No Accountability

Why are bad prosecutors so rarely punished?

Anthony Caravella was released from a Florida prison last month. He served 26 years for a rape and murder that DNA testing has shown he didn't commit. Caravella was 15 at the time he was arrested, and has an IQ of 67. He was convicted in part due to a confession his attorneys say was beaten out of him by police interrogators. Caravella's prosecutor, Robert Carney, has put at least two other people in prison for murder who were later cleared of the crimes for which they convicted. Carney is now a judge in Broward County, though he recently announced he's retiring at the end of this year.

The injustice in Caravella's case could have been worse. Carney originally sought the death penalty. The jury voted 11-1 for life in prison, instead. According to the Sun-Sentinel, in 1985 Carney also prosecuted another mentally-challenged man, John Purvis, for killing his Ft. Lauderdale neighbor. Months later, Carney received a tip that the victim's ex-husband had hired a hit man to kill her. Carney refused to reopen the case, leaving Purivs' attorneys to hear about the murder-for-hire through other means. Purvis did nine years in prison before the woman's ex-husband and the hit-man were arrested and prosecuted.

In 1981, Carney convicted another man, Christopher Clugston, for murder based on testimony from an informant who later recanted. In 1994, Clugston was cleared and released from prison by Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, but on the condition he never return to the state. Clugston also left prison with AIDS, the result of a gang rape while he was incarcerated.

Howard Finkelstein, the public defender in Broward County, Florida, said of Carney to the the Sun-Sentinel newspaper, "I cannot think of another prosecutor anywhere in the U.S. that has put away three innocent people in separate cases."

Actually, it could be four. Carney also participated in the prosecution of Frank Lee Smith, convicted in 1986 of a rape and murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. Smith died of cancer on death row in 2000. Ten months after his death, DNA testing cleared Smith of the crime. In all, seven men have been wrongly convicted of murder by the state's attorney's office of Broward County.

As DNA exonerations continue to accumulate across the country, we're left with some tough questions about accountability for the public officials who put innocent people in prison. Certainly in some cases honest mistakes can be forgiven. But what about cases, like that of John Purvis, where a prosecutor illegally withholds evidence of a suspect's innocence? What about prosecutors who participated in multiple wrongful convctions? Is it fair to hold them accountable years or decades later? What of those who went on to become judges, and now preside over murder cases?

There are other Robert Carneys. A couple of months ago, I wrote about Daniel Ford, a former prosecutor, now a Massachusetts Superior Court Judge, who may have withheld evidence and committed other misconduct in his prosecution of Bernard Baran for child molestation. Baran was cleared of the charges and released earlier this year after serving 26 years in prison. Ford has never been investigated, much less disciplined, for his role in putting Baran in prison.

As an assistant district attorney, Mississippi Judge Bobby DeLaughter helped hide exculpatory evidence in the case of Cedric Willis, wrongly convicted of a rape and two murders. Willis served 12 years for a crime he didn't commit, despite DNA evidence pointing to his innocence. While Willis sat in Parchman Penitentiary, much of his time in solitary confinement, DeLaughter was elected a judge. Last summer, DeLaughter himself plead guilty to lying to federal investigators looking into a corruption scandal. But he was never punished for the misconduct that sent an innocent man to jail.

Then there's Forrest Allgood, the Mississippi district attorney with a record that puts him in company with Carney. Allgood prosecuted both Kennedy Brewer and Levon Brooks, each convicted of raping and killing young girls in Mississippi in the early 1990s. Allgood relied on the testimony of disgraced bite mark specialist Michael West to secure those convictions. Even after DNA testing cleared Brewer in 2000, Allgood pointed to West's match of bite marks on the victim's body to Brewer as evidence that Brewer must have participated in the crime, even if he didn't actually commit the rape. Brewer remained in prison an additional seven years. Brewer and Brooks were finally released in 2007 after a check of the state's DNA database (which Allgood tried to prevent) showed a single man committed both rapes and murders.

Two other people Allgood has convicted of murder were later given new trials and acquitted. Tyler Edmonds, who was 15 at the time he was charged, was convicted based on a confession Edmonds says was coerced and by implausible forensic testimony from disgraced Mississippi medical examiner Steven Hayne. Allgood also convicted 18-year-old Sabrina Butler, who is mentally challenged, of killing her infant son. Butler was sentenced to death. The state supreme court also tossed out her conviction, which also relied in part on bad forensic evidence.

Allgood hasn't (yet) been elected to the bench, but he continues to be reelected as district attorney.

Something is wrong here. It may well be true that the prosecutors noted above represent a tiny minority of those who serve or have served in the position. But whatever the number of "bad apples," our criminal justice and political systems seem unconcerned about weeding them out. Instead, they're often rewarded and promoted, despite long records of incompetence and misconduct. In fact, in the sense that misconduct can help win convictions, such prosecutors are often rewarded because of it. The Innocence Project estimates that prosecutorial misconduct factored into about a fourth of the wrongful convictions handled by the organization. Yet in none of those cases did a prosecutor face any serious sanction.

Be it through state bar association actions, judicial investigations and discipline, or legislation creating some other means of oversight, bad and incompetent prosecutors need to be held to account. When a prosecutor perpetrates misconduct or demonstrates incompetence that sends an innocent person to jail, it's a regrettable but understandable product of the fact that that any large system is going to have bad actors. But when that prosecutor remains free to go on prosecuting other cases, with no repercussions, the very legitimacy of the criminal justice system is called into question.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Robert||

    Law is treated as a competive game, as if it had no consequences IRL.

  • ||

    Of course defense attorneys are routinely subject to dicipline from their bars. Fail to make the proper objection and it is a letter about ineffective assistance of counsel. Mix your money with your client's and you are disbared. Take money in the wrong amounts or from shady sources and it is prison.

    In contrast be a prosecutor and withhold evidence sending multiple innocent people to jail for decades and you get to be a judge.

  • ||

    I remember dismissing this marijuana possession case because the cop pulled the guy over for doing 77 in a 75. Having done like a few hundred misdemeanor cases, I learned that DPS, Arizona Highway patrol, didn't even start looking at people for speeding until about 10 miles an hour over. This defendant was guilty of driving while brown. The Defendant was hispanic and from California. The defendant had weed and a prescription. The cop called me up and asked me why I dismissed the case and told him. "You pulled a guy over for doing a lousy two miles an hour over the speed limit, I think you were just profiling and I think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution tells me to respect his presctiption." The pig was apoplectic, "I cold have pulled him over for 1 mile and hour over." I responded, "that would make you look eve more racist." Bottom line, my boss told me you can't call the cops on their racism. My boss was a pussy and couldn't stand up to whiny cops. I am sure there are lots of other county attorneys just like that.

  • ||

    eve = even

  • Attorney||

    Mix your money with your client's and you are disbared.

    Considering the looks of most of the criminal-defense attorneys I see around town, I'd much rather they be disbared than bared.

  • creech||

    Isn't it the job of the State's Attorney General to prosecute/remove/whatever the bad apples among judges, politicians and officials? The voters (even if just through the LP) need to ask the candidates for AG what they intend to do about so and so's misconduct.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    Frank Serpico might have something to say about the idea of asking prosecutors to police themselves.

    The only way that would be possible is if the equivalent of an Internal Affairs division existed for the sole purpose of rooting out bad apples.

  • John Paul Osborn||

    Radley Balko, who has been at the forefront of exposing the abuse suffered by juveniles in our legal system, has once again focused attention on a preventative measure which might cause some prosecutors to take greater care when they choose to destroy a person's life. This is particularly true when the accused is a child.

    I would just like to make a correction with respect to this latest article, and also offer a comment. The correction involves Tyler Edmonds. Radley notes Tyler was 15 when he was charged. Actually, Tyler was only a 13 year old middle school student. He was convicted when he was 15, after spending nearly two years languishing in a county jail while he awaited trial as an adult.

    The comment, which also deals with Tyler Edmond's case, is more important. I fully agree that the prosecutors, (Patricia Favor and another male who I do not recall) under the direction of Forrest Allgood, went way beyond the bounds of fairness and justice in their persecution of this child. Their failure resulted in a minimum 50 year sentence for young Tyler. Thank goodness the Mississippi Supreme Court had the intelligence to overturn the verdict (something the Mississippi Court of Appeals failed to do). However, the greatest injustice in Tyler's case was committed by the original trial judge, James Kitchens. Kitchens, who took the bench shortly before the trial after being employed by Allgood as a prosecutor, acted as a second seat prosecutor in the case, rather than an objective and neutral fact finder. He allowed evidence into the trial (including the bogus "two fingers pulled the trigger" testimony of the state's pathologist) which no reasonable and fair judge would ever allow. His demeanor during the trial, according to many witnesses, was so clearly and blatantly sided with the prosecutors that it was laughable were it not for the fact that a child's life was on the line.

    I agree that bad prosecutors need to answer for the destruction that they cause. However, their misdeeds are supposed to be stopped by the trial court judge, who acts as a gatekeeper. Kitchens failed in this regard, miserably, and should have been thrown off the bench as a result. He is still sitting down in Mississippi, however, handing out the kind of injustice that Tyler Edmonds endured. Judges are supposed to maintain fairness during trialsl; doubly so when children are the accused. Too often, however, children end up before judges like Kitchens and suffer terrible harm; which diminishes the faith we all have in the justice system as a whole. Thank God, in the end, Tyler Edmonds was spared . . but how many other children were not?

  • ||

    [T]hey're often rewarded and promoted, despite long records of incompetence and misconduct. In fact, in the sense that misconduct can help win convictions, such prosecutors are often rewarded because of it. The Innocence Project estimates that prosecutorial misconduct factored into about a fourth of the wrongful convictions handled by the organization.

    Thanks Radley. Yet another depressing story about the assault on liberty via the Justice System. You know, if I had a 25% mortality rate in medicine, or 25% rate of unecessary surgery due to wrong DX, or hell even 25% improperly filed case claims, I would be so fired and brought before the medical board so fast it would make a hummingbird seem slow and laborious.

    Often rewarded, huh? It seems like a JOB REQUIREMENT in order to keep your job, forget advancement. The answer to your query is that government by proxy of society, WANTS them there.

    People want officials that are "tough on crime" to give them a a false sense of security; those people don't care about the system unless they themselves are "introduced forcibly" to it.

    Thank God for the Innocence Project.

    John, you were a prosecutor. Care to weigh in?

  • ||

    I think people should never be "career prosecutors". It is really hard being a prosecutor. You make your living off of human tragedy. And the fact is the overwelming majority of the people you prosecute are guilty. So, prosecutors after a few years on the job become very jaded and cynical and stop looking at individual cases. They start to assume every person is guilty and every defense attorney a sleeze ball who is lying and never has a valid point.

    Combine this cynacism with a big dose of careerism. The cutlure in prosecutor's offices is often about moving cases and getting convictions. No one is ever rewarded for dropping a case. You are only rewarded for getting a case off of your desk and of course getting a conviction.

    Think about the situation most prosecutors are in. Thanks to the drug war they are overwelmed with cases. They have been doing their jobs so long they no longer have even a shred of idealism left and are being pressured to move cases and get convictions.

    Who stays in that environment very long? Most decent people will say to hell with it and get out. But, the real scumbag careerist who is too incompetant to get another job will stay. Given all of that it is only surprising that more innocent people are not convicted.

  • ||

    "But, the real scumbag careerist who is too incompetant to get another job will stay."

    My father has been a federal prosecutor for the past 20 some years. Before that, he was a special agent with the FBI.

    He specializes in bank fraud and child pornography - not the sexting case, but the real scum-of-the-earth child pornographers. In his free time, he took a job teaching part time at the local university in constitutional law and search and seizure warrants.

    He didn't stay because he liked it. Going to trial is mentally, physically, and emotionally draining. He stayed because he had a family with three kids to support and get through school and hopefully through college and he didn't have the liberty of making risky career decisions.

    Just think about what you're saying before you go generalizing every prosecutor who's stayed at the same job for a length time as a "real scumbag careerist who is too incompetant to get another job."

  • ||

    I thought about it James. I am willing to bet a testicle that 90% of career prosecutors are scum bags. They may be intelligent scumbags, but scumbags nonetheless. So, I second John's opinion.

  • ||

    I would still lay most of the blame on the judges. What goes on their courtroom is their responsibility.

    90% of the prosecutors may be scumbags, but the judges are the people who let them get away with it. They control the quality of evidence, of witnesses, of questioning, etc.

    I also think that John is overstating the importance of getting a conviction.

    What exactly are prosecutors going to be rewarded with?

    As a government employee, a prosecutor will hit the top of their pay grade pretty quickly so their won't be any monetary incentive to fly through a case and get a conviction at all costs.

    There also wouldn't be any political incentive as elected officials, DA's are very much concerned with a good reputation and a good public image. Losing a case is obviously bad for the public image, but getting a false conviction is 100 times worse.

    Whatever reward there would be for getting a conviction, even if it's wrong, would be offset by the possible political reward for the whistle blower who let the cat out of the bag.

    The prosecutors mentioned in the article are obviously scumbags, however I don't think they represent what goes on in every Justice Department office in the country.

    You don't have the statistics or facts to make that kind of generalization and to do so is insulting to the people who actually do an honest job.

  • ||

    Losing a case is obviously bad for the public image, but getting a false conviction is 100 times worse.

    Unless the prosecutor has aspirations of being a Judge. Then the fault is on the press for not reporting the infractions locally to keep such a reprehensible individual off the bench.

  • ||

    Note I said "most decent people will leave". I didn't say "all decent people". Sadly, all of the scumbag careerists will stay and overwelm what go effects the good people who stay.

    Yes, there are lots of prosecutors who do great work. But, the fact is that there are too many of them who don't. Even if only a small percentage of prosectutors are bad, they can do a tremendous about damage. Something about the system is broke.

  • ||

    "Something about the system is broke."

    My dad's been telling me since I was born never to work for the government because it doesn't lead anywhere. He took the job soon after getting married just to have something to do, hit the top of his pay grade quickly, and stuck around because it was a good source of income with good pension, health insurace, etc.

    His biggest criticism is that good lawyers don't work for the Justice Department because it doesn't pay enough. They can make more money doing class action lawsuits, high profile defense cases, etc than they can slaving away for the government.

    Your point is noted, but there are actually people who do a good job and pay attention to constitutional rights and whatnot.

  • ||

    I am a government lawyer. The other problem with the justice system is that it is so political. I have known a lot of great lawyers who couldn't get an interview there because they didn't know anyone. I have also known lots of idiot sons and political hacks who have gotten jobs there. There are some great lawyers at DOJ. But there also a lot of terrible ones to. The quality is completely uneven and is completely compromised by politics and the good old boy network.

  • ||

    You wrote that your father stuck around because it was a good source of income and that he said that good lawyers don't work for the Justice Department because it doesn't pay enough.

    It sounds like, according to your father, he wasn't a good lawyer. Or am I missing something?

  • Cal Lipigian||

    Really, you guys have Friday Funnies and Friday Fun Links, why not just rename these posts "Balko's Monday Morning Nut Punch"

  • ||

    How about prosecutors themselves seeing jailtime with lots of time in GenPop for withholding exculpatory evidence?

    There's nothing like the fear of tasting their own medicine to keep prosecutors from being overzealous...

  • ||

    The prosecutor in my case called it a "a harmless mistake" when we found out out she withheld exculpotory evidence...harmeless? I serve 6 years in prison for a rape I DID NOT COMMIT, an I now have to hide in the shadows of society...yeah, yeah...harmless

  • Xeones||

    why not just rename these posts "Balko's Monday Morning Nut Punch"

    'Cause Balko's nutpunches are not limited to Mondays, or mornings.

  • ||

    I think in every state that any attorney, and probably any person, can file a complaint on an attorney with the bar or Supreme Court. But nobody ever seems to file on prosecutors.

  • ||

    I am not an attorney, so please forgive my ignorance, but why would they? The prosecution has unlimited resources at their disposal, courtesy of they state. I would imagine it would be very difficult to get such complaints to stick, much less be investigated. Not to mention that it is probable that since Judges, as ex prosecutors, would have more sympathy for a zealous prosecutor than a "sleazy" defense atty.

    Besides, the profession of law has a reputation of "looking out for their own" (not unlike porcine "protectors", and arguably, physicians).

    Question for the attys. that practice criminal law: how many law graduates go straight into prosecuting before becoming defense attys.?

  • ||

    I agree, why would they, unless they want a microscope shoved up their ass. They can make far more trouble for you then you can for them.

  • ||

    Watching TV one day, a defense atty. commented on this. He thinks that criminal defense attys. refrain from filing complaints in order to protect other clients in cases pending in the same or surrounding jurisdictions. He thinks they are afraid of retribution by other prosecutors taken out on the atty's clients. File a complaint and a client that would likely have gotten probation now gets a year in prison, the guy that usually would get 3 years in prison, now gets five, and so on. Made a lot of sense to me.

  • Robert||

    Like with the Food & Drug Admin. You can beat them on individual matters, but if you're a company with several products, they can screw you back in so many ways, it doesn't pay to fight them when they're wrong.

  • ||

    When I was young, I believed that our legal system was hopelessly lenient and let all sorts of guilty people off the hook. I still believe that. (look at the financial system)
    But the fact that a system lets guilty people get away doesn't mean that its not convicting innocent people. For too long the old axiom that it is better to let 10 people go than convict 1 innocent person has been used to hide the fact that many prosecutors are too stupid to catch the guilty and too venal to protect the innocent.

    We are part of a legal system that thinks too highly of itself. Too look at the exonerations due to DNA evidence is to see a system that performs no better than coin flips. Its time to start looking critically at how these innocent people ended up in prison, and why the bill of rights did such a poor job of protecting them.

  • ||

    What the fuck? We already have the highest prison population in the world? Do you mean the wrong peopple are going to prison? If you make it illegal to fart or breathe, then you ARE going to have a lot of "criminal" running around. Given that everyone everyday breaks the law, yeah there a re a lot of criminals.

  • Jon||

    Persecutors are elected officials and the electorate wants someone who is "tough on crime." The public cares little for the constitutional rights of the accused (because, well, if they were arrested they MUST be guilty, right?) What is shameful is that these DAs took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

  • Attorney||

    Why? Because the people affected are usually powerless nobodies. Cf. the Duke lacrosse case.

  • ||

    It's difficult to respond to people who don't post a handle. If you are smart enough to follow Hit & Run you are smart enough to coin a nom de plume.

    Get with it, folks.

  • ||

    Belay my last. It appears that the damned squirrels are deleting people's handles. They just did it to me.

    My apologies,
    J sub D

  • ||

    That seems to happen often.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    Misconduct on the part of an official that results in a criminal conviction should be punished by imposing the same sentence upon that official that was imposed upon their victim.

    In other words, if a prosecutor frames a man for rape, and that man is sentenced to 25 years, then that prosecutor should get 25 years, with a minimum served time equal to the number of days their victim served.

    Especially troubling are cases in which an official uses the legal system to commit murder by fraudulently securing a conviction resulting in a death sentence. There's no difference between using a machete to murder someone and using the legal apparatus of the state.

    I have no faith in the criminal justice system even though I've never had any dealings with it.

    It seems to be more interested in persecuting the unpopular than punishing the guilty.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    You are too soft on this crime. I demand crucifiction.

  • Crassus||

    My favorite type of fiction!

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Nicely done.

  • BakedPenguin||

    How about setting up a Star Chamber to judge these prosecutors and judges? They'd probably be getting fairer trials than the ones they're giving.

  • ||

    "We're the Council of Thirteen, not magic angel babies."

  • ||

    Great Article. Keep up the Good work!

  • ||

    The main reason for prosecutors being able to get away with repeated malfeasance in office is politics. You see, in some states, district attorneys are elected and politics enters into the picture. In other states, district attorneys are appointed to office and ... oh, yes, politics enters into the picture in both. Well, like I said: politics is the reason why district attorneys are able to avoid any culpability for intentional acts of misconduct while prosecutings folks for crimes.

  • Robert||

    Would we be better if DAs were civil service? Or contracted from private law firms? Or if there were no DA at all, just a lawyer hired ad hoc? Or if the legal dept. of the jurisdiction were headed by a layman?

  • ||

    No, Robert, we wouldn't be better off if DA's were civil service or private contractors or ad hoc hires; every one of those methods is used in one jurisdiction or another. The problem arises from (1) too many crimes which are not clearly defined; (2) too many "imaginary" crimes, e.g., attempted solicitation to conspire to commit a crime which is a Federal felony and probably a felony in some states as well; (3) too many drug offenses; (4) too little actual adherence to the Constitutional guarantees of criminal defendants; (5) too much use of criminal law to obtain leverage over political or economic adversaries. If the criminal law were reduced to something more closely resembling the Model Penal Code - for my choice, with tighter definitions of key terms however - and statutory boards with membership elected locally were given investigative and charging authority only over prosecutors and district attorneys, inroads could be made into the shameful state of prosecutorial misconduct. Of course, one could always try what Dallas is trying and that is to elect as D.A. someone who is genuinely working to police his own office and purge the rats, but we cannot rely on elections within the office to reform the practices. Hang a few of the most egregious offenders, to encourage the others you know?, and set up an institutional oversight locally controlled and independent of the local judiciary and prosecutors for the long term. Might work.

  • ||

    In the end, no one cares if you throw an innocent person in jail. It is not like these guys are untouchable. There are plenty of things they could do that would end their careers. Let one of them slap a secretary's ass or drop an "N" bomb in public and they would be done. Those are issues the public cares about. Sending innocent people to jail just isn't such an issue.

  • ||

    It's not because a lot of people think they are guilty simply because someone is charged with a crime.

    It's an extention of the saying if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear. If you are fearing jail time, you had to of done something wrong, maybe not this crime, but something that makes you guilty. So you are getting what you deserve.

    Does that sound about right?

  • ||

    there was no one worse than tom sneddon and look at what he got away with, hounding Michael Jackson from 1993. Two juries refused to indict 1993 case due to lack of evidence and 2005 trial was a farce. He got away with it though. Here are others who have suffered at his hands see:
    http://www.rumormillnews.com/c.....read=64536

  • John Tagliaferro||

    So it was Sneddon and not Prince who finally got Jackson?

  • JohnK||

    To be an effective prosecutor one must suspend any belief in right vs wrong, and care only about winning.

    Heck, that could be said of most any lawyer.

    Lawyers have no souls.

  • ||

    "Lawyers have no souls."

    If this is true, the Devil is going to feel cheated when the time comes to collect on his contracts with lawyers.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Save that for the oral arguments.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    You mean like Gingers?

  • qwerty||

    Why are bad prosecutors so rarely punished?

    Probably because the people punishing them would be, well, prosecutors. People tend to protect their own. How do we solve this problem? The only thing I can think of is to have something equivalent to "internal affairs" for prosecutors.

  • ||

    Public prosecutors are like any other public employee. None are fired unless caught standing over the body with a gun in hand and lots of witnesses.If the prosecutor is lazy, stupid, rotten at this particular job, or willing to cheat that's tough. It works for all the other government employees too.

  • ||

    Carney is not a lawman. He is a disgrace to the legal profession.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Why are bad prosecutors so rarely punished?
    Has a bad prosecutor ever been punished?

  • ||

    GET FORREST ALLGOOD!!!

    DR. STEPHEN HAYNE *MUST* BE STOPPED!

  • Jim Angleton||

    Slightly off topic, but here's an emerging story about justice in the "military asset of San Bernardino County." Here, a defendant cannot receive true representation by his public defender, or that public defender will be put on leave, fired or otherwise punished by his boss, the district attorney (prosecutor).

    http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2009.....operation/

  • ||

    The prosecutor's disbarment or death is a solution.

  • ||

    Not overly long ago there was a trial judge who repeatedly defied the Rule of Law. Due to his youth, relative good health, and general lack of care about his judicial musconduct; death was the only way to remove him from the bench.
    '
    And death, from severe traumatic intervention, DID remove him.
    '
    ''
    Hans Frank, Esq. was a bright attorney in a tiny minority. Death (rope) removed him and his misconduct from the system.
    ''
    Reinhard Heydrich was a tiny minority. Death removed him and his misconduct.
    ''
    Had Carney been disbarred or had he died after innocent #1, there would have been no #2, #3, ....

    --------------------------------------
    BALKO: "It may well be true that the prosecutors noted above represent a tiny minority of those who serve or have served in the position. But whatever the number of "bad apples," our criminal justice and political systems seem unconcerned about weeding them out. Instead, they're often rewarded and promoted, despite long records of incompetence and misconduct. In fact, in the sense that misconduct can help win convictions, such prosecutors are often rewarded because of it."

  • battery||

    Thanks to the author,This really very nice,Thanks very much

  • abercrombie milano||

    dghjhdxa gf

  • ||

    If you want to see another case of prosecutorial frame check out Black Deeed In Black Robes & click on publisher's corner - Introduction &
    Affidavit.
    Best wishes,
    Bill McIver

  • buy ugg boots online||

    Without sounding like I am stating the obvious I assume that you are trying to teach us bloggers something with this post Liz. So I will say what I have learned and APPLIED from reading this site and this post.

  • swiss ghd f outlet||

    Put another way, if the harassment of Anthony Graber is allowed to stand without consequences, the next time the cops beat the hell out of someone like Jack McKenna, those around him may think twice about hitting the record button on their iPhones.

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement