Can a Good Person Be a Good Prosecutor?

Most people who become prosecutors are honest and ethical public servants who take that job for varied reasons including protecting the community, assisting victims of crime, gaining trial experience, or enhancing future employment prospects and long-term political goals. Earnest and hard-working, these prosecutors bristle at the very question of whether a good person can be a good prosecutor. The question though is not about a good person and their motives or ethical compass, but about the role: What does it mean to be a good prosecutor especially in the era of mass incarceration

Can a Good Person Be a Good Prosecutor?

Most people who become prosecutors are honest and ethical public servants who take that job for varied reasons including protecting the community, assisting victims of crime, gaining trial experience, or enhancing future employment prospects and long-term political goals. Earnest and hard-working, these prosecutors bristle at the very question of whether a good person can be a good prosecutor. The question though is not about a good person and their motives or ethical compass, but about the role: What does it mean to be a good prosecutor especially in the era of mass incarceration

New Models for Prosecutorial Accountability

There has been significant and increasing attention to prosecutorial accountability for misconduct in recent years by courts and disciplinary authorities, in some prosecutors’ offices and by defense organizations, in academia, and of course, in popular media. In great measure, this attention is the result of the remarkable work of the Innocence Project and Innocence networks around the country. It is also the result of awakening to the fault lines in the criminal justice system—such as mass incarceration—and to the disproportionate targeting of black and brown people for arrest and prosecution. Of course, this attention is all exacerbated by the Internet, which makes stories available nearly instantaneously in various social platforms. The attention has sparked a call to examine the conduct of prosecutors, notably in cases of exonerations

Prosecutorial Discretion and Post-Conviction Evidence of Innocence

Traditionally, discussions of prosecutorial discretion focus on charging and plea bargaining decisions. But on occasions when new evidence casts doubt on a convicted defendant’s guilt, questions of prosecutorial discretion take on comparatively greater importance. When there is an inadequate factual basis for criminal charges, a criminal trial will often (though not invariably) act as a corrective. In contrast, the legal process holds out little hope for wrongfully convicted defendants, especially in the absence of help from prosecutors. Commentators have written about psychological reasons why prosecutors might be unduly skeptical of post-conviction challenges, have identified institutional impediments to a fair response, and have proposed structural reform. But comparatively little attention has been given to the fundamental question of what we affirmatively expect prosecutors to do when new evidence comes their way suggesting that a convicted person may be innocent. This article explores that question. It maintains that even when not required to do so by a professional conduct rule, in exercising its discretion after obtaining a conviction, a prosecutor’s office should investigate significant new evidence that suggests that the convicted defendant was innocent. When the office then concludes that the defendant was probably innocent, it should take measures, whether by supporting an application for judicial relief or by supporting a pardon application, to correct the apparent mistake. This article also explores questions regarding what investigative steps must be taken and by whom, drawing on examples of current practices both in the United States and abroad

Should Criminal Justice Reformers Care About Prosecutorial Ethics Rules?

Criminal justice reform groups typically explore multiple avenues for improving the law and legal processes. Among the campaigns are calls for more demanding laws governing prosecutors’ conduct and more effective oversight and enforcement of prosecutors’ compliance with their legal obligations. Yet little advocacy is directed toward ethics rules governing prosecutors and encouraging courts and disciplinary bodies to adopt, interpret, and enforce professional conduct rules so as to demand more of them. This article considers the reasons for such limited focus upon ethics rules and suggests the ways in which current rules regarding prosecutors\u27 disclosure obligations and post-conviction ones can be effective avenues to enhance prosecutorial practices