February 1st 2015 Sunday LA Times had an article by Maura Dolan about a Federal Court of appeals citing misconduct by prosecutors: U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times
I think this was an important event. Deputy Attorney General Kevin R. Vienna wanted the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court to "rubber stamp" a murder conviction of Johnny Baca when there had already been significant evidence that the prosecutors in the case had presented false evidence in the original trial --and the prosecutors knew about it! The article quotes the three judges on the court of appeals: Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Kim Wardlaw, and Judge William Fletcher. They also pressed the Deputy Attorney General to make sure that his boss, Kamala Harris, was aware of the situation. Apparently Harris was not aware, and stopped Vienna. Probably a smart move, since Harris is one of the leading candidates for US Senator, or Governor and probably doesn't want to be involved in such a scandal.
Maura Dolan, in her article, described an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct, with no discipline against the prosecutors.
Yes, I understand that our Police and Prosecutors have a very difficult job, with seemingly too many arcane rules about how they do their job. However it is clear that there are many cases where police and prosecutors violate the law and get away with it. That has an effect of "poisoning" the jury pool. If we, as jurors, can't trust the police and prosecutors to tell the truth, how can we make a good decision? All it takes is a few "bad apples" to provide citizens with a little bit of "reasonable doubt" that will let a criminal get off.
I've only served as a juror about 4 times in my life. As a juror, we understand that we are making a decision based upon incomplete data. So we have to evaluate the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. We also understand that if, for any reason, it turns out that additional information or evidence is discovered AFTER we make our decision, that if we found a defendant guilty, that the decision can be corrected after the fact. There have been MANY situations where new evidence has been discovered years, or even decades after a person was found guilty, that clearly shows that the defendant was, in fact, innocent. In almost all of these situations, I'm astounded that the prosecutors and judges who were involved in the original conviction seem to do everything they can to prevent the overturn of the decision. They also seem to try to delay any decision--they seem to want their erroneous decision to not be overturned, rather than correct the situation and allow justice to occur. What is wrong with them?
I believe that prosecutors think of their job as a game rather than an important role in achieving justice. They don't want to "lose" a battle, even if they know that it would result in fairness to everyone. When they have either been negligent or intentionally violated the law, they know that there is no recourse. They won't lose their license, won't be fined, and will not be sent to prison. Somehow there needs to be a way that these VERY high paid government employees can be forced to have some "skin in the game" -- so that if they, in fact, lie, cheat or in some other way cause someone to go to prison who doesn't belong, that they will be also given an equivalent punishment for such misconduct. Not a "mistake" -- but a situation where the police or prosecutors know that vital evidence is being withheld to strengthen their case.
I think this was an important event. Deputy Attorney General Kevin R. Vienna wanted the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court to "rubber stamp" a murder conviction of Johnny Baca when there had already been significant evidence that the prosecutors in the case had presented false evidence in the original trial --and the prosecutors knew about it! The article quotes the three judges on the court of appeals: Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Kim Wardlaw, and Judge William Fletcher. They also pressed the Deputy Attorney General to make sure that his boss, Kamala Harris, was aware of the situation. Apparently Harris was not aware, and stopped Vienna. Probably a smart move, since Harris is one of the leading candidates for US Senator, or Governor and probably doesn't want to be involved in such a scandal.
Maura Dolan, in her article, described an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct, with no discipline against the prosecutors.
Yes, I understand that our Police and Prosecutors have a very difficult job, with seemingly too many arcane rules about how they do their job. However it is clear that there are many cases where police and prosecutors violate the law and get away with it. That has an effect of "poisoning" the jury pool. If we, as jurors, can't trust the police and prosecutors to tell the truth, how can we make a good decision? All it takes is a few "bad apples" to provide citizens with a little bit of "reasonable doubt" that will let a criminal get off.
I've only served as a juror about 4 times in my life. As a juror, we understand that we are making a decision based upon incomplete data. So we have to evaluate the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. We also understand that if, for any reason, it turns out that additional information or evidence is discovered AFTER we make our decision, that if we found a defendant guilty, that the decision can be corrected after the fact. There have been MANY situations where new evidence has been discovered years, or even decades after a person was found guilty, that clearly shows that the defendant was, in fact, innocent. In almost all of these situations, I'm astounded that the prosecutors and judges who were involved in the original conviction seem to do everything they can to prevent the overturn of the decision. They also seem to try to delay any decision--they seem to want their erroneous decision to not be overturned, rather than correct the situation and allow justice to occur. What is wrong with them?
I believe that prosecutors think of their job as a game rather than an important role in achieving justice. They don't want to "lose" a battle, even if they know that it would result in fairness to everyone. When they have either been negligent or intentionally violated the law, they know that there is no recourse. They won't lose their license, won't be fined, and will not be sent to prison. Somehow there needs to be a way that these VERY high paid government employees can be forced to have some "skin in the game" -- so that if they, in fact, lie, cheat or in some other way cause someone to go to prison who doesn't belong, that they will be also given an equivalent punishment for such misconduct. Not a "mistake" -- but a situation where the police or prosecutors know that vital evidence is being withheld to strengthen their case.
No comments:
Post a Comment