Misconduct Case Study

This distorted perception leads jurors to believe that cases are supposed to be handled the same way they view it on

The same kind of good evil scenario between the defense attorney and prosecutor’s office is also evident in the television show Law & Order. Although that show does not often portray one side as only good or only bad, there have been times when it has created defense attorney characters who have taken advantage of the law to force the system to completely exonerate their clients, which makes them appear to be evil people who are “cheating” justice. Reality and Fiction: the True View 3 The reality of attorneys on opposing sides of a case is that they are seldom easily identified as good or evil persons and just because they are working for the defense or the prosecution does not indicate the type of person they are (Steinberg). Both are expected to act legally and both have pressures on them that affect their work and who they are. Simply the side they represent does not alone affect the kind of person they are. As to how they try their cases, attorney ethical codes require attorneys to “zealously” pursue their case for the benefit of their client to the extent the law allows (ABA). This means that if a defense attorney sees an opportunity for his client to be set free then he or she must use it because that is their job. It is the job of the prosecutor to assure the defense does not have those opportunities. Again, this does not reflect on the quality of their character. The same thing can also

Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel do not conduct a field study as Frohmann does, instead they examined all sexual assault cases cleared by arrest in Miami Florida in 1997. They did however replicate Frohmann’s design of interviewing a sample of the prosecutors who handled the cases. By using this different method of research, Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel’s are able to show the frequency in which prosecutors used discrepant accounts and ulterior motives to reject cases. This extends upon Frohmann’s research. Their findings that, “charging decisions primarily reflect the prosecutor’s assessment of the likelihood of conviction” (Spohn, et al. 2001, p. 206) is consistent with Frohmann 's Findings. They also agreed with Frohmann’s categories of typifications, however they found that a substantial amount of cases were rejected for reasons other than discrediting the victim such as, the victim’s failure to appear for a pretrial interview, refusal to cooperate in the prosecution of the case, or admission that the charges were fabricated (Spohn, et al. 2001).

Like police officials, the public views prosecutors as the heroes in criminal cases because they are the ones who are acting for the good of the people, helping to fight crime, and ensuring the safety of the public. Or so we are lead to believe. However, many cases like the Nicarico case or the Rivera case show that the prosecutors are doing the opposite, and are instead hurting innocent people. In the Nacarico case, one instances of misconduct was when the prosecutor collaborated with their lieutenant, stating that he had been aware of the statement made by Cruz and was listed by the prosecution as a witness. However, later it came to light that the lieutenant was not in fact made aware of the “statement.” Even though there had been no written record of such a statement, simply because the right people claimed it occurred, the common trust bias in prosecutors and police officials cause the state of Illinois to pursue Cruz for over twelve

Prosecutorial Discretion comes from the Bordenkircher v Hayes (1978) case. The Supreme Court ruled “ so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” (Whitebread, Slobogin, 2008, p591) Some states require the prosecution to give them a detailed written reason as to why they chose to dismiss a case. In most cases, the prosecutor has absolute authority and are rarely challenged. Similar to most government officials, prosecutors also have both legislative and administrative restrictions.

What did the prosecutor do wrong? How does immunity protect the prosecutor from the consequences of his or her misconduct?

Prosecutors play a critical role in determining a defendant’s guilt. Despite this role, the powers ascribed to prosecutors have long been debated. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the United States Supreme Court sought to clarify the powers ascribed to prosecutors in three cases. These cases included: Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150, and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Although the issue explored by the Supreme Court differed in each of these cases, the verdict in each case helped to clarify whether or not prosecutors in the United States had the right to suppress evidence.

Answer: No, I don’t believe there is a danger that prosecutors may illegitimately seek continuances, because yes there is always a grave chance that both the prosecutors and defense attorneys will try to exploit or override the system to their party’s advantage. With this in mind it is required that anyone seeking a

To begin with, the job a prosecutor has is to gather the facts of the case, along with interviewing material witnesses, and study the evidence that was collected. Next, there may be two attorneys who work the case and both should make the case hold up in court. Finally, an example of a case “where the prosecutor was unethical was when Michael B. Nifong charged Duke university lacrosse team in 2007 with sexual assault, and other crimes, although the evidence collected did not prove that they were guilty.” (pg.)

In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year-old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2 months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor’s office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes. (Case Study, n.d.)

Give a real life example of prosecutor misconduct and indicate briefly how/if that prosecutor was punished?

At the BSSL we would like to make work a legal, profitable, and comfortable environment to be at during your careers here with us. We are going to start implementing an open door policy. We want all employees to feel they can speak with any member of management, without risk or fear of loosing their jobs, if they feel uncomfortable about something they are asked to do here. Also, all employees need to keep their eyes and hears opened for illegal and unethical behaviors. If an unethical or illegal behavior is reported and proven we would like to offer the employee that comes forth with the information a reward to show our

Excellent post, on how our justice system gets the proof fir someone that was falsely accused of a crime they did not committed. In my personal opinion the prosecutor should have been sentenced to the same number of years served that Michael Morton spend behind bars. Ten days and community service is not enough for the damage that was done to his life.

Swinging initially to risk issues identifying with grounds wrongdoing (Burling, 2003), courts have more than once decided that PSIs might be obligated for criminal exploitation happening on grounds. This translation emerges essentially through the law of torts, particularly carelessness, albeit a few courts have utilized contract law as the reason for their decisions (Burling, 2003). Under a carelessness activity, a casualty can move to the establishment a few, if not all, misfortunes he or she brought about, but rather just when the offended party (casualty) demonstrates the accompanying: (a) The college or school owed him or her an obligation; (b) the college or school acted (or neglected to act) so as to rupture that obligation; (c) because of the break, the offended party was harmed; and (d) if the PSI had not acted (or neglected to act) as it had, the offended party would not have been harmed. Under contract law, the offended party/casualty must demonstrate the presence of either a communicated or an inferred get, the subsequent rupture of which brought about his or her

Malfeasance is an intention act that is illegal or wrongful, misfeasance, is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed and nonfeasance is a failure to act that result in an injury to another. Example of malfeasance is if a law official notice a group of men with red bandanas and playing loud music decide to detain the group, check their records without proper causes. Misfeasance occurs when a law official make an arrest and not inform the individual of their legal rights/ (give Miranda warnings). Nonfeasance example; a law official known that a prisoner is going to be attacked by another inmate and does nothing to prevent the attack thus, allowing injury to occur purposely.