Prosecutorial Misconduct: What It Is and Why It Matters
Prosecutorial misconduct refers to any illegal or unethical behavior by a prosecutor that undermines the fairness of a trial or the rights of the accused. Prosecutors are sworn to seek justice, not merely to win cases, but when they engage in misconduct, they can violate the fundamental principles of due process and the integrity of the legal system.Common examples of prosecutorial misconduct include:
-
Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: Prosecutors are required to turn over evidence that could prove a defendant’s innocence. Failing to do so, known as a Brady violation, undermines the right to a fair trial.
-
Making Inflammatory Statements: If a prosecutor makes statements in court or in the media that inflame emotions, prejudice the jury, or promote a bias against the defendant, it can compromise the fairness of the trial.
-
Misleading the Jury: Prosecutors must present evidence truthfully. Deliberately misrepresenting facts or presenting false evidence is a violation of ethical and legal standards.
-
Improper Closing Arguments: During closing arguments, a prosecutor may overstate or mischaracterize the evidence in a way that misleads the jury into a biased verdict.
-
Overzealous Pursuit of Convictions: A prosecutor who pursues charges without sufficient evidence or relies on dubious tactics to secure a conviction can be seen as engaging in misconduct, especially when it ignores or disregards the rights of the accused.
Why Prosecutorial Misconduct is Harmful:
Prosecutorial misconduct can have devastating consequences for the defendant, the justice system, and society as a whole. For the accused, it can result in wrongful convictions, severe punishments, and even irreversible damage to their life, career, and reputation. For the public, it breeds distrust in the legal system and may embolden future misconduct.
In the worst cases, prosecutorial misconduct can mean the difference between freedom and unjust imprisonment or even the loss of a life. This makes it not only a violation of the law but a profound moral and ethical failing.
Bad Lawyers Are Very Bad: How They Cause Harm to Clients, the Justice System, and Society
A lawyer's role is to advocate for their client while upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and ethical conduct. But bad lawyers—whether through incompetence, negligence, or unethical behavior—can wreak havoc on the lives of their clients and tarnish the legal profession. When lawyers fail to fulfill their responsibilities, the consequences can be severe, both for the individual client and for the justice system as a whole.
Incompetence and Negligence
At its core, a bad lawyer may simply lack the skill or knowledge necessary to competently represent their client. Whether through ignorance of the law, lack of preparation, or poor judgment, an incompetent lawyer can:
-
Miss Important Deadlines: Many legal processes are governed by strict deadlines. Missing a crucial deadline can result in a case being dismissed, a client’s claim being forfeited, or a potential defense being waived.
-
Fail to Investigate Properly: Lawyers have an ethical duty to thoroughly investigate their cases. A lawyer who fails to gather key evidence or properly research the law risks presenting an incomplete or flawed defense, causing irreparable harm to the client's case.
-
Neglect Legal Procedures: Legal procedures can be complex and multifaceted. A bad lawyer might neglect important procedural steps, such as filing required motions, requesting appropriate documents, or objecting to inadmissible evidence during trial. This failure can drastically reduce the chances of a favorable outcome.
Unethical Behavior
Some lawyers cause harm not simply because they lack skill, but because they act unethically. Unethical conduct can take many forms, including:
-
Conflicts of Interest: A lawyer with a conflict of interest, such as representing multiple clients whose interests are incompatible, may not be able to fully advocate for each client. This can lead to biased or inadequate representation.
-
Dishonesty and Fraud: In extreme cases, a bad lawyer might deceive clients or the court. This could include falsifying evidence, misrepresenting facts, or lying about case developments. Dishonesty destroys trust and undermines the integrity of the entire legal process.
-
Taking Advantage of Clients: Some unscrupulous lawyers exploit vulnerable clients for financial gain. This might involve charging exorbitant fees, taking on cases they are ill-equipped to handle, or even neglecting clients altogether once they’ve been paid.
Bad Lawyers and the Harm They Cause
The harm caused by a bad lawyer extends far beyond the individual case. Here's why:
-
Wrongful Convictions or Acquittals: A bad defense attorney in a criminal trial can lead to a wrongful conviction, which can send an innocent person to prison. Conversely, a bad prosecutor or defense attorney can lead to the acquittal of a guilty person, which undermines the justice system.
-
Injustice for Victims: In civil cases, a bad lawyer can cause further harm to victims by failing to secure compensation, damages, or even an apology. A lawyer who doesn't fight hard enough for their client’s interests can result in them being deprived of what they are entitled to.
-
Loss of Public Trust: When lawyers fail in their duties, it erodes the public’s trust in the legal system. People begin to question whether they can ever truly get a fair trial, whether they will be represented competently, and whether the law is being administered impartially. A loss of public trust threatens the legitimacy of the entire justice system.
-
Psychological and Emotional Damage: A bad lawyer can cause significant stress, anxiety, and emotional turmoil for their clients. Clients may feel abandoned or betrayed by someone they trust to handle their case, which can lead to emotional scars long after the case is concluded.
The Impact on Society
Bad lawyers are not just harmful to their clients—they can harm society as a whole. A flawed legal process due to incompetent or unethical lawyers means that justice is not served equitably. When justice is compromised, it can lead to societal unrest and the further perpetuation of inequality. Furthermore, allowing bad lawyers to operate without consequence can create a cycle of negligence and abuse that erodes public faith in legal institutions.
Conclusion
The consequences of prosecutorial misconduct and bad legal representation are far-reaching. Whether through malicious intent or incompetence, when lawyers fail to fulfill their ethical and professional obligations, the effects are felt by the clients, the courts, and society at large. Protecting the integrity of the legal profession, holding lawyers accountable, and ensuring proper legal oversight are essential for maintaining the fairness and legitimacy of the justice system. Justice is too important to leave in the hands of those who undermine it.
An excerpt from the article by Michael Kiefer ~
Registry records prosecutorial misconduct
Jan 12, 2014
trial court or appeals court. It lists the type of case and the nature of the misconduct, from withholding evidence to perjury. The registry also includes any sanctions imposed by the court.
According to the center, the Registry of Prosecutorial Misconduct was created to provide hard data that could lead to accountability by prosecutors.
On its website, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity defines itself as an organization dedicated “to preserve the presumption of innocence, assure equal treatment under the law, and end wrongful convictions.” It defines prosecutorial misconduct as “a violation of a code of professional ethics or pertinent law, or other conduct that prejudices the administration of justice, whether intentional or inadvertent.”
Bartlett expects to expand the database, and his center has calculated that there have been at least 15,000 instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the U.S. since 1970 in all state and federal courts.
Prosecutorial integrity: Lawyer errors can mean prison for the innocent"we’re really talking about tens of thousands...
Posted by Center for Prosecutor Integrity on Friday, July 4, 2014
Posted by Dysfunctional Judges on Saturday, November 15, 2014
Center for Prosecutorial Integrity Launches “BRING A PROSECUTOR TO JUSTICE” Campaign…...
Posted by Camille Tilley on Thursday, July 31, 2014
Posted by Dysfunctional Judges on Monday, August 18, 2014
My name is Lorraine A. Mogus and I did not seen my Mother Helen A. Mogus in the last five years of her life due to a...
Posted by Annette E. Blankenship on Saturday, December 27, 2014
Bronx Prosecutor Barred from CourtroomThe prosecutorial faux pas has raised questions about the integrity of the Bronx District Attorney’s office.See: http://nydn.us/1Bord1Q
Posted by Center for Prosecutor Integrity on Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Recent Proof of Prosecutorial Misconduct Mirrors OCDA's Bad Old DaysInside the Orange County district attorney's...
Posted by Center for Prosecutor Integrity on Friday, May 8, 2015
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice, or abuse. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
DeleteSelf-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one's due process rights. Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice, or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case's outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE CITIZENS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly -- with or without a lawyer. Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living. Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain "paid" access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State." ~ In Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
WE SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR EQUAL JUSTICE
Activist sometimes exhibit impatience with theory - often for good reasons. They have seen nonviolence caught in an ideological net in which the purity of ideology eclipsed activity and the nonviolent effort was undermined by a deflection of energy. But nonviolent theory is absolutely necessary. It introduces to the world a new strategy for resisting evil without creating new evils and becoming evil ourselves. But more important, it articulates a new way of being that yields a vision of peace more powerful than all the armies of all the nations of the world. (Peace is the Way, 2000)
YOU BE THE JUDGE:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Fernandez Rundle
South Florida State Attorney
Dear State Attorney:
For the sake of true justice I respectfully call your attention about apparent irregularities in the Agency under your Administration. Said scandalous issue, as it can be expected, may reflect on your immaculate image as our State Attorney as well as on the public perception of the Candidate for re-election that I trust you will be next year.
My worries consist of serious doubts about perceptible wrongdoings by your Subordinates who appear to have been influenced by a far fetched concept of distorted ethics of the Bar’s Black Sheep who take their licenses as if they were letters of marque guaranteeing absolute impunity to the self appointed corsairs of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Disregarding the unequivocal proofs of flagrant violations of my most intrinsic civil rights under the US Constitution, Investigator Solano may have prevaricated with the intention of covering the backs of at least two attorneys who have knowingly incurred and re-incurred in criminal activities by victimizing this Complainant by viciously violating the Wanton Act.
To aggravate his prevarication, Mr. Solano (or Somoano) returned the whole original Complaint Package to me and failed to include a cover letter stating the reason(s), and failed to inform me IN WRITING where copies of the File had been forwarded for a supposed further investigation.
Although Mr. Somoano (or solano) had left a recorded message stating that he was forwarding the File to the Florida Department of Financial Service, he perfectly knew (or should have known) that the Florida Department of Financial Services would give nobody any information without a Reference Number. Just plain negligence or abuse of office?
In spite of the fact that your assistant(s) neglected to open the due investigation for criminal activities typified by false accusations of at least six acts of felony (against me) while Attorneys Felipe E. Diez and Scott E. Danner engaged in verifiable tainting of evidences, cover-up, concealment and misrepresentation, extorting practices, coercion, and defamation of my character (both by slander and libel), corruption and traffic of influences may have targeted the Office of the South Florida State Attorney as well.
Regardless of the proofs contained in my original charges, your Office got rid of the Complaint File without any written explanation(s) and openly refused to investigate transgressions. Why? Where is the image of decorum that every agent of the Justice System ought to project to all Floridians? Again, are attorney’s licenses letters or marquise? How long are the arms of predatory insurance carriers and unscrupulous attorneys? What limits, if any at all, do they respect?
Please kindly correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the supposed action of forwarding my Complaint to another prosecuting or regulatory agency is reason enough to assign it a File Number at least for identification purposes. Further, the supposed forwarding to another State Agency should have included the original documents signed and certified by Complainant. Therefore I ask:
* Unconcern for duties, undetected prevarication, or traffic of influences?
* Does our Justice System recognize “sacred cows” or untouchables?
* Are legitimate complaints from average citizens worthless whenever they touch the auto designated “corsairs”?
* As a law-abiding citizen, What can I expect from the Office of the South Florida State Attorney?
* Should the File be elevated to the federal level, too? Back to Wanton Negligence.
Based on above posed questions, I wonder whether the exposed maneuver has been calculated to deceive a [non-lawyer] complainant who your apparently prevaricating assistants may have taken as an ignorant easy prey of the supposed sacred cows…
Trusting that you may want to open an internal investigation within your office and will pursue Justice by correcting and re-addressing the issues in my File, I respectfully remain very truthfully yours.
The Constitution provided us with the means to control the government, but the two most powerful means for holding the government accountable have been stolen. If you want to know what those two means of controlling our government are and how those in government get away with violating our rights and ignoring our wishes.
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/why-does-the-government-ignore-our-wishes/ and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.
Every day, right here in the “good” old USA, hundreds of Americans are beaten and raped by U.S. “law” enforcement and an average of two are murdered by U.S. “law” enforcement. If you don’t believe me, see the admissions by Congress and the DOJ in my article Why does the U.S. Government Torture People? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/06/24/why-does-the-u-s-government-torture-people/
If you take a look, you’ll learn why they get away with violating our rights, abusing their power, and committing horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas stated that Bar associations had the potential to become goose-stepping brigades. Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 884 (1961) at http://supreme.justia.com/us/367/820/case.html Justices Douglas and Black dissented in Lathrop beginning at 866. Most importantly, Justices Douglas and Black were concerned that mandatory Bar associations would be used to control lawyers, prohibit challenges to the establishment, and cover up misconduct by powerful interests. It sure looks like they were right.
I was prosecuted to cover up election fraud and judicial corruption in Florida, see “Justice” in Florida’s Supreme Court!?! at http://blip.tv/file/1339250 and don’t miss the links below the video.
For more about this corruption, see:
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s June 25, 2004 letter to the Florida Bar asking it to address my complaint to the FDLE about felonies committed by self-proclaimed connected attorneys. Naturally, like with my complaints to the FBI, the FDLE, and others who are supposed to enforce the law, no action has been taken. As you can see, the law means nothing if you have to beg a prosecuting prince to enforce it.
My letter to the Inspector General for Florida’s Attorney General’s Office requesting a criminal investigation.
My Answer Brief in the “State” of Florida’s illegal appeal of the extortionate criminal contempt charges leveled against me to shut me up. Skip to page 14 to see the law applied to the facts and the really good stuff begins on page 21.
The Rule of Law web site has the background on my case North Country Gazette at http://www.northcountrygazette.org
Also, you might enjoy my speech titled “No Justice, No Peace” given at the National Judicial Reform Conference at Rice University in Houston, Texas. See it at http://markadams.blip.tv/file/2074454
Let me know if you want me to do another show some time. The Florida Bar is involved in corruption across the state, and I often hear about it.
Check out a 3 minute video about some of my work at http://blip.tv/file/1672498 Also, I’m one of the featured writers on The Daily Censored which is the blog for the premier media watchdog organization, Project Censored. http://dailycensored.com/writers/mark-a-adams/ http://dailycensored.com/author/markadamsjdmba/