The research I have done on official misconduct primarily focuses on prosecutorial misconduct. There have been many Supreme Court cases, dating back to 1935, that address the role prosecutorial misconduct plays in wrongful convictions. Some of the most important court cases include: Napue v. Illinois, Brady v. Maryland, and Berger v. United States.
Napue v. Illinois
In the case of Napue v. Illinois, the prosecution used false testimony (Damiano, 2006). This case involved a false testimony that lead to the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness (Damiano, 2006, 195). The court decided to reverse the case because the jury could have changed their verdict based on the information they were given about the witness. This case required there be a test for quality of evidence (Damiano, 2006). The case also noted that there are three factors that should be considered when considering testimony and how it effects the jury: the nature of false evidence, how important the witness is to the case and determining if the evidence was cumulative (Damiano, 2006). This case does not allow for the prosecutor to knowingly use false testimony, even if it only effects the credibility of the witness. This is important when considering wrongful conviction cases because it can change the way a jury considers the guilt of the defendant and it can also give doubt to the credibility of the evidence against the defendant.
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland is also another very important Supreme Court case that relates to wrongful conviction cases. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that it is unconstitutional for the prosecution to not reveal evidence that is favorable to the defendant (Damiano, 2006). This is where the term “Brady Violation” comes from. The Court in this case also said that the evidence must be “material either to guilt or punishment” for it to be a violation (Damiano, 2006, 196). What is considered material evidence depends on whether the prosecutor was withholding this evidence intentionally (Damiano, 2006). This is very important because if there was evidence that would favor the defendant being withheld, then a case could result in a wrongful conviction.
Berger v. United States
In Berger v. United States, the Supreme Court outlined the role a prosecutor has. Some of the things a prosecutor is responsible for working in a nonpartisan manner, working not to win, but to work for justice for all and that he/she should prosecute using proper methods (McKay, 2012). These guidelines are important for prosecutors to follow in order to reach a just verdict. This case also outlines how much of an influence a prosecutor has on the fairness of the trail.
Causes and Rules
Other ways that the prosecutor can add to the wrongful conviction of someone is through overzealousness (McKay, 2012). This is when the prosecutor has the extreme desire to convict the defendant (McKay, 2012). This can cause a wrongful conviction because the prosecutor is blinded by the idea of convicting the charged individual. This could result in the prosecutor trying to fit the individual to the facts instead of taking the evidence and analyzing it for a correct verdict. Other possible causes of prosecutorial misconduct to note are: the attitude of the prosecutor, pressures a prosecutor faces at trial, a lack of professionalism and tunnel vision (McKay, 2012).It is important to be able to recognize the possible ways a prosecutor can be committing misconduct.
Although it has been found in cases involving wrongful convictions that prosecutors do contribute to wrongful convictions, they rarely face any repercussions (Sullivan, 2015). A study done by USA Today looked at the Department of Justice and found that in 201 cases, federal prosecutors participated in misconduct, but in only one case was the prosecutor disbarred (Sullivan, 2015). It is interesting to see how although this is a serious issue, there tends to be no serious punishments, thus creating no deterrent effect.
One of the rules that an attorney has to follow is the Professional Rule, “Reporting Professional Misconduct” (Sullivan, 2015). This rule says that when a lawyer knows that another lawyer is not working through “honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects” should be reported (Sullivan, 2015). Misconduct that must be reported usually is a factor in criminal cases (Sullivan, 2015,). If an attorney knows that misconduct is occurring and does not report it, that too is a violation of a prosecutor’s professionalism (Sullivan, 2015). So, while there are rules that attorneys should be following when practicing law, they are often overlooked since, a majority of the time there are no serious sanctions given. A rule like this should be more heavily enforced. With sanctions being given, it could potentially create a deterrence effect, leading to less prosecutorial misconduct, and lessen the number of those wrongfully incarcerated.