The Austin Chronicle has an article about prosecutorial immunity in Texas. Not immunity from civil judgment, which is mandated by the Supreme Court for all prosecutors, but immunity from any consequences at all, either criminal or administrative, for their crimes.
Although courts have confirmed that prosecutorial misconduct occurred in 91 Texas criminal cases between 2004 and 2008, not a single prosecutor among those has ever been disciplined for their misbehavior, according to new data compiled by the Innocence Project. (Allegations of prosecutor misconduct were raised in another 124 cases, but those issues were not ruled on by any court.)
This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, said Emily West, IP research director, during a public dialogue on prosecutorial oversight last week at the University of Texas School of Law. Indeed, because 98% of Texas criminal cases are resolved through plea bargain, it is unlikely that we’ll ever know the true extent of the problem – which includes withholding exculpatory or other evidence possibly favorable to a defendant. Of the 91 cases in which the courts agreed there was misconduct, 36 involved “improper” arguments during trial, 35 involved improper questioning of a witness, and eight involved a failure to disclose favorable materials, known as a Brady violation. That’s exactly what Michael Morton says happened to him.
Exonerated last year, Morton spent nearly 25 years in prison for the bludgeoning death of his wife before DNA evidence linked another man to the crime instead. Morton’s conviction could have been avoided, he argues, had Williamson County prosecutors – chief among them former District Attorney Ken Anderson, who is now a district judge – had turned over evidence they had back in 1986 that suggested strongly that Morton was innocent of the crime. Anderson is now facing a rare “court of inquiry” (slated to begin Sept. 11), in which a court will determine if his actions (or inactions) violated criminal statutes. (If so, perhaps the IP will have to add a single hash mark to the “disciplined prosecutor” column.)
One of the arguments offered by advocates of civil immunity for prosecutors is that there are other ways to hold them accountable. They can be charged criminally, they can be sanctioned by the court, they can be punished administratively by the bar association. But those things very rarely happen — almost never, in fact. Criminal charges must come from another prosecutor, which they are very, very unlikely to do. The most common punishment comes from judges, but even then it’s mild.
I think the rule should be a very simple and very bright line. If a prosecutor withholds or manufactures evidence in a case against a defendant, they have to serve out the sentence of the person they unjustly framed. That would be a serious deterrent. But they are ruining lives with their actions and that should be treated very seriously.
7 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
fictionfixx
April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“But they are ruining lives with their actions and that should be treated very seriously.”
And their actions reach far beyond just the people they framed. Their actions impact the families of the wrongfully convicted, the families of the victims, and the person actually responsible for the crime. In the Michael Morton case that the Austin Chronicle references the judge put an innocent man in prison which kept the real killer on the streets. He’s linked to at least one other murder and is suspected in others.
wscott
April 11, 2012 at 1:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m fine with setting the bar fairly high to establish deliberate malfeasance as opposed to incompetance. But once that bar has been crossed, the penalty should be severe. I don’t know if I’d support jail time in all but the most sever cases, but disbarment should be automatic at a minimum.
slc1
April 11, 2012 at 8:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Occasionally, if the case is high profile enough and the injustice rank, the prosecutor will get it in the ear. Case in point, one Michael Nifong.
humanityrocks
May 29, 2012 at 8:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am not crazy about Federalism, yet a Federal Law should be passed to prosecute attorneys/prosecutors and anyone with the power to clear an innocent person or the ability to allow for fairness and justice to occur in our legal system if they wilfully withhold evidence or fabricate evidence to hurt the innocent party. If you are found guilty of Malfeasance (deliberately and intentionally violating the rights of an innocent person) you should do time in prison. Government employees are not above the LAW, especially if they are intentionally violating State and Federal Laws.
humanityrocks
May 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am not crazy about Federalism, yet a Federal Law should be passed to prosecute attorneys/prosecutors and anyone with the power to clear an innocent person or the ability to allow for fairness and justice to occur in our legal system if they wilfully withhold evidence or fabricate evidence to hurt the innocent party. If you are found guilty of Malfeasance (deliberately and intentionally violating the rights of an innocent person) you should do time in prison. Government employees are not above the LAW, especially if they are intentionally violating State and Federal Laws.
State and Federal attorneys are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
humanityrocks
May 29, 2012 at 8:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
State and Federal attorneys are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
I am not crazy about Federalism, yet a Federal Law should be passed to prosecute attorneys/prosecutors and anyone with the power to clear an innocent person or the ability to allow for fairness and justice to occur in our legal system if they wilfully withhold evidence or fabricate evidence to hurt the innocent party. If you are found guilty of Malfeasance (deliberately and intentionally violating the rights of an innocent person) you should do time in prison. Government employees are not above the LAW, especially if they are intentionally violating State and Federal Laws.
State and Federal attorneys are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. It is legalized crime against the people of the United States.
humanityrocks
May 29, 2012 at 8:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am not crazy about Federalism, yet a Federal Law should be passed to prosecute attorneys/prosecutors and anyone with the power to clear an innocent person or the ability to allow for fairness and justice to occur in our legal system if they wilfully withhold evidence or fabricate evidence to hurt the innocent party. If you are found guilty of Malfeasance (deliberately and intentionally violating the rights of an innocent person) you should do time in prison. Government employees are not above the LAW, especially if they are intentionally violating State and Federal Laws.
State and Federal attorneys are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. It is legalized crime against the people of the United States.