mt:Include module="Global Settings" /> DA's Duty to Investigate Archives: Colorado Criminal Lawyer Blog

Recently in DA's Duty to Investigate Category

April 15, 2012

The Absolute Power of Prosecutorial Discretion - Trayvon Martin and The Politics of Charging A Criminal Case

The Duty to Due Justice

What every criminal lawyer knows - defense or prosecutor - is simple. Within the criminal justice system, the prosecutor (DA), not the judge - not the jury - and certainly not the criminal defense lawyer - has the most power.

In other forms of our government - there is a balance of power - checks and balances are written into both the State of Colorado and United States Constitutions by our forefathers. Not so in the criminal justice system. That system was taken almost wholesale from British Empire.

That system: the investigation, the decision to arrest (in this case), the charging decision, the plea bargaining decision, (and with mandatory sentencing laws which remove a judge's discretion at sentencing), the sentencing decision .. ALL rest with the discretion of the DA.

So when the special prosecutor in Florida's Martin case decided to charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder this week in Sanford this week, politically - she may have won the praise from Martin's supporters across the nation in the short term .. know better. Those of us that spend our lives in the "system" - know that - at least on the evidence we have been given to date - are very skeptical.

The legal standard to make an arrest - probable cause - is just above the lowest standard of evidence in the criminal justice system. Just above "reasonable suspicion," that quantum of evidence necessary to make an automobile stop - is well below the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt,"

Beyond a reasonable down is the quantum of evidence necessary to obtain a conviction at trial. In my opinion probable cause should NEVER be the basis for making an arrest unless additional evidence is known to the prosecutor sufficient for a prosecutor to believe, in good fatih, that s/he could obtain a conviction at trial.

Once an person has been arrested and then charged, the defendant will find it necessary to retain expensive legal representation or, if s/he can't afford it (and there aren't many people who can pay for representation on a murder charge), request a public defender.

It also means iat least temporary incarceration, and can also mean thousands of "wasted" and precious dollars used to post bond to obtain freedom from incarceration during the pending prosecution.

After a charge is made - a preliminary hearing follows on the heals of the arrest - in Colorado - within 30 days. While a judge may dismiss the case at the preliminary hearing - this almost never happens. That is because, believe it or not, the quantum of proof at a PH is - again probable cause - or what is also known as a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore - and just as unbelievably, the evidence must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

What that means is this... the judge - if there is a direct 50:50 conflict in the evidence MUST find for the prosecutor's theory of the evidence presented. .. That is one hell of an advantage to the Government.

While the American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice advises that a prosecutor shouldn't prosecute a case in which he doubts the defendant's guilt, .. if he believes there's enough evidence to establish probable cause, the ABA guidelines state that it's ethical to pursue a conviction.

H. Michael's Take

Before a prosecutor should request the arrest of an individual - under any and all circumstances - the prosecutor should believe in his or her case - must be convinced that a jury will find the suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a prosecutor has a reasonable doubt concerning the guilt or innocence of a person charged, particularly in a serious felony matter, that case should never be charged. Finally, if all the prosecutor has as evidence in a case he or she is being pressured to charge a suspect - is the minimum quantum of evidence to make an arrest, probable cause, unless new evidence is located - or uncovered - that suspect should remain free.

July 3, 2011

Federal Prosecutors Punished for NOT Investigating Veracity of Snitch Witnesses

The Seventh Circuit this week admonished the United States Attorney's office for failing to investigate the truthfullness of a "cooperating witness" in the face of obvious false testimony.

The Seventh Circuit on June 17 decided a drug case that will have application to ALL criminal cases, including white-collar cases.

In the appellate decison of United States v. Freeman, 09-cr-4043, 2011 WL 2417091 (7th Cir., June 17, 2011), the Seventh Circuit granted a new trial on the grounds that the Federal prosecutors presented testimony of a key cooperating witness on the stand who they knew or at least should have known was lying.

The criminal defense lawyer was on target when he sent the prosecutors a letter detailing his concerns after reading the grand jur testimony challenging key aspects of the cooperating witnesses participation in the actual conspiracy charged in the case.

The US Attorney's office did not investigate the challenges made by the defense lawyer who later testified falsely. Unbelievbly the witness was in JAIL when the witness claimed to be participating in the underlying conspiracy.

The Court Said:

"[T]he governing principle is simply that the prosecutor may not knowingly use false testimony. This includes "half-truths" and vague statements that could be true in a limited, literal sense but give a false impression to the jury."

H. Michael's Take

This caas imposes a clear duty on the part of federal prosecutors to investigate plausible allegations that a government witness's expected testimony was false.

"[I]t is obvious that when the government received the letter from [the defendant's] attorney, it knew there were problems with [the witness's] testimony - problems it should have cleared up well before [the witness] was allowed to testify . . . .

[W]hen the government learns that part of its case may be inaccurate, it must investigate. It cannot simply ignore evidence that its witness is lying. Here, the government abdicated its responsibility by failing to investigate . . . .(Citations omitted.)"

Federal prosecutors swollow whole the stories told by "helpful" cooperating witnesses,

These witnesses often tell the prosecutors whatever they want to hear based on what is needed in the target's case.

These witnesses often are the first to "flip." Agreeing to testify immediatley without these are the witnesses whose "stories" should be checked out before deals are made.

Prosecutors too often ignore massive evidence of the obvious lies and inconsistencies in the proferred testimony.

Criminal defense attorneys should ALWAYS disclose - even if it is tactically questionable - mistakes and inconsistencies in the testimony of cooperating witnesses. If they make their record prior to trial - giving the prosecutor an opportunity to invesitgate these allegations -- and there is no good faith investigation that follows up -- they have "protected the record' for appeal should thse lawyers lose the case at trial.