Prosecutorial Discretion Case Study

Discretion is the eminence of once behavior or the way of speaking in order to avoid any offensive occurrence or speaking up any private issues or information in public. It is the self-determination for someone to choose or think what should be better to be done in particular circumstances. Especially for a judge, a public official or other private party has the authority to make decisions on any legal matters or other big official subjects. Thus, a person who is authorized with the power of discretion often thinks about how to apply the given supremacy.

The prosecutor having to decide what evidence is material leaves the most room for an ethical violation to occur. While it can be hard to image that a prosecutor that a prosecutor would willingly withhold evidence that points to a defendant's innocence it does happen and arguably in the cases that resulted in exonerations it was not done intentionally. One reason for this is the fact that the prosecutor in deciding what is material under Brady and has to be disclosed has to see into the future and while doing that think like both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. “On one hand, the prosecutor is the zealous advocate for the State, while on the other the prosecutor must pretend to have the mind of a defense lawyer in order to determine whether any evidence in his possession falls within the parameters of what is considered Brady material.”10 This dichotomy leaves so much room for a violation almost purely by accident. As the Justice Project points out, prosecutors may inadvertently suppress evidence due to unfamiliarity with the defense’s case and inability to forecast what evidence may prove material in the context of the defense strategy.11 Which is true, because the prosecutor would be use to looking at the facts and consider what is exculpatory given their theory of the case and how to rebut it. But not all attorney's look at all the information the same and are not trained the same, so something a defense attorney thinks is important, might not appear to be important to a prosecutor. Which the Justice Project also points out how it creates competing roles for the prosecutor, who must both try the defendant and anticipate what evidence

Prosecutors in the United States have “tunnel vision" they work to convict suspects without reviewing the evidence that may indicate the suspect may be innocent and the problem with this is that an innocent person can be convicted and go to jail for the rest of their lives. There are a number of things that contribute to this issue one being if a prosecutor with a weak case which focuses on an accused rather than considering alternative suspects precisely because tunnel vision has set in. Given what we know about the Duke Lacrosse investigation, the criminal investigators should change their tactics to ensure a fair and partial investigation by questioning the accuser’s statements if there are obvious contradictions as there were in the Duke Lacrosse case, also the police line-up process which was said to be severely flawed. Police when conducting line-ups should not advise victim or the witness of who she will be looking, a police lineup should involve placing a suspect among people not suspected of

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.

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 United States, one in five people suffer from mental illness. These disorders can be as small as bipolar disorder, depression, or as serious as schizophrenia. It is vital to have the mentally ill individual best interest when they enter the criminal justice system. The term” prosecutorial discretion” involves to the elements to subsume under U.S. legal system, the prosecuting attorneys have virtually supreme authority to decide whether to or not to produce criminal charges, what to prosecute for, in lawsuits where the evidence intend to vindicate the charges. This power supply the crucial foundation to the general exercise of plea bargaining, and assurance that prosecutors are by all the ultimate dominant of the government officials.

The prosecutor's interest in the prosecution is to win, and for the unscrupulous, unethical prosecutor to win regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The prosecutor's career path could be injured by failing to win, showing the lack of skill as a prosecutor for a lost criminal case, or poor professional judgment in obtaining an indictment which later was dismissed. The prosecutor's career path is enhanced by being, and being known as the "winner", which enables the prosecutor to get more

So DACA affects a many different immigrants from all parts of the world not just the Hispanic population. To really get an understanding of how the current public policy DACA has come into play. We first must know its origins.

I think this would be an important and beneficial solution to help prevent coercion, sentence disparities, and improper meetings. First, I would conduct research and place my findings together to present to my peers. Since I am a student in college, I would find fellow students in my classes who do and do not support my findings and create a group to help spread awareness of the importance of this issue. After creating a support group consisted of different perspectives, I would alter my research to propose a bill concerning the establishment of these boards to oversee prosecutor’s work. From there, I would address my local representative with my proposition all the while raising awareness of the bill in my community to help gain support through guest speaking at local events. After spreading awareness locally, I would present my findings to news stations and newspapers to spread the proposed bill over the state of Mississippi to help raise awareness across the

    Should the U.S. Judical branch take action to prevent wrongful convictions and improve police investigations, or should the government spend its time and resources on other things?

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

The U.S. criminal justice system is founded on the belief of opportunity. A district attorney does not have to report an accusation even when the crime is obvious. Juries utilize discretion in evaluating the proof. Grand juries use discretion in determining whether or not to revert an accusation. The discretion that is most heard about is the discretion implemented by prosecutor as to whether or not to prosecute a case. Discretion occurs in the criminal justice system because objective is a component of many offenses; if there was no unlawful intention, there would be no lawbreaking; yet, there are infringements that do not have an exact directed obligation. Nearly everybody takes part in the criminal justice system and practices discretion.

In the American Criminal Justice System, there are four key attributes in the role of the prosecutor. There are discretion, resource dependence, sequential tasks, and filtering. The prosecutors are lawyers that are accountable for presenting criminal cases in trial. The United States Attorneys are pointed by state or government, and represent the federal government in courts. They prosecute all adults who commit felonies and juveniles who commit delinquent crimes. Conjointly, the prosecutors have further responsibilities, such as legal adviser of the country commissioners, the Board of Elections, and written admonition of the prosecutors.

“While elected officials are charged with managing the administration of criminal justice, they always do so with an eye toward politics, and herein lies an important source of the tension between the pursuit of coherent policy

As mentioned previously, prosecutors who are trying a case may be prone to biases. Similarly, governmental investigations of police misconducts may also have conflicts as well. These conflicts may relate to those that are experienced by prosecutors in that they may be politically influenced. For example, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that “federal investigations of police departments were bad for “morale,” and [he] waved away the idea that police abuses could be systemic, rather than the actions of a few bad apples” (Serwer, 2017). As the Department of Justice is under the direction of the Attorney General, there may be less active investigations of police misconduct. Courts may also face conflicts in that judges are also prone