PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Introduction

Prosecutorial misconduct is any courtroom behavior on the part of the prosecutor that violates trial rules and denies defendants their right to due process. Examples of misconduct may include making unfair or improper comments about the defendant, defense counsel, or a defense witness; suppressing, tampering with, or fabricating evidence; or making material misstatements regarding law or fact. The legal and psychological importance of examining prosecutorial misconduct is its potential to induce a jury to consider improper factors during the decision-making process (Platania, 2008).

Discussion

Legal scholars contend that prosecutorial misconduct often occurs because of the prosecutor's quest to secure a conviction. In doing so, prosecutors compromise impartiality by using improper methods to establish guilt—for example, inappropriately inferring guilt from a defendant's silence. Although higher courts consistently express disapproval of improper prosecutor conduct, they frequently affirm the conviction, concluding that some prosecutorial errors are harmless. For an error to be considered harmless, reviewing courts need to establish that the outcome of the trial was not significantly affected by the error (Gaskill, 2007).

The research suggests several conclusions pertaining to wrongful convictions. First, it is obvious that individuals have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. This holds true for both capital cases and lesser felonies. Moreover, numerous variables have been presented as significant factors in producing wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, coerced confessions, prosecutorial and police misconduct, circumstantial evidence, ineffective counsel, racial discrimination, prior criminal record, media and community pressure for conviction, and perjury (Platania, 2008).

Forms of Prosecutorial Misconduct

The most common form of prosecutorial misconduct occurs in argument to the jury; however, it can also take place in evidence hearings, opening statements, and cross-examination. For example, it is misconduct to comment on a defendant's failure to testify. Similarly, it is improper for the prosecutor to address the credibility of the testimony of codefendants or co-conspirators. Commenting on a defendant's silence, or inferring questionable relationships among defendants, improperly suggests guilt and encourages a jury to find the defendant guilty. It is also considered misconduct for the prosecutor to question the integrity of the defense counsel. This includes unconfirmed claims that defense counsel fabricated evidence, courtroom displays of dissatisfaction with defense witnesses, or interruptions of defense objections. In general, any unsupported, damaging comments on the part of the prosecutor that challenge a defendant's constitutional rights can be considered misconduct (Gaskill, 2007).

A review of appellate decisions also finds prosecutors cited for misconduct regarding issues related to evidence. Prosecutors must not introduce or attempt to introduce inadmissible evidence and, in the same vein, must disclose evidence favorable to the defendant (Gaskill, 2007). It is misconduct for prosecutors to use false or misleading evidence, misrepresent evidence to the jury, or destroy or tamper with evidence. In addition, it is improper for the prosecutor to make material misstatements of law or fact. Opening statements must be limited to offering admissible evidence, and closing arguments must be limited to evidence presented. Repeated instances of uncorrected misstatements could result in ordering a new ...