Prosecutorial misconduct is rampant in the criminal justice system. From intimidating witnesses, to hiding exculpatory information, to anonymously blogging to influence jurors, to spying on criminal defense attorneys, to knowingly putting on false testimony, all the way to setting up innocent men. It’s seriously depressing.
Just as depressing as the widespread misconduct itself is the fact that nothing is being done about it. Prosecutors are immune from being sued, convictions affected by misconduct routinely get affirmed because courts find that the misconduct was not “prejudicial,” and nothing ultimately happens to the wrongdoers. They generally keep their jobs, without even a smack on the hand.
Although there’s an office assigned to look into prosecutorial misconduct, called the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”), that office almost never takes any action against bad prosecutors and keeps its findings private. OPR is such a joke that it often rejects even the rare judicial finding of prosecutorial misconduct. One study showed that during a three year period, there were 60 cases of serious judicial criticisms or findings of misconduct and yet OPR found no wrongdoing by any of these prosecutors.
Instead of taking action against bad prosecutors, it was just publicly announced that OPR will be investigating Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta for his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case ten years ago when he was the U.S. Attorney in South Florida. For those of us who care about real prosecutorial misconduct, this news is truly absurd.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at firstname.lastname@example.org
Monday, February 11, 2019
“OPR should investigate real prosecutorial misconduct, not Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta”
That’s the title of my latest piece in The Hill. Below is the introduction, but please click here to read the whole thing:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Shouldn't they do both? The problems you cite are real but the Epstein plea deal should be scrutinized as well.
I agree with 11:26. DOM makes it sound like they are mutually exclusive.
Are you saying prosecutorial misconduct is rampant in SDFla? If not here, where specifically?
Lets take a step back about the anonymous blogging jabs.
Interesting suggestion from the anonymous blogger LOL
Yes, pros misconduct is rampant here and has been for a while.
sounds like you're channeling Dershowitz
yes 8:53 it's called irony. I was being ironic, which is part of my charm.
Rumpole = blowhard
DOM, I am beginning to think you have a soft spot for Acosta.
The Epstein deal smells bad and Acosta will not wash it off. Girls were victimized by a sleazball millionaire, sleazball paid connected lawyers who went over prosecutors head to Acosta (a practice Acosta permitted too often) and charm on Acosta (ditto) - who did not trust his own staff and was trying to make friends because he was worried about his career after USA. Victims were cast aside by the system without a fair process. It was not based on the evidence from what I can tell from here. There was enough there to make a very good case with a little investigative work (pictures, victims who did not know each other telling similar stories, potential flips). It was not permitted to happen because the investigation was not pursued. I think Epstein did not get what he deserved, but Acosta deserves what he is getting.
Post a Comment