Under the United States law, the prosecutorial discretion provides prosecuting attorneys with an absolute power on a wide array of aspects. One of the major powers drawn from the prosecutorial discretion is the decision whether or not to press criminal charges. It further involves the authority to decide the nature of charges, sentence recommendation, and plea bargaining (Howell, 2014). Prosecutors are law professionals or lawyers working for attorneys in the state or district level. They have an important duty of examining evidence and thereafter processing cases against defendants. The case scenario involves a situation where John Smith, a major arson case suspect has not been arrested due to probable cause that requires physical evidence. However, a co-defendant gives up the suspect through a mirandized tape confession. On submitting the case to the District Attorney’s Office, they refuse to take the case because of insufficient evidence. However, there is evidence that the main defendant is a long-term family friend of the District Attorney. Such a situation therefore presents a dilemma as to whether the District Attorney is utilizing prosecutorial discretion or it is a potential conflict of interest amounting to prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutors have immense powers and as such, it comes with an increased sense of responsibility. As a result, it is important for people occupying such important legal positions to take into account several factors. First, they must ensure that the presented evidence substantiates the offense that the suspect is charged with. Most fundamentally, the prosecutor must ensure that the collected evidence was handled not only properly but also ethically. Howell, (2014) asserted that they must also prioritize justice and all the steps need to be completed promptly to avoid violation of the offender’s rights. Although many prosecutors use the discretion ethically and wisely, prior evidence has shown that it can be misused to bring criminal charges or the refusal to bring them altogether based on the prosecutor’s biases and personal inclinations. First, it is important to assess the nature of evidence produced at the attorney’s office in a bid to initiate a prosecution. The first one was the witness statement and the second one a mirandized tape recording. The section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 provides certain conditions that can lead to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the defendant (Frater, 2017).The statements must be formally written documentation of an individual and must contain facts relating to a given event. Secondly, the mirandized tape confessions are legal because in accordance with the Miranda laws, the defendant has been informed of their rights regarding the provision of information.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Therefore, there is no question that the evidence presented to the District Attorney was collected in full compliance with all the applicable laws. It therefore leads to the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the District Attorney. Prosecutorial misconduct occurs in two circumstances that might include the violation of court rules or engaging in unethical standards of practicing law. The law clearly indicates that “a prosecutor should avoid a conflict of interest with respect to his or her official duties” (Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, 2016). The law also provides that a prosecutor should not utilize any improper considerations such as personal or political affiliations while making their prosecutorial discretion. In further addressing the issue of conflict of interests, the law succinctly asserts that the prosecutor should not allow their judgment to be affected by among other things, interests and relationships. Therefore, I strongly believe that in this case scenario, prosecutorial misconduct exists because the District Attorney refuses to consider legally obtained evidence and secondly, he or she does not declare a conflict of interest in the case and allowing another prosecutor to handle the matter. Although the District Attorney utilizes the prosecutorial discretion, it fails to inspire the need for justice and the significance of the evidence in the case.
However, there are no signs of corruptive influences because despite the fact that the District Attorney declines to immediately prosecute the defendant, there is room for future prosecution. It is important to note that the District Attorney just like any other prosecutor has three discretionary options that include prosecution, declining prosecution, and the initiation of further prosecution. A corruptive influence would have probably led to a declination of the prosecution which was not the case in the scenario. The District attorney also showed failure in their ethical obligation to assess and admit the evidence presented. It must be noted that District Attorneys must exercise openness in the examination and testing of all the newly acquired evidence. Form the scenario, there is no evidence that the prosecution examined, assessed, or determined the validity of the evidence.
In my opinion, the District Attorney has committed an ethical offense for which they should receive punishment. One of the grounds for their punishment would be “displaying a lack of diligence or thoroughness in prosecution” (Frater, 2017).Secondly, punitive action should be taken against them for failing to declare a conflict of interest in the case. It is however important to note that the position of prosecutors is almost self-regulatory and it could be difficult to prove that they acted unethically given their nature of powers under the prosecutor’s discretion. Therefore, it might be possible to sue the prosecutor but chances of a success can be increasingly minimal. The only possible leeway would be to file a complaint at the Supreme Court and if there are sufficient grounds to show unethical behavior, an independent commission will be formed to oversee the matter.
References
Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, (2016) American Bar Association. Retrieved from: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/
Frater, R. J. (2017). Prosecutorial Misconduct. Thomson Reuters.
Howell, K. B. (2014). Prosecutorial Discretion and the Duty to Seek Justice in an Overburdened Criminal Justice System. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 27, 285.
