Robert Menendez's Abuse Of Power

because they withheld material evidence that could have changed the sentencing part of Mr. Brady’s trial. Mr. Brady was not innocent in his crimes but the prosecutor held back and did not disclose ahead of time information on a confession and “due process requirements not only

Twenty years later information surfaced that suggested that the evidence in the two previous trials had been tampered with. The Assistant District Attorney, with the help of Evers's widow, began compiling a new case. (Elliot Jr., pg.1)

Public humiliation has changed immensely weighing heavily on the creation of the internet introducing the idea of online cyberbullying as opposed to scaffolding in a town square. As modern society revels in putting people on a public pedestal, the scaffold that Hester Prynne is put onto marks her as no longer a person with feelings, just as a negative figure people look upon to make themselves feel higher. After the news broke of Monica Lewinsky’s scandal, people no longer recognized her as a young adult who makes mistakes, but was treated like a person with no emotions and incapable of being affected by her mistakes. As the story went on throughout the internet, she was only represented as a person through the mistake she made just as Hester Prynne was recognized for the crime she committed. Publicly shaming Hester Prynne and Monica Lewinsky is and was a way for people to make themselves feel better and place themselves higher in society.

Abuse of power and control evidently plays a huge role in the dystopian society described by George Orwell in his startling novel , 1984. The political party in control despises any concepts they can’t control so they try to undermine the feelings of pleasure and love to gain more control over the people they govern. “Big Brother” does not want individuals to be forming relationships and bonds it could not possibly break or control because they fear that it could hinder someone's unconditional loyalty towards the party and it’s ideals. The pleasure and eroticism in sex doesn’t exist in this society; the party believes that all sexual acts should be of benefit for the party and the only reason of intercourse would be to create new party members.

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).

John Feinstein in his book, Cover-Up, strongly posits the point that all people should not just take what is given, but to do further investigation to find out the truth behind all things in life.

Another major reason for keeping the prosecution for Kwidzinski going is when prosecuting attorney O’Reilly presented to the grand jury a request for an indictment on Caruso, Jasas & Kwidzinski, he presented one

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

When a defendant is accused of greater offenses, he has the right to have the court charge on lesser offenses included in the indictment, when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence that supports the defendant’s theory.

In one instance of procrastination he did not file anything in a case for over a year and a half.3 As you can imagine, this type of behavior was used against him with the evidence that he created. If all of the ethical violations with evidence backing up his wrong doing was not enough, investigators discovered that a doctors not that he submitted to the Board of Bar Overseers was “… obtained under false pretenses; Stein had apparently claimed he needed the note to obtain a refund on an airline ticket.”4 He continuously missed his hearings and never submitted written documentations that was requested. When he finally did appear, he pled the 5th Amendment. The mound of evidence stacked against him left no other choice other than

Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.

After reviewing serval sources related to this case, it is clear that this was an ongoing issue for many years and the scope may extend into the 1970’s if new allegations are corroborated.

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson was the consequence of political clash and the crack of belief systems in the result of the American Civil War. It emerged from uncompromised convictions and a challenge for control in a country battling with reunification.

Furthermore, on top of the 5 indictments Mmueller also has proof that there were 5 people that have laundered money and has released the names. To top off the cake, Mmueller has evidence that Mmanford and Ggates have been negotiating with the Rrussians and Mmanford. And Ggates are working for Trumptrup!