Skip to main content

One of the most troubling trends that foster prosecutorial misconduct is the failure of state bar and disciplinary agencies to take action against prosecutors who violate their ethical obligations.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (DOJ) took swift and almost unprecedented action after uncovering egregious prosecutorial misconduct in the case against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Holder promptly dismissed all charges against the Senator, and federal judge Emmet Sullivan ordered an independent, criminal investigation of the prosecutors responsible for intentionally failing to turn over important, exculpatory evidence to the defense. The DOJ has also promised an investigation through the Office of Professional Responsibility. The question now is whether these particular prosecutors will ever be held accountable.

To prevent prosecutorial misconduct and these egregious abuses of power, it is critically important to appropriately investigate and discipline prosecutors who violate their legal and ethical obligations. Far too often, even in egregious and high profile cases, like Stevens’ case, prosecutors are not held accountable for their misconduct. Without the threat of meaningful professional discipline, prosecutors cannot be held accountable for their actions and are likely to continue to abuse their power to secure convictions. We have yet to see whether the two separate investigations launched against the federal prosecutors in Stevens’ case will be followed by appropriate disciplinary action.

The prosecutorial misconduct involved in Senator Stevens’ case is especially egregious. The case was marred by prosecutorial misconduct from the outset. Judge Sullivan repeatedly criticized prosecutors for failing to follow orders to provide evidence to the defense. In addition, prosecutorial misconduct at trial led Judge Sullivan to hold three of the prosecutors in contempt, and at one point also instructed the jury to disregard some evidence provided by the prosecution. After replacing the original trial team, new prosecutors discovered even more evidence that should have been turned over to the defense. Even more troubling, lead prosecutor Brenda Morris has a history of prosecutorial misconduct. In 2005, Morris’ unlawful prosecution of an Austin, Texas area defense attorney resulted in a civil suit and a $1.34 million dollar settlement from the federal government. The investigation of Morris’ conduct in that case yielded no apparent sanctions and she remained employed by the DOJ and was eventually given a lead role in the Stevens prosecution. The DOJ’s failure to appropriately respond to Morris’ previous misconduct as well as her actions and those of the other prosecutors in the Steven’s case, demonstrates that a culture has developed within the DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit in which prosecutorial abuses of power occur.

Three months after Eric Holder dismissed the case against Senator Stevens, the country continues to wait and see whether the most well-funded, highly respected, and highly trained prosecutorial agency in the country, the DOJ, will hold its own accountable. There is an opportunity here to begin to show that even DOJ prosecutors are not above the law.  

Prosecutors are the most powerful actors in our criminal justice system. Failure to respond to abuses of power is an enormous threat to public safety and to the integrity of our criminal justice system. Effective and meaningful prosecutorial accountability in this country can start, and should start, with discipline of the prosecutors who violated their duties and betrayed public trust in the prosecution of Senator Stevens.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Originally posted to John Terzano The Justice Project on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:55 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We definitely need to do more in sanctioning both (6+ / 0-)

    prosecutors and cops when misconducts occur. Even though the cases you cited constituted prosecutorial misconduct, I'm not sure it is seen as deliberate. I'm more concerned about out-and-out abuse of power that some prosecutors are engaged. Abuse of power seems to me to be a bigger issue but I agree that misconducts in general should be prosecuted as often as possible.  

    open your mind or someone else will open it for you, but be careful you don't open it too much for you brain to fall out.

    by carlos the jackal on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:05:00 AM PDT

  •  nuttin' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, FarWestGirl

    I haven't heard of any recent activity from the DOJ about anything. It seems there's a kind of paralysis infecting the whole agency. It's not like there aren't enough "issues" to investigate. Maybe Holder is a stealth player?

  •  Lawyer Misconduct & Self-Policing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, FarWestGirl

    "Because the law is filled with intricacies and complexities that only a person who has had the benefit of a law school education can understand, fully appreciate, and comprehend, your complaint is hereby deemed frivolous and summarily denied."  This is the standard line of bullshit given by the Pennsylvania Judicial Inquiry & Review Board (now called the Pa. Judicial Conduct Board since the Cambria County "judge" Joseph O'Kicki scandal) and the Lawyer Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania to non-lawyers filing complaints against crooked casefixing "judges" and corrupt shyster lawyers.

    The corrupt Pennsylvania kangaroo kourts have also eliminated the concept of Legal Malpractice (SEE 635 A2d 186-191)--NOTE: Lawyers won't sue other lawyers for malpractice, but they'll sue doctors for malpractice.  (It's always nice to read a newspaper article about someone walking into a law office and shooting a lawyer or 2 or 3 or more.)

    •  Nice? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DudleyMason, FarWestGirl

      (Let's try to not justify murder, shall we?)

      Professional negligence, generally, requires the Plaintiff to have as a witness a professional of equal or greater magnitude to sustain its complaint, be it about medicine, law or architecture.  It's extremely difficult in all professions.  

      But it's certainly not difficult to find a doctor ready to bad-mouth a lawyer...

      (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

      by john07801 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:20:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site