Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Us v. Them: A Prosecutor’s Perspective

A pros­e­cu­tor who wishes to remain anony­mous has this to say in response to my Us v. Them II post of last week:

I do think that Mckinney’s state­ments were too harsh, espe­cially the part about how ADA’s pros­e­cute the inno­cent. Cur­rently, I only deal with rob­bery cases and vio­lent seri­ous assaults. Regard­less of the out­come, there are no real win­ners. Some of the cases involve “real” vic­tims, Peo­ple who have been wronged in some way. When we (ADA’s ) go to trial, we are say­ing that you will be held account­able for your actions. Does that mean that all defen­dants are evil wicked peo­ple who can never repent? Of course not. It means that you have to fol­low the rules of soci­ety like every­one else. Every­one deserves to be safe in their home or to be safe while they’re walk­ing down the street.

We don’t pros­e­cute the inno­cent. I have never gone to trial on some­one I thought was not guilty. That is an impor­tant state­ment. It doesn’t mean I think every­one charged is guilty. Our elected D.A. gives us wide dis­cre­tion in how we han­dle cases. I have dis­missed plenty of cases b/c the evi­dence wasn’t there to proceed.

So there.

Tech­no­rati Tags: , , ,

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

2 Responses to “Us v. Them: A Prosecutor’s Perspective”

  1. David Tarrell says:

    I’m glad to hear that there are county atty offices out there that give “wide dis­cre­tion,” but fear that there are plenty that don’t. For exam­ple, read last year’s Supreme Court case Cebal­los v. Garcetti and see what hap­pened to D.A. Cebal­los when he used his pros­e­cu­to­r­ial dis­cre­tion to inves­ti­gate an officer’s affidavit.

    I don’t remem­ber all the facts specif­i­cally, but I do remem­ber that he:
    (1) inves­ti­gated an officer’s affi­davit and found it to be fal­si­fied
    (2) Took steps to stop what he believed was a pros­e­cu­tion based on a false affi­davit.
    (3) Was trans­ferred to another unit shortly after­wards.
    (4) Was fired for speak­ing out against this treat­ment in his new “Siber­ian” assignment.

    I’m glad to hear there are elected D.A.‘s who afford dis­cre­tion, and who dis­miss when they lack a good faith belief in guilt. But I fear that there are a lot of “Nifong’s” still out there, pres­sur­ing their pros­e­cu­tors to push issues that gain them polit­i­cal advantage.

    I love being a crim­i­nal defense lawyer, but I’m often glad I came to this side sim­ply because the pub­lic defend­ers I work with seem to have a lot more dis­cre­tion and fewer peo­ple look­ing over their shoul­ders than their coun­ter­parts in the county attor­neys office.

  2. David Tarrell says:

    Along the lines of what I said above, TPM Muck­raker has an arti­cle on what hap­pened to an AUSA who tried to use his dis­cre­tion in a death penalty case and ended up fired. The link is below.

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003545.php

Leave a non-anonymous Reply