Let's suppose you were on trial for a crime you did not commit. Traditionally in the U.S., most citizens could take at least some comfort in knowing that although the prosecution has the task of presenting evidence against you, there would be an unspoken assumption that in order to guard the state's integrity the District Attorney would engage in a meticulous search for truth, even if that truth led to your acquittal.
However, today we are seeing a dangerously disturbing trend in America which indicates the citizens can no longer make that assumption.
Prosecutorial misconduct is on the rise and has been widely reported in some of the most publicized cases in the nation.
Most recently, former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was charged and convicted of corruption, leading to his defeat at the polls last November, only to find that the prosecution engaged in blatant misconduct that directly effected the outcome of the case.
The result was that the U.S. Justice Department was forced to make the extremely embarrassing decision to drop all charges against Stevens, and the Judge in the case threw out Stevens' conviction after which he issued a scathing indictment against the manner in which the case was handled by an obviously corrupt prosecutor's office.
All too often decisions are made by prosecutors across the country to 'go after' certain individuals for less than honorable motives. More often than not these motives involve political or monetary gain. Many times they involve nothing but pure retaliation on ideological grounds.
According to a report issued by one of the most respected journalists-reporters in the nation today, Mike McCarville of The McCarville Report, these instances of prosecutorial misdeeds are becoming a major issue across the country:
The Senator Ted Stevens case in Alaska is only the latest example, one in which Judge Emmet Sullivan threw out Stevens’ conviction and launched a criminal contempt investigation against a half-dozen federal prosecutors, calling their actions “shocking and disturbing.”
McCarville further cites the legal definition of 'prosecutorial misconduct' as, 'Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant.'
One of the most egregious cases of prosecutorial misconduct occurred when Durham, North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong falsely charged 3 Duke University students with rape in order to increase his chances of winning an election. In that case an investigation ensued by the North Carolina Attorney-General's office, which resulted in Nifong's being removed from the case and suspended from office.
Nifong then stood trial and was found guilty. The 3 students were declared innocent of the charges, but not before suffering almost irreversible harm to their reputations.
If the Nifong-Duke University fiasco is only 'the tip of the iceberg,' as McCarville says in his report, then ordinary citizens leading ordinary lives in any town in America have reason to believe that anyone, anywhere could be subject to wrongful prosecution at the hands of corrupt state's attorneys.
This is not the foundation upon which a viable criminal justice system is built.
For more stimulating commentary, please visit my blog, updated daily, at The Liberty Sphere.
Comments
No one ever covers what happened to Curt Weldon
in Pa. Two weeks before election, his offices were
raided by the FBI. His lead evaporated and Clinton's
candidate, Sestak won. No charges were ever brought
against Weldon. apparently, he had done nothing wrong.
I concur, Anthony. Also look at the David Olofson case as another example.
West Memphis 3
The "Baseline" Killer in Arizona
Olofson is a great erxample.
Arizona v. Youngblood
Sadly with minimal research it can become a very long list.
so two cases over a span of how many years (seriously, duke case is old news) is a "dangerous trend"? what, felt like taking a day off of writing another "obama gunna take our guns!!!!!" story?
duke boys got off because they were proven innocent, justice prevailed.
stevens got off on a technicality, not because he was found innocent.
Through the Tubes,
Obviously you didn't read the report I provided at the link to the McCarville Report. There are many more than just 2.
Anthony, this is not a recent trend. It has gone on for decades. Only recently have they become so arrogant as to become careless about exposure.
This type of thing has become so commonplace that I often asked "Why would an innocent man submit to trial?"
I will leave the alternative to your imagination.
so two cases over a span of how many years (seriously, duke case is old news) is a "dangerous trend"? what, felt like taking a day off of writing another "obama gunna take our guns!!!!!" story?
duke boys got off because they were proven innocent, justice prevailed.
stevens got off on a technicality, not because he was found innocent.
Go F*** yourself you limp wrist liberal.
Joseph Robinson February 1, 2009 10608-B Bethel Road Frederick, MD 21702 (301) 712-7994
State Bar of California Complaint Chief Trial Counsel Scott J. Drexel 1149 South Hill Street Los Angeles, California 90015-2299 (213) 765-1000
This complaint is against California Attorney Jeff Cunan, 520 Main Street; Quincy California, 95971; (530) 283-6340.
On September 29, 2000, when Cunan began to prosecute me in Plumas County case number 0026978, his prosecutorial duty was to ensure my rights, not to convict me by any means, but his personal agenda was to get me into prison, damn the law.
He did convict and imprison me and broke all the rules of fair play to do it.
On March 18, 2003, thirty days after California State Prison paroled me, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, case number C039311, reversed Cunan’s conviction.
On September 3, 2003, Cunan dismissed all charges against me.
In July, 2004, when I complained against Cunan to the California State Bar, I alleged a conspiracy between Cunan and judges. The Bar found that I failed to substantiate this conspiracy.
Now my complaint is that Cunan lied to the Court with the intent to deprive me of my right to the assistance of counsel, or in the alternative, is incompetent.
FACTS
Prior to the preliminary examination, I made continuous repeated requests for the assistance of counsel.
On October 26, 2000, I filed a written motion for appointment of counsel to assist me, asserting that I could not afford a lawyer. Heard and denied November 22. The judge ruled I did not qualify for counsel because I was not eligible for welfare.
On November 30, I again filed a written motion stating that I had no money to pay an attorney and objecting to the court’s refusal to appoint counsel to assist me. Heard and denied December 7, immediately before preliminary hearing. The judge ruled I was ineligible because I did not complete the financial form.
Cunan knew that documents and hearings concerning a defendant’s financial eligibility for appointed counsel are confidential, not open to the prosecution.
Cunan unlawfully participated in this hearing on my financial eligibility, positioned where he could see my financial form, and argued against appointment of counsel for me on grounds related to the contents of my financial form.
Cunan knew California Penal Code Section 866.5 states the defendant may not be examined at the preliminary hearing unless he has or has waived an attorney.
Cunan knew I did not have an attorney. Cunan knew I did not waive an attorney
Cunan examined me at the preliminary examination. Without the assistance of counsel, I testified to the law and facts that justified my production of marijuana for people that had a lawful right to obtain and use it but not the wherewithal to produce it.
Cunan knew that my production of marijuana for Californians who had a right to obtain it but nor the wherewithal to produce it was justifiable under California law.
Prior to trial Cunan moved the Court to exclude my justification defense. The Court unlawfully excluded my justification defense.
Prior to trial I moved the court to exclude my preliminary hearing testimony. Cunan knew I did not waive my right to counsel for the preliminary hearing. Cunan informed the court that I waived my right to counsel at the preliminary examination. The court ruled that I waived counsel and admitted my testimony.
At trial, Cunan made my preliminary hearing testimony the backbone of his case- in-chief against me. He deleted my justification testimony, gave the jury only the small part where I admit that I possessed the marijuana for distribution, and informed the jury that it was a confession.
Prior to adoption of Penal Code Section 866.5 in 1953, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that the admission of a defendant’s preliminary hearing testimony in the prosecution’s case in chief absent a valid waiver of counsel automatically violated constitutional rights to counsel and all the rules of fair play.
In 1953, California enacted Penal Code Section 866.5866.5. “The defendant may not be examined at the examination, unless he is represented by counsel, or unless he waives his right to counsel after being advised at such examination of his right to aid of counsel.”
In 1963, the United States Supreme Court, in Gideon v Wainwright, a famous, landmark case, ruled that the federal right to counsel applied to state courts.
In 2000, Cunan:
Argued against appointment of counsel for me in a hearing where he was not allowed to be with information he was not allowed to have;
Examined me at my preliminary hearing without counsel and without waiver;
Moved the Court to unlawfully prohibit my justification defense;
Intentionally wrongly informed the court that I waived counsel so he could get the unlawfully obtained testimony admitted into the trial;
Edited my wrongfully obtained testimony so he could convict me;
Made my truncated testimony the backbone of his case in chief to the jury;
Informed the jury that my wrongly obtained, truncated testimony was a confession.
EVIDENCE
Cunan’s opposition to my 866.5 motion is attached. (see page one, lines16-21)
California Appellate Ruling C03931 is attached.
My statement of facts is attached.
Court documents and transcripts are in Plumas County.
ISSUES
Did I waive my right to counsel for preliminary hearing?
Did Cunan inform the Court I waived my right to counsel?
Did Cunan wrongly inform the Court due to malice or incompetence?
I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true.
Joseph Robinson February 1, 2009
Prosecutorial misconduct extends to more than just prosecuting innocent people. It also includes prosecuting people under unconstitutional laws, unjust laws, or just laws being unjustly applied. That's why we need to demand our state legislatures pass laws requiring judges to inform all jurors about jury nullification or else the judges will face heavy civil sanctions and disiplinary action. And we need to tell as many of our fellow citizens as possible about jury nullification. Google "Fully Informed Jury Association."
i am much more a direct action kind of guy. as a people, we have become too peaceful. we have placed a weapon of unimaginable destructive power in the hands of those who would enslave us, our own timidity
Mis-conduct on the part of prosecutors is nothing new. It's been going on for years and years. It's only because of the Internet that people are being made aware of it. Through the tubes.... I'm can't wait for it to happen to you, and you meet the 'booty bandit' who loves guys like you. And all the time you're screaming.... but I'm innocent hahahahaha!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!