David, I agree with many points in your discussion board. Prosecutors and Defendants both take an oath that anything they present to the court is proven to be true. The integrity of the attorneys is a key role in the law aspect of criminal justice. When a prosecutor brings false evidence is brought to the court room then individuals have the chance of receiving a sentence they are not guilty for. While if an officer violates a convicted individuals rights and the defense does not present the violation in the trial, then this individual was misrepresented and both the defense attorney and officer should be punished.
In 1963, Brady v. Maryland was established by the Supreme Court, which required the prosecutor to hand over to the defense exculpatory evidence. This allowed for the defense to gain evidence which pointed towards the innocence of the defendant. According to Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 the primary holding stated that, “withholding of evidence that is
…show more content…
You mentioned in your post that whether the defendant is guilty or not, if they are violated by an officer then the violation needs to be put to light. What are some consequences for the defense attorney if he is caught not bringing evidence (that could alter a trial) to court? What are the defendants’ rights that are being violated by the officer? One of duties that is to be performed by a defense attorney according to America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System is to, “zealously represent the client’s interests within the bounds of the law.” If the defense attorney fails to recognize the violation of his defendants’ rights does that corrupt the duty that is supposed to be performed? Proverbs 19:1 says, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.” When attorneys distorts evidence in any way, it gives the court system a bad reputation with its relationship to the
Judge Let Charges Against Police Stand in Freddie Gray Death A hearing was held on Wednesday to determine if the charges against the six officers should be dropped or not. The charges brought against the six officers were not dismissed by the circuit court judge. The defense lawyers filed a request to have the state attorney; Marilyn J. Mosby removed off the case. The charge was prosecutorial misconduct which was not proven.
The American legal system hears many cases relating to liability, but surprisingly, most of these cases concern the prosecutors within their own legal system. In the Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson, a district attorney’s office denied liability for the extreme misconduct of its prosecutors. The Supreme Court decided that the D.A. office was not liable for the actions of their prosecutors because they did not have a pattern of Brady violations. Contrary to the decision in Connick v. Thompson, the D.A. office should have been held liable for the misconduct of its prosecutors. Brady violations appeared throughout the case, other cases of Brady violations in that D.A. office, and the office’s blatant neglect to properly train its prosecutors.
This is a “Bad Deal” suggested Alexander. She explores how the lack of representation ends into a plea deal by the prosecutor in a manner of giving the accused a favor. Even though, it locks a person in to only convicting him/herself. She knows that the prosecutor has the ultimate decision to dismiss or add additional charges, which holds the key to his/her life. I agree with Alexander because the prosecutor is like the ‘god of the courts.”
Introduction: The United States Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and United States v. Agurs all deal with the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. These cases establish that prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused. Failure to disclose this information violates due process and can result in a new trial or acquittal.
During the course of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to another serious crime. Ultimately, the courts decided that since Miranda had not been informed of his fifth amendment rights and had not waived them, his confession was not valid. It is because of this case that law enforcement officers today read what is known as
Unfortunately, there are cases where some people went to jail and weren’t necessarily suppose to go to jail. But who truly knew if the officers or witness were telling the truth about the incident? That’s why body cameras should be mandatory for all police officers. It will force the suspects to not lie and enable the judge to have direct evidence in court, rather than comparing both stories and trying to put two and two together.
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” ( US Constitution) As you can see, the Bill of Rights 6th Amendment allows the accused to understand the charges against them: the accused is told what he/ she is being accused of, who is accusing them, and is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it allows for the movement of rightful convictions.
Many people, like myself, believe that police officers do not always get in trouble when situations like police racism or brutality happen. They do not think about getting in trouble because most of them literally don 't at all. When cops get caught for illegal actions they are just going to get in trouble by there own friends on the force, just to be put on paid leave. Not being caught is a big issue and is mainly why cops think that they can do whatever they want and completely get away with it. In many
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.
The innocent defendant will feel like there is no hope for them, with that being said they will accept any plea bargain that might not be fair so that they don’t have to spend an enormous amount of time behind bars. Now just because a prosecutor does their does job, does not mean that the procedures that they are following are unethical or illegal. With Plea bargains this relieves the court of a trial, and the prosecutor does not have to prove the case with a reasonable doubt. According to David Shetokas in Plea Bargaining in Criminal Cases most cases tend to plea. It states that 97% of federal cases will take a deal.
Now there is two possible outcomes, there was police misconduct and abuse of power, or the police officer did everything correctly and by the book. Either way there needs to be something that can protect the public from police misconduct and also protect law enforcement from dealing with false accusations that can tarnish their reputation. That is why body worn cameras need to be mandatory for all police officers to wear because it protects the public and the police officers that are wearing them. A couple positive outcomes police officers wearing body cameras is how they can lower police officers misuse of authority and also lower false complaints against officers as well. These are two
Many of these cases don’t have enough evidence to overturn or put away an officer who abuses his privileges of power. If the video from the body camera can be uploaded and displayed to a jury and judge it will benefit defenses. Lenience Williams of the Philadelphia coalition for racial, economic and legal justice said, “Opportunity to view the video on their own, says, ' they are left with the police version of what happened, and as we’ve seen recently their version isn’t always what happened (New York Times). " Cases are always brought up in the shootings but no evidence is sufficient enough like a body cameras would show. It goes based off the words from the officers, and what he writes in his reports.
All too often media airs news reports with details only revealed that support their own political agenda. Even with that said, if the very officer that is supposed to uphold the laws in society is engaging in misconduct or illegal activity, the public will diminish an officer’s credibility and legitimacy. (Elliot) This is why body worn cameras are so important. Credibility is everything to an officer.
People should not believe everything online when only officers are doing their job. None of them like to be judged on how they are doing their work, officers are doing their job how they are shown. Most officers cannot show any kind of weakness, if they do many will take advantage of them and it will not be right for people to be getting away with many things. The body cameras, officers have will always speak the truth and show no police brutality is given towards others. Officers do not have them on at all times, which is a little of a crutch that people can get out of.