Prosecutorial Misconduct Case Study

652 Words 3 Pages
#1 –– Under what circumstances might prosecutors engage in mis-conduct? What are four types of prosecutorial misconduct? The textbook makes it very clear that attorneys undergo many unique pressures from multiple sources. They have an enormous obligation to represent their client in the best possible manner, despite the fact they may be dealing with a weak case with an inadequate amount of evidence. Therefore, often times attorneys have to over emphasize the relevance and cruciality of their given evidence in order to make their client appear victimized.
One-way prosecutors act in ways of misconduct by encouraging expert witnesses to exaggerate their claims in order to influence the jury. Attorneys may also purposefully exclude exculpatory
…show more content…
The textbook defines the harmless error doctrine as an incident where “an appellate court can affirm one’s conviction despite the presence of of serious prosecutorial misconduct during the trial” (p. 52). This doctrine exemplifies how prosecutors can practically feel inclined to engage in misconduct seeing that it is very difficult for the court system to punish them for such behavior. Furthermore, this doctrine may also apply to serious cases such as death penalty trials, demonstrating the potential for prosecutor misconduct to negatively effect the outcome of any case, large or small. The author of the chapter provides his suggestion considering the current method in which the criminal justice system deals with motions of trial misconduct. He suggests, “motions for retrial based on false testimony presented by prosecution witnesses should be governed by a standard drawn from newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct” (p. 52). He also explains how a proper test for courtroom misconduct is more likely achievable if there is a great chance that the jury is aware of the false testimony and would avoid convicting the defendant. By acknowledging the challenges that the system faces in dealing with courtroom misconduct, the author indicates that there is a need to hold professional members of the court with a greater amount of accountability. Although there is the potential consequence for retrial, some attorneys

Related Documents