병역면제, 병역법 소송
| 일부 항목은 회원가입후 login하셔야 글을 읽고 쓰실 수 있습니다.
||2017-07-17 11:33:36, 조회 : 365, 추천 : 92
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct is "an illegal act or failing to act, on the part of a prosecutor, especially an attempt to sway the jury to wrongly convict a defendant or to impose a harsher than appropriate punishment." It is similar to selective prosecution. Prosecutors are bound by a sets of rules which outline fair and dispassionate conduct.
1 Types of misconduct
2 Abuses of discretion
3 Examples and remedies
4 See also
6 External links
Types of misconduct
False arrest – abetting
Police brutality – abetting
Surveillance abuse – abetting
Testifying -- Subornation of perjury
Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Abuses of discretion
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Prosecutors are given discretion about how they conduct their business. However, while some practices are not illegal, they may be seen as unethical and/or abusive and in need of reform, particularly by defendants and criminal defense attorneys:
Selective prosecution by race, income, political affiliation, etc.
Capture of the grand jury, misusing it as a tool for inquisitorial abuse, or excluding citizen complaints from being heard.
Plea bargaining abuses, such as seeking testimony in exchange for leniency. This may solicit perjury or falsified evidence.
“Horsetrading”, the practice of colluding with defense attorneys to agree to get some of their clients to plead guilty in exchange for letting others off.
Threatening public officials, especially judges, with prosecution if they don't unduly support their cases.
Tainting of jury pools with public statements by prosecutors that are either inaccurate, exaggerated, unsupported by evidence or that could be inadmissible at trial, and such statements become widely promulgated by the media.
Prosecutors causing depositions in a related civil trial which were likely to yield exculpatory evidence, and then "staying" those statements so they cannot be used in a criminal trial.
Prosecutors naming a host of “un-indicted co-conspirators” in conspiracy cases to intimidate potential defense witnesses with threats of retaliatory prosecution.
Prosecutors using their Peremptory Challenges to remove from the jury anyone with relevant experience in the complex subjects of a trial. Defense attorneys often use similar tactics. Both attempt to prevent a juror's technical knowledge from interfering with the credibility of their expert witnesses.
Prosecutors pursuing criminal penalties for selected industry practices in Corporate America when regulatory intervention would be more appropriate. For example, prosecuting a mechanic for minor violations of the Clean Water Act rather than affording the opportunity for the mechanic to correct their error and pay the appropriate fines.
Prosecutors using multidefendant trials to get defendants to turn on one another in the courtroom, as judges may be reluctant to allow separate trials in multi-defendant cases.
Examples and remedies
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In late 1993, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that John Demjanjuk had been a victim of prosecutorial misconduct during a 1986 trial in which federal prosecutors withheld evidence. Demjanjuk's sentence was overturned, but he lost when his case was retried.
In the 1995 murder trial of O. J. Simpson, the defense argued that Los Angeles Police Department detective Mark Fuhrman had planted evidence at the crime scene. Although Fuhrman denied the allegations, Simpson was found not guilty, although he was later held liable for the deaths in a civil suit filed by the families of the victims. In USA Today (August 24, 1995), Francis Fukuyama stated, "[Such defenses lead to] a distrust of government and the belief that public authorities are in a vast conspiracy to violate the rights of individuals." However, such misconduct may actually be widespread in the United States. "It’s a result-oriented process today, fairness be damned," Robert Merkle, former U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, said. Prosecutors are protected from civil liability even when they knowingly and maliciously break the law in order to secure convictions, and the doctrine of harmless error can be used by appellate courts to uphold convictions despite such illegal tactics, which some argue gives prosecutors few incentives to comply with the law.
A more recent example of prosecutorial misconduct can be seen in the 2006 Duke lacrosse case. In that incident, members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team hired a female stripper for a team party. She went on to accuse three players of raping her at that party. Making the case even more volatile was the fact that the stripper was black and the three accused players were white. The actions of the prosecutor in this case, Mike Nifong, drew enormous criticism, as he proceeded with the case despite numerous inconsistencies in the accuser's story, a lack of DNA evidence conclusively linking any player to any sexual assault, and at least two of the accused having solid alibis. He also made numerous inflammatory statements to the media. The case against the players eventually collapsed; all charges were dropped, and the North Carolina Attorney General took the unusual step of declaring the players innocent. The North Carolina State Bar eventually disbarred Nifong for his actions during this case.
In 2011 a Texas man, Michael Morton was released from prison after serving nearly 25 years for the murder of his wife in 1987. He was released after DNA evidence pointed to another man as the killer. The prosecutor, Ken Anderson later plead guilty to withholding evidence that could have helped Morton fight the murder charge. He was sentenced to spend 10 days in jail and was also disbarred.
Despite such, the defense has been successful in roughly 1 out of 6 times it has been used from 1970 to 2003. During that period, judges have cited misconduct by prosecutors as a reason to dismiss charges, reverse convictions, or reduce sentences in 2,012 cases, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity released in 2003; the researchers looked at 11,452 cases in which misconduct was alleged.
A debate persists over the meaning of the term. Prosecutors have asked judges to stop using the term to refer to an unintentional error, and to restrict its use to describe a breach of professional ethics. E. Norman Veasey, the chief justice of Delaware Supreme Court, answered one such request in 2003 by noting the term's extensive use in rulings over the past 60 years. "We believe it would be confusing to change the terminology in view of this history," he wrote in reply.
Fruit of the poisonous tree
List of wrongful convictions in the United States
Jump up ^ "prosecutorial misconduct - Legal Definition". Webster's New World Law Dictionary. LoveToKnow, Corp. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
Jump up ^ Bar Rules, Director of Public Prosecutions Guidelines and Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Jump up ^ http://www.post-gazette.com/win/day1_1a.asp
Jump up ^ http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/12/Opinion/Policing_prosecutors.shtml
Jump up ^ Lindell, Chuck. "Judge finds that Anderson hid evidence in Morton murder trial". Austin Statesman. Cox Media Group. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
Jump up ^ Colloff, Pamela. "Jail Time May Be the Least of Ken Anderson’s Problems". Texas Monthly. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Breaking the Rules". Retrieved October 18, 2012.
Discovery violations have made evidence-gathering a shell game, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 24, 1998
[show] v t e
Miscarriage of justice
[hide] v t e
United States criminal due process case law
Mooney v. Holohan (1935) Hysler v. Florida (1942) Pyle v. Kansas (1942) New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson (1943) White v. Ragen (1945) Mesarosh v. United States (1956) Alcorta v. Texas (1957) Napue v. Illinois (1959)
Categories: MisconductCriminal defensesProsecutionCriminal justice ethics
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearch
Donate to Wikipedia
What links here
Cite this page
Create a book
Download as PDF
This page was last edited on 29 May 2017, at 19:45.
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.