On Prosecutorial Misconduct

/ Christopher Jennison / Leave a comment

According to the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, nearly half of all wrongful convictions arise from the prosecutorial misconduct or the misconduct of other officials. Steve Weinburg has broken down types of prosecutorial misconduct:

  • Courtroom misconduct (making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
  • Mishandling of physical evidence (hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records);
  • Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence;
  • Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
  • Using false or misleading evidence;
  • Harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant’s counsel (including selective or vindictive prosecution, which includes instances of denial of a speedy trial); and
  • Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.

Retribution and Deterrence of the Death Penalty

/ Christopher Jennison / 2 Comments

“Based on my specialized knowledge of this process, I now conclude that the death penalty as a form of punishment should be abolished because the execution of individuals does not appear to measurably advance the retribution and deterrence purposes served by the death penalty; the life without parole option adequately protects society at large in the same way as the death penalty punishment option; and the risk of executing an innocent person for a capital murder is unreasonably high, particularly in light of procedural-default laws and the prevalence of ineffective trial and initial habeas counsel.”

– Judge Tom Price, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; Ex parte Panetti (No. WR-37,145-04), in his 11/26/14 dissent of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ denial of Mr. Scott Panetti’s writ seeking to halt his scheduled execution. The 5th Circuit halted the execution on 12/3/14, acknowledging the “complex legal questions at issue,” presumably that of imposing the death penalty on someone with severe mental illness.

Municipalities Relaxing Sex Offender Geographic Restrictions

/ Christopher Jennison / Leave a comment

In the mid-90’s, governments began barring sex offenders from residing within specific distances of schools, playgounds and parks, ostensibly to prevent repeat crimes post-release.

The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday looking at cities and towns that are looking at scaling back limits on sex offenders, saying that “buffer zones”  don’t prevent repeat offenses and actually make predators harder to track. From the lede:

When Palm Beach County, Fla., was sued earlier this year over its housing restrictions for registered sex offenders, its attorneys took an unusual approach: They suggested the county relax its law.

The county’s commissioners— prompted largely by the lawsuit brought by a sex offender who claimed the limits rendered him homeless—voted in July to let such offenders legally live closer to schools, day-care centers and other places with concentrations of children.

“We realized the law was costing the taxpayers money [for services for the homeless] and was causing more problems than it was solving,” said county attorney Denise Nieman.

Read more: Cities and Towns Scaling Back Limits on Sex Offenders, Wall Street Journal, 11/30/14.