Prosecutor Misconduct in Florida and Arizona

Today's USA Today and Arizona Republic describe serious and probably intentional errors made by US Federal prosecutors in court cases.
In the USA Today article, Businessman Nino Lyons spent three years in jail after a prosecutor hid evidence that would have exonerated him. The judge who finally released Nino Lyons, declared him innocent. However the prosecutor was only required to attend a one day ethics class as his punishment. The prosecutor ruined a mans life, sent him to prison for 3 years, all the while knowing that he had bribed false inmate witnesses to testify against Nino.
In the Arizona Republic article, A federal judge found Tommy de Jong, a Buckeye dairy farmer, not guilty of felony pollution charges. The judge ruled that U.S. attorneys continued their prosecution despite knowledge of de Jong's innocence. De Jong was reimbursed for his legal costs. The article also said that there have been 201 criminal cases since 1997 where judges determined that U.S. Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules.

One of the problems is that the only solution for errors made by prosecutors is to sometimes let a guilty person go free. Again, the prosecutor never appears to be tried or punished for the crimes committed while prosecuting the criminal. Yes, prosecutors need to be protected somewhat in order to do their job. They do need additional powers because the criminals will try everything they can too. However the "win at all cost" actions done by prosecutors needs to be held in check. Right now there doesn't appear to be any method of holding Federal, State or County prosecutors accountable for intentional misconduct.

It's time for Video Trials

There is controversy right now about whether or not trials, or even the Supreme Court cases should be televised. I believe we should! As soon as any Government action is done behind closed doors (even when spectators are permitted), there is room for misunderstanding and mistrust. Video recording is so easy and inexpensive now. In fact, I believe it would make sense to eliminate the "court reporter" and replace with video.
Many professional sports have adopted video replay to assist in making sure that the game is judged fairly. Why shouldn't American Justice take advantage of technology also?
I believe it is time to go one step further - to actually record the trial, and then have the jury view the video prior to making their decision. It is very difficult to get good jurors. Jurors end up wasting a lot of time because of the typical schedule of trials, and the times they are excused because of special hearings over the validity of evidence. When evidence is introduced to the Jury incorrectly, the Judge instructs the Jury to "disregard" that evidence--but is that even possible? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the complete trial recorded with all "non-admissible" evidence removed from the video. Then the Jurors could be selected and presented with the resulting video. If a retrial is necessary, the new jury could view the exact same video, or it could be edited as permitted by the judge, for new evidence, for example.
The whole process could then be made a public record for all citizens to view.

Yes the additional video equipment will add a small cost to each trial. However the cost to the Jurors will be much less since their time will be used more efficiently.

Gay Rights in the Workplace

Thanks to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with disabilities Act, most Americans are treated fairly in the workplace and are free from harassment. However only one group are not protected: Gay, Lesbian and trans-gendered employees. Twenty-one states have passed laws to protect this group, but there are no federal laws to protect those in the other states. A new bill is being considered in Congress: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). It does need to be passed.
It will be interesting however what ENDA will mean for the military. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has always been a problem in my mind, since I thought it might be unconstitutional. It is a "thought crime" in that if a person let anyone know that they felt they might have homosexual tendencies, even if they had never done anything, they could be forced out of the military. Since when is thinking about something a crime? If the ENDA does pass, it would seem that the US military will be forced to change the horrible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Bruce Lisker-- Possible Injustice?

Bruce Lisker was accused, and eventually convicted of killing his mother and spent 26 years in prison. Finally a judge reviewed the evidence and released him. It appeared that the prosecution distorted the truth, hid evidence of another suspect, and that Bruce did not have good defense or a fair trial.
Lisker has been out of prison, but "on bail" for some reason. Now Deputy Attorney General Bob Breton as filed an appeal to put him back in prison. His appeal is based upon a minor technicality that says that prisoners are not allowed to file "late appeals."
If Lisker is put back into prison, I think this will be another example where a prosecution drive to "win the case at all costs" will affect jury decisions forever and possibly allow the guilty to go free. If potential jurors see that prosecutors will hide evidence and deny ever making a mistake to keep innocent people in prison, they will be much more reluctant to convict.