CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Case Analysis

Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Case Analysis

Setting the case

A prosecutor has a duty to honor the Constitutional rights of the defendant even though they are arguing for conviction. Defendant's have the right to a fair trial whether it is a minor offense or a violent offense. They have the right to have access to the evidence that is favorable to their defense. It came to light that the prosecution may have withheld information in the case that would have constituted a Brady Violation. A software glitch caused the many search count for the word "pornography" when in fact, defendant hit the search button only once for the word.

In 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a case called Brady v. Maryland that it was unconstitutional to withhold evidence that could be favorable to the defendant. A famous quote from the case was written that said "the United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the court," and thus the Brady Violation was born. Even a small Brady Violation could have a serious impact on the outcome of a case whether through an unjust sentence or as far as a wrongful conviction. Once a verdict has been returned and a sentence determined, the process becomes more difficult when the standard switches from "innocent until proven guilty" to an assumption of guilt.

But where there has been an acquittal, there is a duty to investigate the facts prior to discharge. Santobello v. New York (1971) held that although conviction of a tenured teacher of a sex offense permitted a hearingless removal, due process required a hearing when the conviction was reversed and charges dismissed. A New York Court or Appeals decision (Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 1978) required a hearing regarding discharge of a tenured police officer for a conviction based on an off-duty incident if the conviction was not for a felony or violation of oath of office. Criminal activity directed against the agency itself, such as theft or government property, is an especially egregious ground warranting disciplinary action. ''At times, the governing statute or rule requires a showing that the crime is one of moral turpitude, and, as may be expected, that by admissions or otherwise, that a crime was committed in order to discharge or discipline. This is true whether the administrative proceeding precedes or follows the criminal trial. If evidence of a crime is present, even a reversed criminal conviction is not legally significant. A conviction after trial, a plea bargain, or a plea or nolo contendere (which has the same effect) provides at least a prima fade case for discipline. Recently, some courts have come to view unfavorably nolo pleas as a predicate for discipline. Facts admitted by the employee may often be an independent basis for discipline, irrespective of his or her role in the criminal proceeding. In Blackledge v. Allison (1977), a border patrol agent had consented to a judgment on a stipulated record on criminal charges or ...