IS MISCONDUCT BY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS NEW?
Geoff Mousseau
May 12, 2009
Misconduct by federal prosecutors recently made the news. Several federal attorneys who prosecuted Senator Stevens committed violations so serious that the case was dismissed – after he was convicted by a jury.
Is this type of behavior new? If misconduct by federal prosecutors is new and limited to only that case, then the attention on the prosecutors in the Stevens case deserve our focus. If not, then it raises many critical questions. The judge in the Stevens case admitted that misconduct by federal prosecutors was not even new to him. He stated that this was the worst he had seen, implying that he had seen misconduct in other cases.
The most serious question raised by the prospect that federal attorneys committed misconduct in other cases is, how many people have been unjustly convicted?
It is critical to our moral standing to reverse convictions that have been improperly obtained.
We hear about cases that are overturned because of DNA evidence. The problem with cases tainted by prosecutorial misconduct is that there is no DNA. There will be no single piece of conclusive scientific evidence to use to obtain a reversal. Instead, these cases will only be reversed because of tireless work by someone unafraid of challenging the United States Attorney´s Office.
This is not going to be addressed by those directly connected to the criminal justice system. Other United States Attorneys would be committing political suicide to try to tackle this problem. Federal judges are not the answer because they are disproportionately former federal prosecutors.
Fortunately there are many recent law-school graduates who are looking for valuable projects to occupy their time until the economy recovers enough for them to become employed. All this group requires is leadership and financing.
Imagine a small army of motivated young legal talent reviewing convictions involving allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. They could identify those cases warranting serious attention and possible reversal. This would be valuable experience with significant social consequence.
But this issue also begs the question why federal prosecutors would commit questionable acts to obtain convictions. How do we stop this from continuing?
Federal prosecutors are paid bonuses for successful prosecutions. Federal prosecutors are also relatively underpaid and are competing for lucrative job offers in the private sector. This leads to an environment where justice and truth take a back seat to winning.
Salary parity is a difficult problem because federal attorneys are already at the top end of the government pay scale. However, because paying performance bonuses to federal prosecutors raises credibility issues, this practice must end.
Is this type of behavior new? If misconduct by federal prosecutors is new and limited to only that case, then the attention on the prosecutors in the Stevens case deserve our focus. If not, then it raises many critical questions. The judge in the Stevens case admitted that misconduct by federal prosecutors was not even new to him. He stated that this was the worst he had seen, implying that he had seen misconduct in other cases.
The most serious question raised by the prospect that federal attorneys committed misconduct in other cases is, how many people have been unjustly convicted?
It is critical to our moral standing to reverse convictions that have been improperly obtained.
We hear about cases that are overturned because of DNA evidence. The problem with cases tainted by prosecutorial misconduct is that there is no DNA. There will be no single piece of conclusive scientific evidence to use to obtain a reversal. Instead, these cases will only be reversed because of tireless work by someone unafraid of challenging the United States Attorney´s Office.
This is not going to be addressed by those directly connected to the criminal justice system. Other United States Attorneys would be committing political suicide to try to tackle this problem. Federal judges are not the answer because they are disproportionately former federal prosecutors.
Fortunately there are many recent law-school graduates who are looking for valuable projects to occupy their time until the economy recovers enough for them to become employed. All this group requires is leadership and financing.
Imagine a small army of motivated young legal talent reviewing convictions involving allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. They could identify those cases warranting serious attention and possible reversal. This would be valuable experience with significant social consequence.
But this issue also begs the question why federal prosecutors would commit questionable acts to obtain convictions. How do we stop this from continuing?
Federal prosecutors are paid bonuses for successful prosecutions. Federal prosecutors are also relatively underpaid and are competing for lucrative job offers in the private sector. This leads to an environment where justice and truth take a back seat to winning.
Salary parity is a difficult problem because federal attorneys are already at the top end of the government pay scale. However, because paying performance bonuses to federal prosecutors raises credibility issues, this practice must end.
Print
Email
