Prosecutorial misconduct in Florida
For anybody who thinks that prosecutors always play by the rules and always seek justice (rather than wins) in criminal cases, here is your weekly reminder.
FEDERAL JUDGE SANCTIONS GOVERNMENT $600,000 FOR SECRETLY TAPING DEFENSE LAWYER: "In a blistering 50-page opinion (PDF) today criticizing the 'win-at-any-cost behavior' of federal prosecutors who secretly taped a defense lawyer, a federal judge in Florida has awarded more than $600,000 in sanctions against the government.
The money, which the United States must pay to a South Florida physician it
accused of prescribing pain medication without a proper medical purpose,
will cover more than half of Dr. Ali Shaygan's defense costs, reports the
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.The 36-year-old doctor, who lives in Miami Beach, was acquitted in March of
141 counts of unlawful prescribing. As a result of his overprescribing, the
government had contended, a West Palm Beach man died of a drug overdose.The prosecutors who tried the case were Sean Cronin and Andrea Hoffman.
Midway through trial, the defense team learned that attorney David Markus,
one of three lawyers representing Shaygun, had been secretly recorded by
witnesses with approval from the government. The conversations-which the
government says were made to investigate possible witness-tampering-violated
legal ethics rules and U.S. Attorney's Office policy, according to the
newspaper, because they were not disclosed to the defense prior to trial.Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, says mistakes
were unintentionally made in the case, and that it has been referred to the
U.S. Department of Justice for further investigation, apparently concerning
the conduct of the prosecution, according to the Sun-Sentinel.After a two-day hearing after the jury's March 12 not-guilty verdict, U.S.
District Judge Alan Gold awarded $601,795.88 to Shaygun. In his opinion,
which accorded the most criticism to Cronin as lead prosecutor, the judge castigated the government for pursuing an 'unfounded' witness-tampering probe based on 'personal animus against the defense team,' the newspaper
writes."
The more power some people have, the less ethically they behave. While the vast majority of prosecutors are good and decent people who play by the rules, the ethical rules exist to prevent the few from doing this type of thing.
Charges dropped against Ted Stevens due to bad prosecutors
In an admission that one government branch prosecuting another public servant committed prosecutorial misconduct to get the conviction, the Justice Department is dropping all charges against Ted Stevens.
Eric Holder, the Attorney General under President Obama appears to be a stand up guy. It would not surprise many people if more charges are dismissed based on ill-gotten convictions under the Bush administration. After the Alberto Gonzales fiasco, it was clear that there was a lot of clean-up that was needed at the Justice Department. Below is part of an article that describes the Ted Stevens decision:
US seeks to drop case against former Sen. Stevens: "The trial was beset by government missteps, culminating recently when a federal judge took the unusual step of holding the Justice Department in contempt.
In early morning court filings, the Justice Department admitted it never turned over notes from an interview with the oil contractor, who estimated the value of the renovation work as far less than he testified at trial.
'I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial,' Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement released Wednesday."
All I can say is wow. Good to have an Attorney General who does his job... pursues justice rather than political convictions. Even if Ted Stevens was the longest running corrupt politician in the history of America, it doesn't excuse withholding evidence from his defense team.
If we are, as we are led to believe, a nation of laws, it's high time, and refreshing, to see us start acting like one again.
Florida criminal law and prosecutorial misconduct
Here is a rather stark case of alleged prosecutorial misconduct by a federal prosecutor in Florida.
Jail Time Consulting » TABLES TURNED ON FEDERAL PROSECUTORS!: "Lead prosecutor, Seth Cronin, admitted making the mistakes and stated he did not intend to withhold evidence. Lead Prosecutor Cronin said, ‘I simply wasn’t thinking.’ Right Seth! Judge Gold apparently did not buy Cronin’s apology as he said that the government’s actions were more than just mistakes and should have consequences. I agree. Illegal acts by government prosecutors and their agents must stop and should be dealt with sternly. Their purported purpose of upholding the law and the furthering of justice can hardly be accomplished if they break the very laws they are directed to uphold. Especially, as in this case, if they use fabricated evidence and a fictitious complaint as an excuse to spy on the defense team."
(Via Jail Time Consulting Blog.)
If a criminal defense lawyer were to be accused of the exact same thing as this prosecutor, do you think he or she would be viewed as worse? My guess is probably.
Kansas Criminal Case Law Update
The Supreme Court of Kansas issued a new unpubished opinion that deals with the question of whether asking a defendant about remaining silent during cross examination is a "Doyle" violation or an evidentiary question, and whether the questions rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.
95088 -- State v. King -- Davis -- Kansas Supreme Court: "The alleged Doyle violation in this case occurred during the prosecutor's cross-examination of King--an exchange that falls squarely within the period when the prosecution and defense offer evidence at trial. See K.S.A. 22-3414 (order of trial). Contrary to King's characterization of his claim on appeal, he has presented an evidentiary question that may only be reviewed upon compliance with the contemporaneous-objection rule. K.S.A. 60-404.
There was no objection to the prosecutor's allegedly improper questions at trial. We conclude that the Court of Appeals therefore correctly determined the issue was not preserved for appellate review."
The Court rejected both of defendant's arguments, sustaining the conviction and sentence for sodomy.
