Milton Lantigua Criminal Justice Case

Milton Lantigua was falsely convicted after he supposedly fatally shot a man on streets of the Bronx in 1990. Approximately five years after his sentence, the criminal justice system reversed his conviction stating that the prosecution allowed a main witness in the trial to perjure herself and failed to reveal the presence of a second witness that might have helped the defense. The state of New York paid Lantigua $300,000 to settle but the prosecutors received no punishment. Mr. Lantigua is just one individual who is wrongfully convicted due to misconduct or error in the prosecution. According to District Attorney Robert Johnson, the cases in which the prosecutors erred, the prosecutors were given little disciple, in fact, some continually received merit raises and gained higher positions. Alberto Ramos’ case is similar to Lantigua as he was falsely accused of raping a young girl. The prosecution failed to disclose information discrediting the young girl’s accusation. The documents showed inconsistencies in her story. According to Diana Farrell, the …show more content…
The individuals falsely accused in the article may have been victims of the Assembly-Line Justice Court Model. It is discussed that this type of court is unfair with little concern for efficiency or processes. This model also suggests that plea bargains are frequent because parties wish to make a quick decision. Milton Lantigua was offered a plea bargain but denied it because of his innocence. He was then sentenced to 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. In addition, Lantigua’s acquittal was given by the Appellate Division of New York’s State Supreme Court. The e-text discussed appellate courts. Lantigua appealed because he thought he was denied a fair trial because of the prosecutions’ errors by calling their conduct “especially