An opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal. Misconduct and incompetence by prosecutors is one of my pet peeves. And the reason I don’t put it more strongly is because there’s nothing I—or almost anyone—can do about it. It’s therefore like getting upset because it’s snowing or too hot.
________________________________________

They can’t be sued. New York lawmakers try a new approach to a vexing problem.

By John Grisham
Aug. 12, 2018 5:40 p.m. ET

The vast majority of prosecutors are honest, ethical professionals who play by the rules. During my 10-year career as a criminal-defense lawyer, I dealt with prosecutors daily and never knew one to step out of bounds.

But the great flood of exonerations have revealed the glaring truth that some prosecutors cheat and even break the law. It has been proved, repeatedly, that prosecutors across the U.S. have (1) concealed evidence that would benefit the accused; (2) fabricated evidence that would convict the accused; (3) made false statements to judges, juries and defense attorneys; (4) offered perjured testimony; (5) cut sleazy deals with jailhouse informants who will testify to anything in return for leniency; (6) employed junk-science “experts” who mislead jurors; and (7) intimidated witnesses.

What happens when a prosecutor is caught? Rarely anything. Civil lawsuits by the wrongly convicted are next to impossible because the Supreme Court ruled in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) that prosecutors are immune from suit in virtually all cases, no matter how egregious their actions. Trial judges can impose sanctions for misconduct in some cases, but they almost never do, and state disciplinary schemes for prosecutors are generally ineffective.

A Chicago Tribune series, for instance, analyzed more than 11,000 U.S. homicide cases involving prosecutorial misconduct between 1963 and 1999 and found reversals in 381 cases because prosecutors either presented false evidence or concealed exculpatory information. Sixty-seven of those defendants had been sentenced to death—yet not even one state’s disciplinary agency penalized any of the prosecutors. A more recent survey conducted by the Innocence Project looked at five diverse states over a five-year period (2004-08) and identified 660 cases in which courts found prosecutorial error or misconduct—and only one prosecutor who was disciplined.

It is sadly ironic that those we trust to put away criminals are thoroughly unaccountable when their own unethical behavior is discovered. Only a handful of prosecutors have faced meaningful sanctions for deliberate misconduct that led to the incarceration of innocent people.

The failure to regulate prosecutorial conduct enables more misconduct and wrongful convictions, which cause irreparable damage to the innocent and their loved ones, diminish public trust in the system, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

New York state is on the precipice of becoming the national leader in holding prosecutors accountable by establishing a Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct, which would have the power to investigate allegations and recommend or issue sanctions against prosecutors who break the law. Republicans and Democrats in the state Legislature came together on this issue because truth and fairness transcend partisanship. They passed Senate Bill 2412, which is now on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s desk.

Governor, this bill is a critical starting point for New York and the states that will follow its lead. Justice requires your signature.

Mr. Grisham is a novelist and a member of the Innocence Project’s board of directors.

Link

Incompetence is one thing, intentional bad conduct is another.

I’m a big fan of Innocence Project. It is appalling how many innocent people have been and are being convicted. Concealing evidence is particularly hurtful, as in nearly every case, the government has controlled the investigation.

Sloppy gathering and handling, incompetent or sloppy lab work, inaccurate police report of witness statements, prevent truth from emerging. Outright concealment is far worse, bribing witnesses with better treatment, other intentional dishonest acts are intolerable.

I recall a case in San Diego where the DA was bringing a gang leader in custody to the office for romps with his girlfriend, in hopes of getting his memory improved as they needed it. C’mon, man!

Lo, and behold!

Just when this topic turns up, we have a breathtaking example, unrelated.

It’s a lengthy article, but a good read.

https://spectator.org/its-time...to-pardon-pat-nolan/

It is especially encouraging to see a state like New York poised to take on a serious issue like this. This seems to focus on either improperly charging or withholding evidence from defendants. There is an equally disturbing aspect to this topic wherein a prosecutor will fail to charge, or in some cases, even fail to forward to the grand jury, cases for which ample evidence exists while citing prosecutorial discretion.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It is appalling how many innocent people have been and are being convicted.

This is one of the reasons why I find it so hard to support the death penalty.

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
It is especially encouraging to see a state like New York poised to take on a serious issue like this. This seems to focus on either improperly charging or withholding evidence from defendants. There is an equally disturbing aspect to this topic wherein a prosecutor will fail to charge, or in some cases, even fail to forward to the grand jury, cases for which ample evidence exists while citing prosecutorial discretion.

Ample evidence is often, more often, a matter of experienced judgment. Admissible? Available at time of trial? Impeachable?

There is also a view, very commendable, that there is no point in charging and bringing a case unless it can be won and a conviction obtained. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is easy when you have it, very frustrating when you think you do. Very tempting to move the goal post.