District Attorneys' Report: Misconduct Exceedingly Rare
In a report issued Monday morning, an association representing Texas prosecutors disputed what they say are illegitimate claims of rampant prosecutorial misconduct without accountability.
“It’s just not true,” said Rob Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.
The association spent months reviewing 91 Texas cases in which the Northern California Innocence Project in a March report identified prosecutor error or misconduct. The TDCAA said it discovered only six instances “in which a prosecutor arguably engaged in deliberately dishonest or fraudulent conduct that produced unjust results.”
Kepple said the Innocence Project report was “replete with errors ...
Comments (18)
Ron Carr via Texas Tribune on Facebook
ONLY six cases of dishonest conduct? Is even one acceptable?
Michelle Michon via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Six is still six too many.
Mickey Stevens
There were a total of 91 cases looked at. Out of those 91 cases there were 6 case of deliberate misconduct. That's approximately 6.5%. So, can we extapolate that prosecutorial misconduct occurs in about 6.5% of criminal cases. From what I've observed, I'd say that may be about right. If that's true, I wouldn't call that "exceedingly rare." Remember, this was not an unbiased and objective analysis. This report was written by a group that wants to protect the status quo. Many of these prosecutors want to protect their ability to withhold evidence, lie, manipulate witnesses and do whatever is necessary to win with no accountability or consequences for their misconduct.
Truthfully, the sample size here is probably too small to draw any reliable conclusions. I can think of more than six cases of deliberate prosecutorial misconduct off the top of my head. This group latched onto a very small and limited study of 91 cases done by the Innocence Project and is attempting to spin the situation to come to the ridiculous conclusion that these few cases are the only cases of prosecutorial misconduct that have occurred. One can just as easily extrapolate based on the percentage and use this data to argue it is actually a frequent occurence. Six and 1/2 cases out of every 100 criminal cases would be quite a large number; a number I"d call frequent. I'm not saying this is accurate either, but it is a more logical conclusion than the one the TDCAA came to.
What is needed is a thorough and comprehensive study by someone who is unbiased. But, even without that, there is ample evidence that prosecutorial misdonduct is a pervasive and serious problem. To call it "exceedingly rare" is simply to deny the obvious.
John Mecklin
This could be an Onion post: District Attorneys find District Attorneys completely innocent. This is false equivalency journalism at its worst: a California innocence project and a district attorneys group differ about the facts. We're not going to go find out what the facts are; we're going to say these two sources differ, give them exactly the same weight, throw up our hands, and let you the reader sort it out. I thought the Texas Tribune was supposed to be in-depth journalism. Ack.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Much like voter fraud.
Aaron Day via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Whew. Only 6.
Jalapeño Schwartz via Texas Tribune on Facebook
ONLY???
Neil Moyer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
So, DAs can impartially investigate themselves?? LOL!
Samdavis
If anyone understands the phrase "replete with errors" it's the district and county attorneys of this state. There's no effective recourse against unlawful or unethical prosecution.
Mickey Stevens
The bottom line here is that prosecutors should not have absolute immunity from civil suits. Now, you are going to hear prosecutors running around like Chicken Little saying the sky will fall if they do not have absolute immunity. Police officers and most other government officials have "qualified immunity." This gives them immunity unless they intentionally violate a clearly established constitutional right. And, in reality, gives them even more protection than that - courts have used cases like "conscience shocking" to give police officers in particular protection from civil liablity for less serious actions. The reality is, it is very difficult to successfully sue a police officer. If prosecutors lose their "absolute immunity," they would still have "qualified immunity." This would provide a mechanism for holding the bad apples accountable while providing sufficient protections to the honest prosecutors. Yes, there would be some nuisance lawsuits. But, these would be dismissed at the summary judgment stage as they are now against police officers and other public officials. This is a small price to pay for restoring integrity to the criminal justice system. So, if prosecutors only have "qualified immunity" instead of "absolute immunity" the sky won't fall, despite what they will say.
I think this is the only workable solution. The state bar has demonstrated that they will not discipline prosecutors. Criminal sanctions are extremely rare becusue prosecutors don't want to prosecute their own.
Prosecutors who may be upset about losing their absolute immunity have no one to blame but themselves. This problem is just now beginnning to get media attention, but it has not been a secret that this has been a serious problem for a long time. Yet, the honest prosecutors have, for the most part, turned a blind eye to the unethical conduct of their colleagues. Had they started policing their own a long time ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
To those prosecutors who think you must have this absolute immunity. I challenge you to stop denying the problem - as the TDCAA is clearly doing - and start proposing other solutions.
Dale Curry
Don't worry Innocence Project, no one believes TDCAA, with the number of exonerations, innocent men being released from prison, and one innocent man put to death; this organization is as credible on justice as the Talliban. Frankly, its an insult to the Taliban.
Debbie Zimm
Legal terrorism!
kamal tiwari
IT WAS SAD THAT EVERYTIME I TRIED TO COMMENT I HAD A DISTRCTING IMAGE SHOW UP .
SOME ONE IS HACKING YOUR SITE WOULD YOU LOOK INTO IT PLEASE
Mickey Stevens
Here is the definition used by TDCAA for prosecutorial misconduct:
"Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when a prosecutor deliberately engages in dishonest or fraudulent
conduct calculated to produce an unjust result."
Anyone else see the glaring problem with that definition? According to this definition, a prosecutor may engage in dishonest or fraudulent conduct but as long as he did not intend to produce an unjust result, it is not misconduct. Seems to me that anytime a prosecutor "deliberately engages in dishonest or fraudulent conduct" he or she is guilty of misconduct. It seems to me that is a sufficient definition ("deliberately engages in dishonest or fraudulent conduct") The fact that TDCAA felt the need to qualify the definition is, to the say the least, disturbing.
Phillip Baker
1) All this ignores the biggest source of misconduct- over-charging a case to induce a plea bargain. Even innocent people will plead guilty if in fear of chancing losing at trial. If a guy has only an apathetic appointed lawyer between him and doom, he'll cut whatever deal he must, even if it means lying about his innocence.
2) We all tend to focus on the big cases. But for every murder, there are thousands of thefts, etc. It is still misconduct if a DA forces a guilty plea by over-charging.
3)Cops and DA's have an incestuous relationship, especially in smaller towns. Deals are cut over coffee at the local cafe in the morning as fishing buddies, etc scratch each other's back.
4)The State Bar is worthless and cries out for reform. There is no real discipline for cheating lawyers, especially prosecutors.
5)Even with limited immunity. it is almost impossible to successfully prosecute cheating DA's (or cops, judges,etc). Qualified immunity requires one prove "deliberate indifference". That's the standard in TDCJ for staff abuses. It is really tough to prove the "deliberate" part. So a guard can commit abusive and/or criminal acts with impunity, as long as you can't prove his intent. He can get away with serious misconduct yet not be held accountable. Same with cops, DA's,etc.
6)Outside the larger cities, in the gazillion small towns all over this state, cops and prosecutors have far too close personal relationships to curb misconduct. And most small force cops are poorly trained, have no ethical training, and know nobody who can really challenge them as long as they keep their "intent" unknown.
Debbie Zimm
In Brady vs. Maryland, (1963) the Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."
United States v. Agurs, (1976) found that there are three situations in which a Brady claim might arise: (1) where new evidence revealed that the prosecution introduced trial testimony that it knew or should have known was false; (2) where the prosecution failed to obey a defense request for specific exculpatory evidence (evidence that helps to prove Defendant's innocence); and (3) where the prosecution failed to volunteer exculpatory evidence that was never requested, or requested only in a general way; and noting the existence of a duty on the part of the government in this last situation when suppression of the evidence would be “of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the Defendant's right to a fair trial.”
Good faith or bad faith, withheld evidence is Brady. Brady is misconduct, period. These highly educated officials elected to uphold justice need to read the law...
Meme Me
Don't forget about the judges....Just a few years ago, ALL of the Republican judges in Houston/Harris County were run out of office. The people spoke.
Phillip Baker, Your #3 is completely correct. Small town Cops and DAs can completely distroy anyone they want over a beer....If you don't vote the right way, if you protest your property taxes...You name it. Because they can.
Lucy Frost
So let me see if I have this straight: A report from a California Innocence project says their research reveals 91 cases of prosecutorial misconduct in Texas. But the Texas DA's association says there were "only" 6 among those cases. But they admit that cognitive bias is a problem among prosecutors.
Anyone else see the irony in that?