Why are Prosecutors Special under the Law?

April 15, 2009

9478820_bg2.jpgie264006.jpg justice.gif

Thursday, April 16, 2009

New York City, New York

IT’S TIME TO END LEGAL

 IMMUNITY FOR PROSECUTORS

If you have followed the criminal case of former US Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska, a title of a future book or video could well be titled “prosecutors gone wild.” Stevens was convicted of accepting gifts from campaign supporters.  But key notes taken by an FBI agent that would have significantly helped the Stevens defense were purposely kept from his defense team.  He was defeated in a close election just a few days after the verdict was rendered. Federal prosecutors failed to follow basic rules of fair play. The federal judge in the case has ordered a full criminal investigation of the Justice Department employees involved. So is this an anomaly where prosecutors violate the law, and something like this rarely happens? Far from it. Prosecutorial misconduct, specifically withholding evidence that favors the defendant, has become almost a fact of life in the federal judicial system.

Misconduct by those who were charged with seeking justice is nothing new.  The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes makes a pretty clear case for the fact that injustice has been around for a long time. “I have seen under the sun that in the place of justice there is wickedness, and in the place of justice and equity.  Do not be shocked at the site where justice has been denied.”

When the key FBI notes were finally given to Stevens’ defense team after the Senator was convicted, Stevens lead counsel had this to say about the actions of the prosecutors:  “When we were finally given the notes, you might have thought my reaction would be to celebrate, do high-fives, that we were right.  But it was not like that at all.  I was sick to my stomach.  How could they do that?”

It has also become clear that the failure to turn over key notes by the federal prosecutors was not merely an oversight.  An FBI agent has now come forward and said in a sworn affidavit the he sat in on meetings where Stevens’ prosecutors were clearly aware that they were ignoring their professional obligations to turn over key notes that would have helped the defense counter the criminal charges.

Stevens’ case would seem to be the latest example of vengeful prosecutorial overreach. A little research starkly shows that the Stevens case did not occur in a vacuum and should not be treated as isolated instance.  Numerous recent cases abound showing federal prosecutors overstepping the boundaries of fair play, often in direct violation of the law.

Louisiana is not immune from prosecutors on both the state and federal level purposely withholding key evidence that would help the case of the accused.  One can Google names like John Thompson, Dan Bright (both convicted and put on death row when evidence that was withheld eventually cleared them), and some former insurance commissioner whose name slips by me, that gives case studies of how prosecutors abused the judicial process.  The question is, why do they do it?  The obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence is basic law, and something every prosecutor understands. It’s the “gotchya ” mentality.  An outsized desire to win at any cost.

But that’s not the prosecutor’s job.  As federal appeals courts have said repeatedly: “A prosecutor has a special duty commensurate with a prosecutor’s unique power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.  Prosecutors sometimes forget that the prosecutor’s special duty is not to convict, but to secure justice.”

So if we have so many examples of prosecutorial misconduct and outright criminal behavior, why do we rarely see those at fault ever being charged as criminals themselves, or being on the end of lawsuits brought by the victims of such abuse?  Both the legislature and congress have bestowed immunity to those privileged to work in the “justice” system.  The courts have ruled that prosecutors are absolutely immune for anything they do that is considered within the lines of their official duties.

Here is what the courts seem to be saying:  judges and legislators are not willing to expose prosecutors to legal liability because it might “distract” them from their work or make them legally vulnerable.  In effect, that they should not be subject to the very legal process that they force upon the rest of us.  They are telling us they cannot trust the system to do what is right if THEY are sued.  The same prosecutors who drag us into court, who charge us with often ridiculous “crimes,” and who impose judgment after judgment on us, cannot possibly be expected to face the same system that governs the rest of us, as it might “distract them from their duties.”

So all Americans are supposedly equal, but prosecutors are apparently more “equal” than the rest of us. Is this a legitimate concern, or merely the exercise of raw power where only “winning a conviction” matters?  A recent study of widespread prosecutorial misconduct was done by Dr. William Anderson at the University or Maryland. After extensive research, he concludes that:  “It is not enough to say that lawsuits would “distract” these prosecutors from their duties (as claimed).  After all, everyone outside this “justice” system faces such lawsuits.  And the courts have ruled that such lawsuits are fine.  When a prosecutor actually does face some small consequences for criminal behavior, we are told that it is “extraordinary.”  Wow.  A prosecutor lies in court, hides evidence, foists a major frame on innocent people, and we are supposed to believe it is “extraordinary?”

The fundamental proposition of equal justice under law was expressed in the Declaration of Independence by our founding fathers. There was no discussion of carving out exceptions to be used, and often abused, by prosecutors.  Taking away legal immunity and making these public officials subject to the same sanctions that the rest of us face would be a good step in restoring confidence in a judicial system that has been tainted way too often.  As the poet said many years ago: “It is just as well that justice is blind; she might not like some of the things done in her name is she could see them.”

Peace and Justice.

Jim Brown

.  You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.

York city, New York

IT’S TIME TO END LEGAL IMMUNITYFOR PROSECUTORS

If you have followed the criminal case of former US Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska, a title of a future book or video could well be titled “prosecutors gone wild.” Stevens was convicted of accepting gifts from campaign supporters.  But key notes taken by an FBI agent that would have significantly helped the Stevens defense were purposely kept from his defense team.  He was defeated in a close election just a few days after the verdict was rendered. Federal prosecutors failed to follow basic rules of fair play. The federal judge in the case has ordered a full criminal investigation of the Justice Department employees involved. So is this an anomaly where prosecutors violate the law, and something like this rarely happens? Far from it. Prosecutorial misconduct, specifically withholding evidence that favors the defendant, has become almost a fact of life in the federal judicial system.

Misconduct by those who were charged with seeking justice is nothing new.  The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes makes a pretty clear case for the fact that injustice has been around for a long time. “I have seen under the sun that in the place of justice there is wickedness, and in the place of justice and equity.  Do not be shocked at the site where justice has been denied.”

When the key FBI notes were finally given to Stevens’ defense team after the Senator was convicted, Stevens lead counsel had this to say about the actions of the prosecutors:  “When we were finally given the notes, you might have thought my reaction would be to celebrate, do high-fives, that we were right.  But it was note like that at all.  I was sick to my stomach.  How could they do that?”

It has also become clear that the failure to turn over key notes by the federal prosecutors was not merely an oversight.  An FBI agent has now come forward and said in a sworn affidavit the he sat in on meetings where Stevens’ prosecutors were clearly aware that they were ignoring their professional obligations to turn over key notes that would have helped the defense counter the criminal charges.

Stevens’ case would seem to be the latest example of vengeful prosecutorial overreach. A little research starkly shows that the Stevens case did not occur in a vacuum and should not be treated as isolated instance.  Numerous recent cases abound showing federal prosecutors overstepping the boundaries of fair play, often in direct violation of the law.

Louisiana is not immune from prosecutors on both the state and federal level purposely withholding key evidence that would help the case of the accused.  One can Google names like John Thompson, Dan Bright (both convicted and put on death row when evidence that was withheld eventually cleared them), and some former insurance commissioner whose name slips by me, that gives case studies of how prosecutors abused the judicial process.  The question is, why do they do it?  The obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence is basic law, and something every prosecutor understands. It’s the “gotchya ” mentality.  An outsized desire to win at any cost.

But that’s not the prosecutor’s job.  As federal appeals courts have said repeatedly: “A prosecutor has a special duty commensurate with a prosecutor’s unique power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.  Prosecutors sometimes forget that the prosecutor’s special duty is not to convict, but to secure justice.”

So if we have so many examples of prosecutorial misconduct and outright criminal behavior, why do we rarely see those at fault ever being charged as criminals themselves, or being on the end of lawsuits brought by the victims of such abuse?  Both the legislature and congress have bestowed immunity to those privileged to work in the “justice” system.  The courts have ruled that prosecutors are absolutely immune for anything they do that is considered within the lines of their official duties.

Here is what the courts seem to be saying:  judges and legislators are not willing to expose prosecutors to legal liability because it might “distract” them from their work or make them legally vulnerable.  In effect, that they should not be subject to the very legal process that they force upon the rest of us.  They are telling us they cannot trust the system to do what is right if THEY are sued.  The same prosecutors who drag us into court, who charge us with often ridiculous “crimes,” and who impose judgment after judgment on us, cannot possibly be expected to face the same system that governs the rest of us, as it might “distract them from their duties.”

So all Americans are supposedly equal, but prosecutors are apparently more “equal” than the rest of us. Is this a legitimate concern, or merely the exercise of raw power where only “winning a conviction” matters?  A recent study of widespread prosecutorial misconduct was done by Dr. William Anderson at the University or Maryland. After extensive research, he concludes that:  “It is not enough to say that lawsuits would “distract” these prosecutors from their duties (as claimed).  After all, everyone outside this “justice” system faces such lawsuits.  And the courts have ruled that such lawsuits are fine.  When a prosecutor actually does face some small consequences for criminal behavior, we are told that it is “extraordinary.”  Wow.  A prosecutor lies in court, hides evidence, foists a major frame on innocent people, and we are supposed to believe it is “extraordinary?”

The fundamental proposition of equal justice under law was expressed in the Declaration of Independence by our founding fathers. There was no discussion of carving out exceptions to be used, and often abused, by prosecutors.  Taking away legal immunity and making these public officials subject to the same sanctions that the rest of us face would be a good step in restoring confidence in a judicial system that has been tainted way too often.  As the poet said many years ago: “It is just as well that justice is blind; she might not like some of the things done in her name if she could see them.”Peace and Justice.Jim Brown

.  You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.


1 comments
Olcoot
Olcoot

I often disagree with your articles, and your point of view. I often STRONGLY disagree. This time, I not only agree but think you've not taken the point far enough. Members of the Judicial branch should be held to the same standard that the rest of the state (or nation) is held: in fact, they should be held to a higher standard, as they wield the power of authority. However, this should not be limited to just the Judicial branch or just prosecutors. Members of ALL branches of government have managed to largely exempt themselves from the standards of moral, civil and legal responsibility that they require of us. Time to put that to an end. It is also time to bring to an end the ability of a legislative body to pass legislation that provides special priviledge for itself: pay, benefits, legal exemption, or any other. Require that any such legislation MUST go before the people and may not be enacted until four years after passage. Include in that bill that any legislatioin involving legal or civil issues regarding legislators, judges, or political electees (any member of any of the three branches of government) must comport with the legal requirements applied to all other citizens, eliminating the 'special class' status of Politicians. Time to return to the notion that Government is the servant of, and answerable to the People.

Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box