Why are the prosecutors in a criminal case often viewed as the "bad guys"?

[friedo]

@bump

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

Probable cause for an arrest warrant is not the same thing as probable cause to proceed to trial. It is also irrelevant.

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.

You continue to make nonsensical contradictions. Why would everyone think someone is innocent if there is evidence to the contrary? This is both incorrect and incoherent.

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.

What can actually cause prosecutors to lose their jobs is maliciously prosecuting offenses for which there is exculpatory evidence, or failing to correct a previous unjust prosecution.

From the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

@Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

…

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

…

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

[Loach]

@bump

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.

Where are you getting this shit? You are talking like the prosecutor is subordinate to the police. Nothing can be further from the truth. The prosecutor decides. When I go for a warrant in front of a judge the first thing he wants to know is if I ran it past the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets the warrants and decides if the case goes in front of the grand jury, gets dropped or remanded to a lower court. Very often the prosecutor goes against my recommendations for whatever reason. They are above the police not there to do their bidding.

[bump]

@Loach

Where are you getting this shit? You are talking like the prosecutor is subordinate to the police. Nothing can be further from the truth. The prosecutor decides. When I go for a warrant in front of a judge the first thing he wants to know is if I ran it past the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets the warrants and decides if the case goes in front of the grand jury, gets dropped or remanded to a lower court. Very often the prosecutor goes against my recommendations for whatever reason. They are above the police not there to do their bidding.

Maybe I didn’t articulate that too well. What I’m getting at is that the prosecutors aren’t in the business of deciding guilt or innocence. They handle the how, where and to a large, but not total extent if cases are prosecuted, but for the most part, that’s not based on their own presumption of guilt or innocence, any more than it’s the cops’ purview to decide that kind of thing either.

That’s why we have trials. Prosecutors may drop a case due to insufficient evidence to charge a person with the crime, or may bargain down to a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea, or even send cases to mediation/arbitration rather than court. But none of that is passing judgment on the actual guilt or innocence of the accused, which is what friedo and others are suggesting that prosecutors have a duty to do in the case of the innocent.

[Loach]

@bump

Maybe I didn’t articulate that too well. What I’m getting at is that the prosecutors aren’t in the business of deciding guilt or innocence. They handle the how, where and to a large, but not total extent if cases are prosecuted, but for the most part, that’s not based on their own presumption of guilt or innocence, any more than it’s the cops’ purview to decide that kind of thing either.

That’s why we have trials. Prosecutors may drop a case due to insufficient evidence to charge a person with the crime, or may bargain down to a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea, or even send cases to mediation/arbitration rather than court. But none of that is passing judgment on the actual guilt or innocence of the accused, which is what friedo and others are suggesting that prosecutors have a duty to do in the case of the innocent.

That is fundamentally incorrect.

[Shodan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but prosecutors are supposed to decide two things -
[ul][li]If there is enough evidence to convict, and[/li][li]Is the accused factually innocent.[/ul]Defense attorneys aren’t supposed to concern themselves with the second question, and only argue that their client should not be convicted, or should receive a lesser sentence, based on the first question. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[rbroome]

@bump

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.

I know this to be false in my jurisdiction. A few years ago we had a grand jury indict a driver who was hit by a police car. It was such a bizarre outcome (the victim was turning into their driveway when a police car came screaming around the curve at high speed and T-boned the car. The jury decided that the driver got in the policeman’s way) that the press, the public and the police all started talking about a runaway jury. Then the prosecutor announced that they were not going to proceed with any criminal investigation of the driver and the whole thing went to civil court where the county paid millions to the family. (details aren’t relevant but 2 children died unnecessarily)

[Lemur866]

@bump

That’s why we have trials. Prosecutors may drop a case due to insufficient evidence to charge a person with the crime, or may bargain down to a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea, or even send cases to mediation/arbitration rather than court. But none of that is passing judgment on the actual guilt or innocence of the accused, which is what friedo and others are suggesting that prosecutors have a duty to do in the case of the innocent.

It’s not a suggestion, it’s the law. It’s, like, written down. In law books.

[bump]

If the prosecutors are in the business of determining guilt or innocence, then why have the trial in the first place? Why not just let them decide, and then just go to the sentencing phase?

[Loach]

@bump

If the prosecutors are in the business of determining guilt or innocence, then why have the trial in the first place? Why not just let them decide, and then just go to the sentencing phase?

Absolutely no one said that. What was said is that if they have information which leads them to believe that a defendant is innocent they have the moral, ethical and legal duty to not prosecute. They still have to prove to a jury if someone is guilty. That is not at all like what you are saying. And you have yet to back up your conjecture with any knowledge or proof.

[Lemur866]

@bump

If the prosecutors are in the business of determining guilt or innocence, then why have the trial in the first place? Why not just let them decide, and then just go to the sentencing phase?

Seriously?

The prosecutors don’t have the authority to declare someone guilty and skip the trial.

But they absolutely have the authority to declare someone not guilty and skip the trial.

Usually they won’t go to the step of holding a press conference that a certain person is innocent of a particular crime, which is why they aren’t prosecuting. The usual way to do this is to say that there isn’t enough evidence to proceed to trial, which holds out the possibility that if new evidence does come to light that demonstrates guilt then the defendant can be charged.

Of course there are plenty of cases where the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty, but there’s no point in proceeding to trial since the evidence against them isn’t strong enough, and so decline to prosecute. But there are plenty of other cases where they don’t believe the defendant is factually guilty, and therefore don’t prosecute.

Seriously, your scenario is utterly nonsensical. You really imagine an ethical prosecutor who, just because there is evidence that a person committed a crime, would be obligated to prosecute even though they believed the person was innocent? Obviously “belief” in this thing isn’t merely a gut feeling, it’s examining the evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions. Why would a prosecutor conclude a person is innocent unless there was evidence showing that the person was innocent?

It’s not like I think the cops will gather all kinds of evidence for the trial, and the prosecutor just tosses it all in the trash with “Eh, he’s innocent, forget the evidence”. But a prosecutor also has to consider exculpatory evidence, and one piece of exculpatory evidence really can throw the whole case in the trash.