Just like all lawyers, prosecutors sometimes deal with very complex issues, which they are expected to resolve under tight time constraints. As a result, they sometimes make mistakes. This is understandable and forgivable. After all, to err is human. And believe it or not, lawyers are human beings.
Of course, the mistakes of prosecutors can sometimes have far-reaching consequences. Such mistakes can result in the innocent being condemned, and the guilty going free. In their zeal to win cases (a trait possessed by all successful trial lawyers), prosecutors sometimes forget that they have duties beyond their obligation to represent the interests of their “client” (the government) – they are ministers of justice, and if they have information that points to a defendant’s innocence, they are absolutely obligated to hand it over to the defense.
5. Ted Stevens’ corruption charges dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct
Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens may not be the most likeable guy. However, when unlikable people are charged with crimes, their constitutional rights are just as important as those of everyone else.
In late 2008, the former Senator from Alaska was convicted of falsifying financial disclosures related to gifts he received from wealthy friends and associates.
However, shortly after the conviction (April of 2009), evidence came to light that prosecutors had withheld significant amounts of exculpatory evidence. The presiding judge described it as the most serious case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in 25 years, and took the opportunity to note what he saw as a disturbing trend in prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence in cases against individuals ranging from Guantanamo detainees to public officials, like Ted Stevens. The judge is now considering pressing criminal charges against the prosecutors for their misconduct.
4. Case against Broadcom CFO and co-founder dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct
In a major stock options back-dating case against a few key figures at the Broadcom Corporation, the defendants were charged with multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy. However, in December of 2009 the presiding judge found that prosecutors had tried to prevent key witnesses for the defense from testifying, leaked information about the grand jury proceedings to the media, and improperly contacted defense attorneys. The judge also ordered the prosecutors to show cause why separate drug charges against one of the defendants should not be dismissed.
3. Murder charges against Blackwater employees dismissed due to prosecutors’ misconduct
Coming at the tail end of 2009, a federal judge dismissed all charges against five employees of the controversial security company Blackwater. The military contractors were accused of murder in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis in 2007. The prosecutors allegedly based their case on statements by the guards which were later found to be coerced – the State Department threatened to fire them unless they spoke with investigators. According to the judge’s ruling, prosecutors repeatedly ignored warnings by the Justice Department against relying on the tainted evidence.
This case is particularly egregious, because the allegations were so serious. Whether the men were guilty or innocent, this is not a bad result. If they truly are guilty of murder, they are now free. If they are innocent, this case raises the specter of prosecutors bringing capital charges against persons who they knew to be innocent.
Furthermore, whatever happened that day in Iraq, 17 civilians are dead. A trial, whatever its end result, was likely the best chance that anyone had to learn what really happened that day, and the lessons learned could have been applied to prevent such an incident from happening again.
2. Orly Taitz and her conspiracy-theory-driven lawsuits
While she is not a prosecutor, but a private attorney, Orly Taitz almost certainly views herself as being on a crusade for justice and the greater good.
Of course, filing repeated lawsuits against the President of the United States alleging that he’s constitutionally ineligible to hold that office, without a shred of real evidence or a coherent legal argument to support one’s position is probably not doing anybody any good. That’s what the presiding judge in one of her many short-lived lawsuits thought when he fined her for bringing a frivolous action.
The story got a lot more interesting, and Ms. Taitz suddenly looked even crazier, when allegations surfaced that she tried to get witnesses to lie on the stand, including one fellow conspiracy theorist (whose own birther views were debunked by the birther-friendly publication WorldNetDaily) who alleged that she asked him to testify that operatives sent by the President tried to kill him by hitting him with a car. Just so we’re clear, here: a man who a far-right, conspiracy-oriented newspaper thought was too crazy for them, thinks that Orly Taitz is too crazy for him. Wow.
1. Juvenile court judges took kickbacks to sentence children to longer terms of incarceration
Finally, we come to what may have been the most disgraceful and disturbing story from the legal world in 2009. In March of last year, it came to light that 2 Pennsylvania judges were taking kickbacks to sentence children to time in a juvenile detention center. In some cases, children and teenagers served relatively long sentences (some of them being several months) for extremely minor crimes. The detention center was privately owned, being run under a contract with the state. Part of the money it received from the state was on a per-inmate basis – more children locked up, more money, hence, paying judges to sentence more children to time in the facility.
Both judges plead guilty to criminal corruption charges, and are currently serving jail time.
As a result of this, the convictions of hundreds of minors who were tried by these judges were reviewed and overturned. However, that does not undo the fact that many of them spent months at what amounts to a work camp for crimes they either did not commit, or for infractions so minor that the idea of any punishment other than a fine or community service seems draconian.
In the end, prosecutors, and the legal system in general, will always be fallible and imperfect (at least until we build sentient machines to rule over us). However, the above cases illustrate that we can always do better, and should strive for that goal.
Whether accused murderers don’t have to stand trial because the prosecutor is over-zealous, judges essentially sell children into involuntary servitude, or conspiracy theorists decide to use taxpayer-funded institutions to air their views when a sandwich board would be just as effective, the above cases go beyond mere blunders and mistakes. They are illustrative of some of humankind’s worst tendencies. Hopefully our better tendencies will prevail in 2010.