Omar Bennett
Prosecutors are elected officials who are subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility and must adhere to standards of professional conduct. Punishable misconduct by a prosecutor can take many forms, including committing crimes such as forgery and drug possession, having conflicts of interest, expressing personal opinions, making inflammatory comments, eliciting prejudicial testimony, and failing to present exculpatory evidence. In cases of prosecutorial misconduct, common remedies include disciplinary action by the state bar authority, such as reprimands, suspension of licenses, disbarment, and the assessment of costs. Final decisions by disciplinary authorities can be appealed to the courts, with the potential for reversal of convictions. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed prosecutorial misconduct in several cases, including during the 1977-1978 term, where they considered issues such as the encouragement of guilty pleas through plea bargaining and the prosecution's delay in bringing an indictment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Prosecutors eliciting prejudicial testimony from a witness | Evil intent or ineptitude |
| Government using false evidence to convict an accused | Denial of due process |
| Failure to present exculpatory evidence to the accused | Denial of due process |
| Commenting on defendant's post-arrest silence | Violation of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent |
| Expressing personal opinions during a trial | Unfounded opinions leading to a finding of misconduct |
| Making inflammatory comments | Appeals to the jury's general fear of crime rather than the evidence |
| Discriminating when selecting a jury | Excluding potential jurors based on race |
| Encouraging a guilty plea by threatening to bring additional charges | Misconduct |
| Prosecution delaying bringing an indictment | Double jeopardy |
| Statements by the prosecution that evidence against the defendant was uncontradicted and unrefuted | Comment upon the failure of the defendant to testify |
| Prosecutor committing or allowing perjury | Misconduct |
| Prosecutor referring to facts without evidence | Misconduct |
| Prosecutor having conflicts of interest | Misconduct |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence
Prosecutors are generally encouraged to take a broad view of materiality and to err on the side of disclosing exculpatory evidence. This is to ensure that trials are fair and that defendants' rights are protected. In some cases, however, prosecutors may delay or restrict the disclosure of certain evidence if doing so is necessary to protect witness security or national security interests.
Despite these guidelines, there are instances where prosecutors have failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, resulting in misconduct allegations. This can occur when a prosecutor withholds information that is inconsistent with any element of the crime charged against the defendant or that establishes an affirmative defense. It can also occur when a prosecutor withholds information that casts doubt on the accuracy of the evidence they intend to rely on or that has a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence.
In such cases, the misconduct can lead to reversals of convictions and disciplinary action against the prosecutor. Disciplinary proceedings for lawyers can result in a range of punishments, including private or public reprimands, suspension of their license to practice law, disbarment, probation, or being assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
Overall, the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is a serious form of prosecutorial misconduct that can have significant implications for all involved parties. It is important for prosecutors to adhere to the standards of professional conduct and disclose exculpatory evidence to ensure fair trials and uphold the integrity of the justice system.
Constitution's Role in the Industrial Revolution
You may want to see also
Allowing perjury
Prosecutors also have a duty to provide evidence for any facts they assert during a criminal trial. It is considered misconduct for a prosecutor to refer to a fact for which there is no evidence. For instance, if a prosecutor, in their closing remarks, states that a particular neighbourhood has seen a significant decline in violent crime since the defendant has been imprisoned, without providing evidence for this claim, they would be committing misconduct.
Additionally, it is prosecutorial misconduct for a prosecutor to allow a witness to commit perjury. For example, if a prosecutor's only evidence in a felony hit-and-run case is the testimony of a law enforcement officer claiming that the defendant confessed, and the prosecutor knows that the officer is lying, it would be misconduct for the prosecutor to let the officer commit perjury on the stand.
In the context of perjury, prosecutorial misconduct can have serious consequences. If a prosecutor allows perjury to occur and it is deemed to have prejudiced the trial outcome, disciplinary action may be taken. This can include reprimands, censure, suspension of the prosecutor's license to practice law, disbarment, or even the imposition of costs for the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the punishment will depend on the specific circumstances and the severity of the offense.
George Washington's Legacy: Constitution Amendments
You may want to see also
Expressing personal opinions
Prosecutors are subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility and must adhere to the standards of professional conduct in the state where they practice. Any ethical violations can lead to disciplinary action and punishment. One form of prosecutorial misconduct is expressing personal opinions about a matter in a trial.
While a prosecutor may express an opinion on the guilt of the accused and the credibility of a witness, it must be based on actual evidence produced at the trial. Expressing unfounded opinions can lead to a finding of misconduct. For example, it would be misconduct for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant's choice to invoke their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Similarly, a prosecutor cannot make inflammatory comments that appeal to the passions of the jury. An example would be arguing for "safe streets", which appeals to the jury's general fear of crime rather than the evidence presented in court.
Prosecutors also cannot express personal opinions by making prejudicial statements to the jury, such as referring to facts for which there is no evidence. This includes presenting false evidence or allowing perjury, as well as failing to present exculpatory evidence that suggests the defendant's innocence or a lesser sentence. For instance, in the case of Brady v. Maryland, a prosecutor's failure to turn over exculpatory evidence (known as "Brady material") resulted in a Brady violation and was considered misconduct.
In addition to these specific examples, a prosecutor's expression of personal opinions can constitute misconduct if it results in a denial of due process for the defendant. This could occur through delaying an indictment, using false evidence, or failing to present exculpatory evidence, ultimately infringing upon the constitutional rights of criminal defendants and affecting the fundamental fairness of the trial.
Implied Powers: Examples from the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Racial discrimination in jury selection
While the racial composition of juries is not dictated by law, racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is specifically prohibited. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that striking a juror based on their race denies the defendant equal protection under the Constitution. Despite this, racial discrimination in jury selection has been pervasive in the United States, with a long history of African Americans being excluded from juries.
In the landmark case of Batson v. Kentucky in 1986, the Supreme Court addressed a situation where a prosecutor had used peremptory challenges to strike all four black candidates from a jury, resulting in the conviction of a black defendant. The Court ruled that a defendant could establish a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection and that the exclusion of jurors based on race violates the defendant's right to equal protection. However, as the case of Batson v. Kentucky demonstrates, even when a prima facie case of discrimination is established, it does not guarantee that racial discrimination in jury selection will be eliminated.
The persistence of racial discrimination in jury selection is evident in more recent cases as well. In 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court cited Batson v. Kentucky in ruling that judges do not have the authority to dismiss randomly selected jury panels based on a lack of racial diversity. This ruling arose from a 2014 case involving a black defendant where a nearly all-white jury panel was dismissed by a judge. Additionally, in 2010, a white man in Alabama appealed his murder conviction and death sentence, arguing that jury selection was tainted by racial discrimination as most of the jurors were white.
The underrepresentation of racial minorities on juries has been acknowledged as a widespread issue, prompting states to take action. Research has shown that racially diverse juries can lead to fairer trials, with more time spent deliberating and fewer errors made. To address racial discrimination in jury selection, some states, including Washington, California, Connecticut, and New Jersey, have implemented reforms or initiated studies. In 2018, Washington became the first state to adopt rules aimed at eliminating not just intentional but also implicit bias in jury selection. Additionally, in 2019, Canada passed Bill C-75, which eliminated peremptory challenges of jurors in criminal cases, further preventing the exclusion of jurors based on race.
Supreme Court Rulings: Bound by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Encouraging a guilty plea
This issue highlights the delicate balance between prosecutorial discretion and the rights of the accused. While prosecutors have the power to offer plea deals, their conduct during these negotiations must be scrutinized to ensure fairness and adherence to legal ethics. Threatening to bring additional charges to coerce a guilty plea can be seen as undue pressure and a violation of the defendant's rights.
Prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, often referred to as "Brady material", which suggests the defendant's innocence or mitigates their guilt. Withholding such evidence to secure a guilty plea is a Brady violation and constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. For example, burying a witness statement that provides an alibi for the defendant to secure a conviction is unethical and unlawful.
Additionally, prosecutors must ensure that any facts presented during negotiations or trials are supported by evidence. Misconduct occurs when a prosecutor refers to facts without evidentiary backing. This includes making inflammatory comments that appeal to the passions and fears of the jury, rather than relying on the evidence presented in court. Expressing personal opinions without basis in fact or evidence can also lead to findings of prosecutorial misconduct.
In conclusion, encouraging a guilty plea can be lawful and ethical when done within the bounds of legal ethics and the prosecutor's duty to seek justice. However, when prosecutors overstep their bounds by withholding evidence, making unfounded statements, or using coercive tactics to secure a conviction, they engage in prosecutorial misconduct, which can have serious consequences for the fairness of the justice system and the rights of the accused.
Namibian Constitution: Freedom of Religion Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when a prosecutor expresses their personal opinion about a matter in a trial, makes inflammatory comments that appeal to the passions of the jury, or discriminates when selecting a jury. It is also misconduct if the prosecutor refers to a fact with no supporting evidence or elicits prejudicial testimony from a witness.
Common remedies in cases of prosecutorial misconduct include disciplinary action by the state bar authority, suspension of the prosecutor's license to practice law, disbarment, or probation.
An example of prosecutorial misconduct is when a prosecutor makes an inflammatory comment during a child molestation trial's closing arguments, such as saying, "None of your own children will be safe if you let a predator like this back on the street." Another example is when a prosecutor elicits testimony from a law enforcement officer that they know is false.
Malicious prosecution refers to a criminal or civil case filed without any lawful foundation. Prosecutorial misconduct, on the other hand, refers to unethical or illegal actions taken by a prosecutor during a trial, such as expressing personal opinions or making inflammatory statements.
