosecutor misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prosecutor misconduct. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
"Sue me, sue me ... what can you do me"
A civil case in Iowa may change things for many people involved in the oxymoronic criminal "justice" system in this country.
The L.A. Times reports today that a lawsuit accusing local prosecutors of conspiring with police to frame two murder suspects was settled on the eve of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prevailing case law holds that police can be sued for such conduct, but prosecutors can't. This is based on a historically based tradition of immunity for government officials in exercise of their duties. The idea of the tradition is based on the notion that officials shouldn't be fearful being sued for doing their jobs. Certainly, if a D.A. could be sued for every judgment that affected someone's life, it would result in chaos.
However, this recent case threatened to overturn the tradition. In 1977, a retired police officer working as a security guard was shot and killed during an attempted robbery of cars at a dealership. A witness identified a "white suspect," who was arrested and failed a lie box test.
But police arrested a 16 year old car thief who fingered the two African Americans as the killers. The snitch's facts at first didn't fit the known facts. Defendants were convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to prison.
In the words of the article, "Decades later. [defendants] were able to obtain official files showing that police and prosecutors ... coaxed the witness to implicate them, while ignoring evidence that pointed to the white suspect. The sole witness recanted his testimony."
While the prosecutors maintain that they still believe in the defendants' guilt, the county settled the case for $12 million dollars, fearing an adverse Supreme Court opinion. During oral argument, Justices Kennedy and Stevens, two of the centrist "swing votes" on the Court, both indicated doubts about the tradition against suing prosecutors when intentional use of false testimony is alleged.
In addition to the central issues: the continuing reality of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the continuing evil of racist elements in the system, another point is illustrated by the case.
The errors were not discovered until "decades" after the wrong. It was revealed by persistent lawyering by use of habeas corpus to discover the documents and to investigate and re-interview the witness that helped to expose the misconduct.
Proponents of laws limiting habeas corpus, asserting a need for "certainty" and "finality" and "speedy justice" must confront this case as well as the hundreds of other examples contradicting their arguments.
The L.A. Times reports today that a lawsuit accusing local prosecutors of conspiring with police to frame two murder suspects was settled on the eve of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prevailing case law holds that police can be sued for such conduct, but prosecutors can't. This is based on a historically based tradition of immunity for government officials in exercise of their duties. The idea of the tradition is based on the notion that officials shouldn't be fearful being sued for doing their jobs. Certainly, if a D.A. could be sued for every judgment that affected someone's life, it would result in chaos.
However, this recent case threatened to overturn the tradition. In 1977, a retired police officer working as a security guard was shot and killed during an attempted robbery of cars at a dealership. A witness identified a "white suspect," who was arrested and failed a lie box test.
But police arrested a 16 year old car thief who fingered the two African Americans as the killers. The snitch's facts at first didn't fit the known facts. Defendants were convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to prison.
In the words of the article, "Decades later. [defendants] were able to obtain official files showing that police and prosecutors ... coaxed the witness to implicate them, while ignoring evidence that pointed to the white suspect. The sole witness recanted his testimony."
While the prosecutors maintain that they still believe in the defendants' guilt, the county settled the case for $12 million dollars, fearing an adverse Supreme Court opinion. During oral argument, Justices Kennedy and Stevens, two of the centrist "swing votes" on the Court, both indicated doubts about the tradition against suing prosecutors when intentional use of false testimony is alleged.
In addition to the central issues: the continuing reality of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the continuing evil of racist elements in the system, another point is illustrated by the case.
The errors were not discovered until "decades" after the wrong. It was revealed by persistent lawyering by use of habeas corpus to discover the documents and to investigate and re-interview the witness that helped to expose the misconduct.
Proponents of laws limiting habeas corpus, asserting a need for "certainty" and "finality" and "speedy justice" must confront this case as well as the hundreds of other examples contradicting their arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
