Another cautionary tale.

D

Dashunde

New member
About two years ago we had this thread on a roadside road-rage shooting involving a NJ officer on vacation with his family in MD, who was tried for murder and acquitted.

The post-trial commentary from the defense points out a few disturbing issues, most notable is the prosecutors [mis]conduct.

This case shines a bright light on the lengths prosecutors will go to secure an indictment and conviction.
Were they trying to grand stand for the media?
Put on a good "tough on crime" show for their constituents?

Whatever their reasoning, we ccw'ers should all take notice and be reminded of how treacherous carrying can be.
 
This case shines a bright light on the lengths prosecutors will go to secure an indictment and conviction. Were they trying to grand stand for the media?
Click to expand...
This isn't a new phenomenon. Angela Corey, who presided over the George Zimmerman and Marissa Alexander cases, has been criticized for overcharging.

Her decisions raised controversy because she serves in Florida. In localities with a history of hostility to gun owners (like Maryland), these things are a matter of course.

If anything, the situation should drive home the fact that one can never expect a shooting to be considered "clean" or "good" before a grand jury has reviewed it.
 
What we think is clearly self-defense can be perceived as a political act by others. The justice system can be suborned by political concerns, as we have all seen.
 
From your Baltimore Sun article :
PHP: 
After a pre-trial hearing, Circuit Court Judge J. Michael Wachs found that Mr. Dunty had indeed "misled" the grand jury in securing Detective Walker's indictment but that it did not rise to the level of being perjurious, and he declined to dismiss the indictment. Judge Wachs also declined to dismiss the indictment after the state violated its discovery obligations by, among other things, failing to turn over an exculpatory ballistics report until the day before trial.

So, the Judge agrees that the DA misled the grand jury but not "to the level of perjurious" and declined to dismiss the indictment brought b/c of the misleading DA presentation.

Since there is apparently no system to watch the watchmen or punish them for lying or correcting those misteps by officials, I can safely predict this will continue. Thanks, you've now ruined my sunny day.
 
Not being a lawyer, but having watched a lot of "Law and Order" on TV, isn't there an ethics board associated with the state BAR to which a complaint could/should be filed against such prosecutors?

OK, if that only works on TV, I'm ready to take the retribution. :cool:
 
Re Post #2, I could be wrong, but I think that the prosecutorial theory runs as follows. If you throw enough "stuff" at the wall, perhaps something will stick.
 
I could be wrong, but I think that the prosecutorial theory runs as follows. If you throw enough "stuff" at the wall, perhaps something will stick.
Click to expand...

My educated, erudite response to this is..
"well, ..duh!!! " :rolleyes:

It is hardly a new thing, I think "prosecutorial excess" is mentioned in the New Testament, although not in those terms....

BUT, in fairness (despite the fact that I don't want to be..;)) they don't see it as excessive the way we do. To the prosecutor, its their job, not a personal attack on you or I. We are just cannon fodder in that situation.

The prosecutor may be an agenda driven zealot, and it may be personal for them to get a conviction (which is, after all their only measure of success), your case is just one of many, etc.

It is nice when they apply reason, but they are not required to. They can literally try any and everything, and its all legal, until the judge says different.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, in a galaxy right here, a fellow was bowhunting deer, and was attacked by a Grizzly bear. This was not too long after Grizzlys were listed as endangered. The fellow wound up going hand to hand with the bear, and killed it by repeatedly stabbing it with a broadhead arrow. (by hand, did not shoot from bow) He was badly injured, but did survive.

Weeks (months?) later, still in casts and bandages, the fellow gets hauled into court for killing the endangered bear. Judge looks at the evidence, and tosses it out. But it was the prosecutor's job to bring charges, and while an idiot, he was just "doing his job".
 
alan said:
...I could be wrong, but I think that the prosecutorial theory runs as follows. If you throw enough "stuff" at the wall, perhaps something will stick....
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Let's look at how litigation fundamentally works.

Litigation is an adversarial process. Each side has an ethical and professional obligation to, within the framework of the applicable rules, zealously and vigorously represent the interests of his client. And therefore:

  1. The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to bring out, consistent with the applicable rules of evidence and procedure, every fact that will be helpful to his side's interests.

  2. The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to argue the law as most favorable to his side's interests.

  3. The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to challenge the other side if he thinks that the other side has overstepped the rules or if he thinks the evidence put forth by the other side is not credible.

  4. The judge is there to rule on disputed matters of law and generally see that the rules of evidence and procedure are followed.

  5. Thus the adversarial system encourages that all facts material to the deciding of the dispute get out on the table.

  6. No system devised and operated by humans is perfect. Mistake can be made, but considering the enormous number of matters processed through the legal system, they are relatively few.

  7. So if you have a foolproof way of deciding legal matters perfectly, let Spats McGee and me know, and we'll pass it along.

CowTowner said:
...isn't there an ethics board associated with the state BAR to which a complaint could/should be filed...
Click to expand...
Yes, in every State, in order to practice law, a lawyer must adhere to rules of professional responsibility and ethics enforced by the courts and/or the State Bar Association. Each Bar has procedures for receiving complaints about lawyer conduct, investigating those complaints and imposing discipline for violations -- up to, and including, loss of the right to practice law.

For example, prosecutor Michael Nifong was ultimately disbarred for his misconduct in handling the 2006 rape case against members of the Duke University lacrosse team.
 
Where does prosecutorial discretion come into play?

We're seeing quite a few try desperately to force faulty cases through court to their own detriment... why?
Why on earth are they creating such a workload for themselves only to end up looking like a fool, or worse, getting disbarred for it?

Makes one wonder how many people have been convicted by these weasels missing a sense of right/wrong armed with false testimony/evidence.
 
I don't approve of or condone overcharging, but I do recognize a significant difference between overcharging, and prosecutorial misconduct. A prosecutor's lying to a grand jury should be grounds for loss of his/her law license. Ditto failure to promptly disclose and turn over exculpatory evidence.

The courts are supposed to represent the criminal justice system. Justice is not served when prosecutors lie and cheat in their attempts to secure convictions.
 
I don't approve of or condone overcharging, but I do recognize a significant difference between overcharging, and prosecutorial misconduct. A prosecutor's lying to a grand jury should be grounds for loss of his/her law license. Ditto failure to promptly disclose and turn over exculpatory evidence.
Click to expand...

Didn't this happen to the DA in the Duke case?
 
Just a couple of quick comments. IF everything the defense attorney said is true and accurate, it was the police officer who testified before the grand jury and gave inaccurate/incorrect testimony about witness statements; not the prosecutor. Hearsay is common and allowed in grand jury proceedings. Second, if the prosecutor's boss gave a public comment after the trial which was inaccurate and given in reckless disregard for the truth or with actual malice, there is potential civil liability for slander. The prosecutor's boss probably has no prosecutorial immunity for those out-of-court statements.

We don't have enough information on some of the points raised in the commentary on which to base an opinion. For example, why was the ballistics report delayed until the day before trial? Could it be that was the day it was turned over to the prosecutor?

Nevertheless, I have to admit that I feel uneasy about the prosecution of this case.
 
This isn't a new phenomenon. Angela Corey, who presided over the George Zimmerman and Marissa Alexander cases, has been criticized for overcharging.
Click to expand...

Angela Corey wasn't this first to do this in Florida. Back in 1982, Janet Reno charged a Miami police officer with Manslaughter after he shot and killed a black man in a video arcade who was trying to draw a concealed stolen handgun on him. Some things never change. The cop was acquitted by a jury in 1984, but the city fired him anyway.
 
This isn't overcharging, but it sounds like the ADA intentionally misled the grand jury, unless you believe she really thought there were witnesses that in fact never existed. At the indictment stage, that is more likely, but she continued her charade at trial. By then she must have known better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top