Official Misconduct

Official Misconduct

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:13 pm

Official Misconduct
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:42 am

Prosecutor Can be Sued for Presenting False Information to Grand Jury

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015 ... rand-jury/

The US Second Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor can be held to a standard above “qualified immunity,” and thus can be sued, for knowingly presenting false information to a Grand Jury.

This quote from the court: “It ought not to be difficult, even for the most single‐minded of prosecutors, to avoid misconduct of the scope and seriousness of that in which the defendants engaged:

Creat[ing] false or fraudulently altered documents in the course of their performance of “investigatory functions,” knowing that such information was false or fraudulent; where “false” is defined as “untrue when made and . . . known to be untrue when made by the person making it or causing it to be made” and “fraudulent” as “falsely made with intent to deceive“.

It does not seem to us to be a danger to effective law enforcement to require prosecutors and their aides to abide by these rules even when pursuing the most complicated of cases with the utmost determination.”
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:17 am

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Disba ... 817491.php

Prosecutor who sent innocent man to death row is disbarred
Updated 9:03 am, Tuesday, February 9, 2016

"In a ruling issued when [Charles] Sebesta was originally disbarred, the disciplinary panel found that he failed to provide several items of exculpatory evidence to the defense during [Anthony] Graves' trial, presented false testimony to the jury, made a false statement of material fact to the trial judge and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:53 pm

Prosecutorial Oversight: A National Dialogue in the Wake of Connick v. Thompson

- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-ev ... AEBJi.dpuf

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.
....


- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-ev ... AEBJi.dpuf
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:38 pm

http://www.prosecutorialaccountability. ... isconduct/

Prosecutors commit misconduct when in the course of their professional duties they act in ways that are inconsistent with ethical mandates they are obliged to obey. Such misconduct exists at and near the intersection of two sets of rules: one is the legal rules that bind prosecutors so as to ensure due process – the state and federal constitution, statutory law, rules of criminal procedure, judicial orders, and the like. The other is the ethical standards of the legal profession as expressed in each state bar’s rules of professional responsibility and similar professional codes.

Often an act of prosecutorial misconduct will violate both legal and professional codes. Though, because the codes differ in some ways, sometimes an act of misconduct may violate one code but not the other. Prosecutors are required to abide by both.

Enforcement of the two codes differs. When prosecutors violate legal rules as part of a criminal case, the primary recourse is for the criminal defendant to ask to have his conviction overturned (or if the trial is in progress, to ask the judge for a mistrial, to strike matters from the record, or to otherwise minimize the damage caused). When prosecutors violate professional rules, the bar complaint process is the primary enforcement mechanism.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:23 am

A case in which a discrepancy in two prosecution case summaries suggests that exculpatory evidence may have been hidden from the defense (article found in Exoneration News at http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoner ... about.aspx):

Mr. Martin was found guilty of the murders in July 2010, but has always maintained his innocence. The new investigation into his case started this year, the court papers showed, when appellate lawyers in the district attorney’s office returned to the case file while preparing a response to Mr. Martin’s motion to vacate his conviction.

As the lawyers started reading through the file, the papers said, they discovered something strange: There were two different copies of the prosecution’s summary of the case, or what is known as a homicide scratch.

One version contained a paragraph stating that a witness in the case had implicated a man named Jeffrey Joseph, not Mr. Martin, in the murders; but in a second version, that potentially exculpatory evidence had been excised.


The case is now under review by the Brooklyn (New York) Conviction Review Unit. The original prosecutor in the case, Marc Fliedner, has resigned and claims the current chief prosecutor, District Attorney Ken Thompson, is acting unfairly, but according to Thompson's chief assistant, Fliedner will face an ethics investigation.



Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/nyreg ... .html?_r=1
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:07 am

There is a need for Open Prosecution Files - the defense must be allowed access to the case file - to help prevent the prosecution from hiding exculpatory evidence.

The Michael Morton case - he was wrongfully accused of the the murder of his wife, Christine - is an example of a prosecutor intentionally hiding exculpatory evidence, leading to his wrongful conviction. Discovery of this official misconduct led to Texas changing its laws. Other states should also do so.

To mark the 30th anniversary of Christine Morton’s murder, the Texas Tribune published a feature story about how the tragedy has helped to bring about wrongful conviction reforms to the criminal justice system in Texas. Christine’s husband, Michael, was wrongly convicted and served 25 years in prison before he was eventually exonerated by DNA testing secured by the Innocence Project.

During the investigation of Michael’s case, the Innocence Project uncovered evidence that the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, withheld critical evidence pointing to Michael’s innocence that was never disclosed to the defense. Anderson, who later became a district court judge, was eventually prosecuted and convicted for the misconduct. The DNA testing also revealed the identity of the real assailant, Alan Norwood, who was eventually convicted of the murder.

The story generated national headlines and, as the Tribune notes, helped to bring about the Michael Morton Act, which requires prosecutors to share their files and all relevant evidence with defendants. State Senator and Innocence Project Board Chair Rodney Ellis is quoted in the article as saying, “Michael’s Willingness to use the to use the tragedy he endured to advance change was key to bringing about needed reform to our justice system. The Legislature had tried and failed to bring more fairness and transparency to the discovery process for years, and Michael’s work and dedication to fixing our broken system helped to move us forward.”


Source: http://www.innocenceproject.org/legacy- ... ie-morton/
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:15 pm

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Prosecutors who withhold or tamper with evidence now face felony charges
_____
The above article reports on a newly-enacted law in California. All US States should adopt such laws.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:18 pm

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/emer ... -1.2831218


The justice system’s tunnel vision: How cops and prosecutors, worried they'll have to turn over Brady material, don't even look for it
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:03 am

https://www.innocenceproject.org/justic ... ligations/

Excerpts:

In her state of the judiciary speech today, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the State of New York Janet DiFiore announced a new “historic” recommendation from the New York State Justice Task Force urging judges to issue formal orders to all criminal prosecutors to abide by discovery requirements that require them to turn over all evidence pointing to innocence or mitigating the offense. These orders provide a mechanism for both educating prosecutors about their ethical and constitutional discovery requirements and for punishing those prosecutors who willfully fail to fulfill their obligations. The Innocence Project applauds Chief Judge DiFiore and the members of the Justice Task Force for taking this important step in ensuring that criminal defendants are provided the discovery that is critical to proving their innocence.
....
New York would be the first state to recommend statewide application of the orders. The Innocence Project is aware of at least two federal judges have made it a part of their practice to routinely issue the orders in criminal prosecutions.

In adopting the recommendation, the Justice Task Force included a model order for use by the courts.
....
The order spells out three broad categories of information that should be disclosed to the defense – exculpatory, impeaching and affecting suppression– and cites the state and federal case law, principally Brady v. Maryland, requiring disclosure as well as New York ethical rules.
....
The order makes clear that it is not intended as a mechanism for sanctioning prosecutors for good-faith error; it is for prosecutorial misconduct that is willful and deliberate.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby Numbers » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:09 am

From Samuel Gross' article:

"Our best hope for avoiding tragic mistakes is to present all the evidence that matters the first time around.

Why not eliminate the “materiality” requirement entirely and treat access to exculpatory evidence like other aspects of a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial? If exculpatory evidence is concealed, it’s a violation of the Constitution, period."

The ECHR case-law is stricter than the US Supreme Court Brady rule. The ECHR rule is that all police and prosecution evidence - including potentially exculpatory evidence - must be revealed to the defense. The ECHR maintains it is for the defense to decide whether the potentially exculpatory evidence is material to its case.

Here is Gross' article on the need for the prosecution to release exculpatory evidence to the defense, beyond the "material" standard of the Brady rule:

https://thecrimereport.org/2017/07/14/h ... ign=buffer
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Official Misconduct

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:01 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, I am not sure any of you know about this even this is about misconduct and in one of my cases a Judge is trying to win his misconduct case of that he went to far of legal action into Kirstin Lobato and here is what he is charge with and enjoy reading this article!!!

https://psmag.com/news/bill-kephart-pro ... misconduct
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va


Return to Fix the System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest