Court Misconduct
Prosecutorial misconduct is the ability of prosecutors to dismiss charges, move forward with a particular case. They also have the power to make a deal with a defendant for the accused to stand part in a trial or to plead guilty or take a deal that was offered to them. This is an example of unchecked powers that have a chance of being the subject of abuse and as well as form the basis for prosecutors to act in full disrespect of the law and court processes. Consequently, this can weaken the public perception regarding the integrity of the legal structure and destabilize the capability of the courts to provide and promote justice.
In 1972, Abdur Rahman was implicated of killing a prisoner while in federal prison. The prosecuting attorney presented the evidence to the defense attorney based on evidence gathered from gang investigations. This was during the punishment phase of the stabbing trial thereby making it a drug issue as opposed to a murder case. The real reason behind the death of the prisoner was because Abdur was being harassed sexually by the prisoner he had killed which made him a victim. The prosecutor did not tell the defense that Abdur was mentally unstable from the sexual harassment he received from the deceased. In this respect, his earlier plea with regard to being guilty was a direct result of rage as well as bitterness that had built over time during the period he was in prison. When all the details were revealed, Abdur’s appeal was dismissed, and no explanations were given.
What Was the Prosecutor’s Mistake in the Case?; How Do Various Immunities Protect the Attorneys from Their Misconducts?
The prosecutor’s wrong move was in not telling the court and the defense why Abdur committed the crime. That way, he would have been charged with the lesser offence of manslaughter or self defense which would have taken less time. However, the client-attorney privilege protects the prosecutor from being charged with withholding information from the defense attorney and the court. If he had told the court that Abdur was mentally ill, the results of the case might have been different.
In Washington v. Strickland in 1984, there was an appeal that was based on claiming the ineffective assistance of counsel and the appellant had to prove that the attorney conduct was incompetent. The attorney had prejudiced over the case but if there was sufficient assistance, the results might have been better. The appellant was supposed to prove that the attorney’s help was insufficient because the evidence was supposed to give different results.
What Did The Defense Attorney Do Wrong?
The defense attorneys did not have enough resources to win the case because they were underfunded. This resulted to them losing the case because they could not afford to do a detailed check for evidence. Additionally, they were not competent enough to represent their clients against their opponents. The appellant had to sue their attorney because every person has a right for fair representation by someone who is not prejudiced.
How does Ineffectiveness or Misconduct of the Attorneys in the Courtrooms and their Participant Reflect the Criminal Justice?
The misconduct of attorneys in the court rooms makes the public lose faith in the way the legal system controls criminal justice. People now believe that even the guiltiest people can easily walk away from penalties as long as they have competent attorneys. Those who do not have enough money to enlist the services of good and competent legal counsel can easily be imprisoned even when innocent because they do not have lawyers to manipulate evidence.
