Prosecutorial misconduct is a grave concern within the criminal justice system. When prosecutors act unethically or illegally, the consequences can be devastating, leading to wrongful convictions and severe injustices. This blog post delves into the top 10 most commonly referenced prosecutorial misconduct cases, highlighting the importance of ethical conduct in upholding the principles of justice.
Understanding Prosecutorial Misconduct
Before introducing my top 10 list of commonly referenced prosecutorial misconduct cases, let’s establish what prosecutorial misconduct is. Prosecutorial misconduct refers to any unethical, illegal, or improper behavior exhibited by prosecutors during the course of a criminal trial or pretrial proceeding. It is an abuse of the power bestowed upon them, often driven by personal ambition, political pressure, or a desire to secure a conviction at any cost. While not all prosecutors engage in misconduct, even a few instances can have disastrous consequences for defendants and the integrity of the justice system.
Top 10 Cited Prosecutorial Misconduct Cases
Now that you are familiar with the definition of prosecutorial misconduct, let’s explore the top 10 referenced prosecutorial misconduct cases aimed at protecting a defendant’s rights:
Case #1: Brady v. Maryland
In Brady v. Maryland, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process. John Brady was convicted of murder , and his defense later discovered that the prosecution had withheld a statement by Brady’s accomplice, admitting to the actual killing.
This case established the Brady Rule, requiring prosecutors to disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of due process, significantly impacting subsequent prosecutorial conduct.
Case #2: Giglio v. United States
In Giglio v. United States, 92 S.Ct. 763 (1972), the Supreme Court extended the Brady Rule, emphasizing the prosecutions duty to disclose any deals or promises made to witnesses in exchange for their testimony. Thomas Giglio was convicted of forgery, but his conviction was later challenged when it was revealed that a key witness had been promised leniency in exchange for his testimony.
This case reinforced the obligation of prosecutors to ensure that all material evidence, including witness agreements, is disclosed to the defense.
Case #3: Napue v. Illinois
Napue v. Illinois, 79 S.Ct. 1173 (1959) addressed the issue of prosecutors presenting false testimony. The Supreme Court ruled that a conviction obtained through the use of false evidence, known to be such by the prosecution, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Henry Napues conviction was based, in part, on false testimony by a witness who had been promised a reduced sentence.
This case underscored the necessity for prosecutors to correct false testimony and highlighted the potential for wrongful convictions arising from prosecutorial misconduct.
Case #4: United States v. Agurs
In United States v. Agurs, 96 S.Ct. 2392 (1976), the Supreme Court clarified the standards for prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence. Elizabeth Agurs was convicted of murder, and her conviction was challenged on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to disclose the victims violent history.
The Court established that materiality of the suppressed evidence is key, meaning the evidence must create a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.
Case #5: Kyles v. Whitley
Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct 1555 (1995) involved the nondisclosure of multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence. Curtis Kyles was convicted of murder, but his conviction was later overturned when it was revealed that the prosecution had withheld evidence pointing to another suspect.
This case reinforced the importance of disclosing all evidence that could be favorable to the defense, emphasizing that the cumulative effect of withheld evidence must be considered.
Case #6: Miller v. Pate
In Miller v. Pate, 87 S.Ct. 785 (1967), addressed the issue of presenting false evidence. The prosecution knowingly presented false evidence (blood-stained shorts) in the case against Lloyd Miller, leading to his conviction for murder.
The Supreme Court overturned Millers conviction highlighting the egregious nature of prosecutorial misconduct involving false evidence and reinforcing the requirement for honesty and integrity in the pursuit of justice.
Case #7: Banks v. Dretke
In Banks v. Dretke, 124 S.Ct 1256 (2004), Delma Banks conviction was challenged due to the prosecutions failure to disclose critical evidence. The prosecution had withheld information that could have impeached key witnesses, including evidence that one witness was a paid informant.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the suppression of evidence that could effect the credibility of key witnesses is a violation of due process, underscoring the importance of full disclosure.
Case #8: Smith v. Cain
Smith v. Cain, 132 S.Ct. 627 (2012) involved the nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence in the case of Juan Smith, who was convicted of murder based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness. It was later discovered that the prosecution had withheld statements from the eyewitness that contradicted his trial testimony.
This case further cemented the Brady Rule, reinforcing that the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violates due process and can lead to wrongful convictions.
Case #9: Connick v. Thompson
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S.Ct. 1350 (2011) addressed the issue of prosecutorial immunity and accountability. John Thompson was wrongfully convicted of murder after the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence. He sued the prosecutors office for failing to train its attorneys on their Brady obligations.
The Supreme Court ruled against Thompson, granting immunity to the prosecutors office. This case sparked significant debate about prosecutorial accountability and the need for systemic reforms to prevent misconduct.
Case #10: Youngblood v. West Virginia
In Youngblood v. West Virginia, 126 S.Ct. 2188 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of whether the prosecutions failure to disclose evidence that could have impeached the credibility of a key witness violated due process. Troy Youngbloods conviction was challenged on the nondisclosure of letters from a key witness indicating a motive to lie.
This case underscored the importance of disclosing evidence that could impact the credibility of witnesses, reinforcing the principles established in earlier cases.
My Final Thoughts
Prosecutorial misconduct undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system and can lead to devastating consequences for defendants. The prosecutorial misconduct cases discussed above highlight the importance of ethical conduct and the duty of prosecutors to uphold justice by ensuring full disclosure of exculpatory evidence and correcting false testimony. These landmark cases have shaped the legal landscape, reinforcing the need for vigilance and accountability to prevent and address prosecutorial misconduct.
If you, or someone you know, will be engaging in self-representation in a criminal matter or is pursuing any form of post-conviction relief following a criminal conviction, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, is a crucial tool in the pursuit of justice. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated. Our books are softcover, institution friendly, and ready for immediate shipping.