Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:37 pm
Time: 8:37 pm
Results for prosecutorial misconduct
4 results foundAuthor: Ridolfi, Kathleen M. Title: Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009 Summary: Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009, the inaugural study of the Veritas Initiative focuses on this extremely critical issue. The most comprehensive statewide study ever undertaken on the misconduct of public prosecutors in state and federal courts, the authors examine over 4,000 cases in California during the period from 1997 to 2009 in which prosecutorial misconduct was alleged. Research determined extensive and systemic failures on the part of the justice system in meeting its obligations. Findings include: Courts found prosecutors committed misconduct in nearly 700 cases and only six prosecutors were publicly disciplined by the California State Bar. The study also revealed that judges often failed to report misconduct to the State Bar despite having a legal obligation to do so. Details: Santa Clara, CA: Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law, 2010. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: A VERITAS Initiative Report: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.veritasinitiative.org/downloads/ProsecutorialMisconduct_Exec_Sum.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.veritasinitiative.org/downloads/ProsecutorialMisconduct_Exec_Sum.pdf Shelf Number: 119876 Keywords: CourtsProsecutorial MisconductProsecutors |
Author: Shalom, Alexander Title: Trial and Error: A Comprehensive Study of Prosecutorial Conduct in New Jersey Summary: A comprehensive study of prosecutor error released today by the ACLU-NJ and Rutgers School of Law-Newark found low rates of errors but an alarming lack of accountability or regular training to prevent repeat lapses by New Jersey prosecutors. The report, titled “Trial and Error: A Comprehensive Study of Prosecutorial Conduct in New Jersey,” recommends changes at the state and county level and reveals a noteworthy range of error rates in individual New Jersey counties in the process. “Prosecutors have a heavy responsibility as representatives of the state, and most take their obligations extremely seriously,” said ACLU-NJ Policy Counsel Alexander Shalom, one of the authors of the report. “Because prosecutors are largely immune from civil liability, and because they represent the government’s authority, it’s both more difficult and critical to hold them accountable for mistakes that interfere with a fair trial. Without a way to hold prosecutors accountable for all but the most outrageous violations, New Jersey leaves too many opportunities for justice to slip through the cracks.” The report examined allegations of error raised on appeal in the state between 2005 and 2011, and tracked the number of case decisions reversed based on prosecutorial error and the discipline they faced if they committed multiple errors. Prosecutorial error covers a range of actions, including failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, making improper remarks to the jury, or appealing to emotion rather than facts. Most errors, according to the report, occur during summations. The report found that of the 343 prosecutors accused of committing error, not one – including the 30 prosecutors who were found to have committed multiple errors – received discipline for in-court behavior. This is a stark contrast to the discipline that other types of attorneys receive for errors. The report also revealed that the state of New Jersey has no functional system for identifying, disciplining or eliminating prosecutor error except in the most egregious cases. The report found surprising disparities in New Jersey’s counties. Warren County, for example, represented only 1.4 percent of the state’s convictions but had 5.7 percent of its harmful errors. Camden County, however, had 6.2 percent of the state’s convictions but only 3.1 percent of total errors, as well as no reversed convictions. The authors recommend mandatory reporting of error, which is only optional under the current system, making it harder for disciplinary boards to collect enough information to determine when sanctions would be appropriate. This is especially problematic in cases of serious or repeated error that do not amount to an ethical lapse. The report also recommends heightened training, supervision and discipline within prosecutors’ offices. The authors also determined that, in order to provide prosecutors with maximum guidance, courts should determine whether conduct constitutes error in every case in which the issue is raised. Defense attorneys, as well, have an important role in preventing prosecutorial error in the form of objecting during the trial. Details: Newark, NJ: American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, 2012. 44p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://www.aclu-nj.org/files/3213/4815/6942/ACLU-NJ_Pros_Cond_BW.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu-nj.org/files/3213/4815/6942/ACLU-NJ_Pros_Cond_BW.pdf Shelf Number: 126400 Keywords: ProsecutionProsecutorial MisconductProsecutors (New Jersey, U.S.)Trials |
Author: West, Emily M. Title: Court Findings of Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims in Post-Conviction Appeals and Civil Suits Among the First 255 DNA Exoneration Cases Summary: Prosecutorial misconduct remains a largely underdeveloped research issue in large part because of the challenges of defining what constitutes misconduct, but also because some misconduct never comes to light. For example, it is impossible to know the extent to which prosecutors engage in misconduct, especially if it involves suppressing potentially exculpatory evidence that never gets disclosed at trial. DNA exoneration cases offer a unique perspective on this issue, given that we know the clients in these cases were convicted of crimes they did not commit. As such, while courts differentiate between harmless and harmful error, we know now that what was deemed as harmless error in these appeals may have contributed to the wrongful convictions. Results from this study indicate that of the 65 DNA exoneration cases involving documented appeals and/or civil suits addressing prosecutorial misconduct, 31 (48%) resulted in court findings of error, with 18% of findings leading to reversals (harmful error). It is difficult to place these court error rates in perspective—first, because these rates are based solely on documented appeals, providing an incomplete picture of the total number of appeals in these cases and their outcomes. Second, these cases are unrepresentative of the larger offender population, making up those who were mainly convicted in the 1980s, for violent crimes, sentenced to long prison terms, and dispersed throughout the nation. While a few studies have looked at outcomes in appeals alleging prosecutorial misconduct, most have been limited to specific regions or to a subset of conviction types. While not a perfect comparison, there has been one large, nationwide study, by the Center of Public Integrity on prosecutorial misconduct which found that among all 11,452 documented appeals alleging some type of prosecutorial misconduct between 1970 and 2002, 2,012 appeals led to reversals or remanded indictments, indicating harmful error—a rate of 17.6%. This is nearly identical to the rate of harmful error findings in the DNA exoneration cases of 18%. This may suggest that innocent persons raising claims of misconduct on appeal are not much more likely to find relief than presumed guilty persons raising similar claims—a suggestion that raises questions about the ability of the appellate process to correct wrongful convictions. In fact, an earlier study of the first 200 DNA exonerees found that reversal rates for the DNA exoneree cases were the same when compared to a matched sample of criminal cases with similar characteristics, where innocence had not been established. Details: New York: Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Innocence_Project_Pros_Misconduct.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Innocence_Project_Pros_Misconduct.pdf Shelf Number: 126507 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingProsecutorial MisconductWrongful Convictions |
Author: Innocence Project Title: Prosecutorial Oversight: A National Dialogue in the Wake of Connick v. Thompson Summary: In 1984, John Thompson was wrongfully convicted of two separate crimes-a robbery and murder - in Louisiana. He was prosecuted first for the robbery, which helped prosecutors secure the death penalty in his murder case. While facing his seventh execution date in Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, a private investigator hired by his appellate attorneys discovered scientific evidence of Thompson's innocence in the robbery case that had been concealed for 15 years by the New Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office. Thompson was eventually exonerated of both crimes in 2003 after 18 years in prison-14 of them isolated on death row. The state of Louisiana gave him $10 and a bus ticket upon his release. He sued the district attorney's office. A jury awarded him $14 million-$1 million for each year on death row. When Louisiana appealed, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 29, 2011, Justice Clarence Thomas issued the majority 5-4 decision in Connick v. Thompson that the prosecutor's office could not be held liable, ultimately granting prosecutors broad immunity for their misconduct. In the wake of the Court's decision, the Innocence Project, the Veritas Initiative at Santa Clara University, the Innocence Project of New Orleans and Resurrection After Exoneration formed the Prosecutorial Oversight Coalition to review the apparent lack of accountability for prosecutorial error and misconduct. On the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Connick v. Thompson, the coalition released Prosecutorial Oversight: A National Dialogue in the Wake of Connick v. Thompson, a report calling for greater transparency and accountability for prosecutors. The report details the findings of original research conducted by the coalition, in which it reviewed court findings of misconduct over a five-year period for five geographically diverse states-California, Arizona, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York- and documented 660 findings of misconduct - a likely undercount given the difficulties in identifying this behavior. The report also details highlights from a series of forums that the coalition convened in the same five states where it conducted research, to bring together panelists from all aspects of the criminal justice system to spark a meaningful dialogue about the problem and to suggest recommendations for systems that would promote greater accountability. Participants included current and former prosecutors, ethics professors, members of state bar disciplinary committees, exonerated people, defense lawyers and judges. The forum discussions greatly informed the recommendations in the report, which are targeted to the various stakeholders, including prosecutors, courts, state lawmakers and state bar oversight entities. Details: New York: Innocence Project, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2016 at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/prosecutorial-oversight-report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/prosecutorial-oversight-report Shelf Number: 138505 Keywords: Prosecutorial MisconductProsecutorsWrongful Convictions |