One thing that people are missing (surprised the real lawyers aren’t saying this) is that in the legal profession, there’s a sort of concept that if both side’s lawyers do their jobs and are competent, then the truth will come out, and the proper verdict will be reached.
As such, there’s a sort of concept of “duty” to your client, that requires you to do your very damnedest to nail that guy to the wall / get him off the hook, REGARDLESS of guilt or innocence. The lawyers ARE NOT in the business of deciding guilt, innocence or anything of the sort- that’s the job of the judge and jury. The lawyers are there to represent their clients in the legal system to the best of their ability.
For prosecutors, their “client” is the city/state/county/Federal government. So their job, as they see it, is to work like demons to convict that guy, not to pass judgment themselves.
Where it gets murky is when prosecuting one guy for something questionable takes resources away from prosecuting more clearly guilty people- that’s when the higher-ups should be guiding their underlings (assistant DAs/prosecutors) in how/what they should be concentrating on, and dropping cases that are lost causes, etc…
Of course, they should be following all laws regarding evidence and discovery, and all professional ethical standards; that goes without saying for ANY lawyer.
This is one of the things that really made me lose faith in the criminal justice system. Police and prosecutors alike seem to believe that their function is to make as many convictions as possible. Whether the conviction is the correct one, or whether law enforcement intervention is even necessary in the first place, appears to be a tertiary consideration.
I’ll never understand why people are so keen to resort to legal action when there are other means of solving a problem. I have no compassion for the murderers, rapists, and thieves of the world, but there are a great many people who get arrested when there are other ways to correct the problem.
Except that the prosecution absolutely has a duty to pass judgement themselves. Yes, a defense attorney’s obligation is to defend the client, guilty or innocent. But a prosecutor doesn’t have an obligation to prosecute, guilty or innocent. A prosecutor has an obligation to prosecute only the guilty. Guilty people need defense attorneys, the system couldn’t function if defense attorneys were supposed to give up if they thought their client was guilty. But prosecutors aren’t supposed to prosecute innocent people, and are absolutely obligated to give up if they think the accused is innocent.
Is there not a tendency to go against “innocent until proven guilty” for prosecutors? Their office and associates have gone to great lengths to bring those believed to be guilty of a crime to trial. Surely his associates cannot be mistaken, given their keen minds and the amount of work they put in on a case. If they believe the fellow to be guilty, surely he is.
They certainly have that tendency. Nonetheless, their actual job is to serve justice, not to prosecute. (Usually, prosecution is the correct way to serve justice, but not always.)
History is full of examples of prosecutors who have lost sight of their true mission. That’s why defense lawyers and due process are a good thing.
Here’s an example of what I mean when I say that the prosecutor’s job is not just to prosecute.
A district attorney in Illinois set up a new program to investigate defendants claiming factual innocence before going to trial. This is not a radical idea - prosecutors should be doing this anyway, all this guy did was to set up a formalized and more transparent procedure where defense lawyers can say, “look, we have significant evidence that this is not actually your guy, take another look please?” and they did. And several of the cases that went through that process had their charges dropped. Prosecutors drop charges all the time for the same reason, but this one is the only one I know of who has set up a formal procedure for his office to follow in those cases. That procedure makes review more likely, allows people to separate their egos from the process a bit, allows statistics to be collected about the process, and saves the state significant resources that might otherwise be spent on potentially unjust jury trials and incarceration.
No, not so much. Their job is to prosecute people accused, by virtue of being arrested by the cops and charged with a crime. That’s it. Their job isn’t to convict people before the trial, and it’s not to decide they’re innocent and turn them loose either. There’s no judgment in terms of guilt or innocence in their job descriptions. If they’re dropping charges, it’s because the evidence isn’t sufficient to expect a successful outcome, or because they’re dropping them for lesser charges that the defendant is willing to plea bargain to, or other stuff along those lines. It’s not, and shouldn’t be because the prosecution thinks the person is innocent. That’s what the trial is for!
Of course, there’s a sort of practical triage that says that they go after the cases worth their time first, but they absolutely don’t say “Oh, I think that guy really didn’t kill his wife, despite the cops hauling him in after interrogating him and finding a smoking gun.” and then decide not to prosecute. That guilt or innocence determination is only the province of the judge and jury, and to a much lesser extent, the cop on the scene who sometimes make snap decisions about whether to enforce the law or not.
They prosecute anyway, under the expectation that if the guy IS innocent, then it’ll come out in the process assuming his defense attorney does his job, and the judge isn’t asleep at the wheel. If the guy’s innocent, and everyone does their jobs properly, it’s extremely likely that the innocent will be set free, and the guilty will be punished.
All this is assuming they’re not witch-hunting people, or skirting legal procedure and ethics to try and convict people.
It also assumes that the attorneys on both sides are decent, which isn’t necessarily a done deal; we’ve all heard stories about abysmal public defenders and asshole prosecutors who bend and break the law for convictions.
A prosecutor in Illinois started a program where if someone claims they are innocent they are actually listened to and their claims are investigated! Turns out most arrested people don’t claim innocence, just that the law made some mistake. If this prosecutor’s office receives a claim that the charged person is “actually innocent”, they investigate the possibility.
Such a concept. On one hand it is good to see that some prosecutor is trying to be fair, on the other hand, it is telling that such a practice is rare enough to make international news.
And that is the problem with prosecutors. They don’t have the reputation for investigating whether the suspect is guilty or innocent, just whether they can build a case to convict.
I don’t believe that is the case.
After all, they are the ones doing the accusing. Just because the police arrests someone doesn’t impose any obligation on the state to prosecute them.
Sometimes the prosecutor does, sometimes a grand jury does, sometimes a judge does. There are a lot of points in the criminal trial process where things can come to a halt.
This is completely, utterly, and in all other ways incorrect. If the prosecution believes the person is innocent, they can, should, must, and do drop the charges.
A prosecutor’s duties and a defense attorney’s duties are not symmetrical. A prosecutor has an additional duty to not convict innocent people, while a defense attorney does not have an ethical obligation to not acquit guilty people. You are simply wrong.
Do some prosecutors lose sight of this duty? Of course they do, but just because they sometimes ignore their duty doesn’t mean they don’t in fact have that explicit duty.
Barring a GJ indictment, there is no trial unless the prosecution can satisfy a judge that there is enough evidence against a defendant to warrant a trial.
We’ve seen that prosecutors are on the side of police, even murderous police. That makes you a bad guy, period. Police officers accused of crimes should be given the same treatment as any “thug” off the street. Not given a pass just because of their profession.
And enough evidence / not enough evidence is not at all the same thing as guilt or innocence. Nor is a preliminary hearing a trial, but a judge presides over it all the same, not the prosecuting attorneys. They are the person who decides if there was cause to arrest the person for the crime, and
In other words, if the cops haul someone in who everyone thinks is innocent, but there’s enough evidence to the contrary to warrant a trial (as determined by the judge in the preliminary hearing, or by a grand jury), then they’re pretty much bound to follow through on the trial.
They can dismiss trivial crimes or choose not to prosecute certain ones, but they’re fairly limited in that regard- not attempting to try someone for felonies would likely cause them to lose their job.
