Are Prosecutors Really the "Good Guys"?

[Deleted]

Defense attorneys who are willing to be mouthpieces for pay for any dastardly defendant and egregious "evildoer" are often maligned as "*deleted*". There's a popular perception of lawyers who take on the role of being the courtroom champions of crooks and creeps as scumbag sellouts. But are prosecutors really any better, are they really the people's knights in shining white armor? Are they justice-loving, morally right-minded advocates for guiltless victims, while criminal defense lawyers are all mercenary shysters?

Not quite, I'm sorry to say. Prosecutors are themselves prostitutes in a figurative but ethically ignominious sense, prostitutes to the public's desire for retribution. That is, "*deleted*" to their role in the system, which is to seek punishment and enforce the legal power of the state. Zealous prosecutors frequently sell out their intellectual honesty, their integrity, their duty as officers of the court to respect and protect our civil rights, and their sense of mercy and compassion to their ruthlessly professional commitment to punitively locking up people for the system.

In other words, his soul having been deeded over to his function for Big Brother, a prosecutor will routinely do whatever it takes, technically within the law and sometimes a wee bit over the line of the law, to send some poor schmuck to prison (i.e., dehumanizing warehouses for the underclass). A prosecutor's draconian MO is to peg someone as the "bad guy", and then proceed on his moral high horse, with self-serving tunnel vision to secure his conviction, to get a win.

Oh yeah, prosecutors have egos too, they like to win. And don't like to admit it when they're in the wrong. We can all be guilty of this foible now and then, but when a prosecutor allows his desire to win to skew his sense of right and wrong it can lead to a human being unfairly being deprived of his freedom. Yep, when a competitive prosecutor sets his cap on a suspect he often doesn't look back and will pursue a successful prosecution with a disturbing degree of disregard for the truth, for real justice, and even for the law he claims to uphold.

Not consciously and cynically of course. Consciously John Q. Prosecutor tells himself that he has the right culprit and is on the side of the angels. This can make him all the more dangerous and ethically reckless, people with a good vs. evil mentality who self-flatteringly think they're on the side of good tend to think that they can do no wrong, and people who believe that are capable of anything.

But it's not really a part of a prosecutor's official job description to be on the side of the angels, at the end of the day his job is really more to serve the system than a lofty concept of justice or the spirit of the law. And his emotional drive is the egoistic desire to win, to taste the sweet victory of obtaining a guilty verdict.

Well, and prosecutors are of course also driven by a moralistic and punitive notion of what justice is, by the uncompassionate desire to make people pay for their transgressions. Prosecutors tend to have the sort of self-righteous and judgmental mentality that views folks who violate the law as "bad" and deserving of payback from the system. This cynical and punishment-oriented mind-set causes prosecutors to see even individuals with full-blown mental illnesses as baddies when they break the law.

Prosecutors will play whatever mind games they need to play with themselves to rationalize their treatment of the psychologically troubled as villains. And they will use whatever legal fictions or ploys necessary to dispatch a crazy person to the pen rather than a hospital. To a prosecutor's simplistically moralistic way of thinking people always need to be held to account for their misconduct, and even if a defendant is an authentic, raving lunatic but doesn't meet the legal definition of insane, if he can still tie his own shoelaces and semi-coherently mumble that he knows the difference between right and wrong, a DA will proceed with his usual gusto to prosecute and penalize. Tragically, the reality of the impaired psychiatric condition of the accused gets eclipsed by his crimes, and a prosecutor will seek to avenge society on a babbling madman even though it makes no logical sense whatsoever to punish him in the same fashion as a rational felon who makes an evil choice to commit a crime.

This is just one example of the fact that prosecutors can and do play every bit as fast and loose with reality as defense counsel. Prosecutors may not always get paid the kind of big bucks that defense attorneys get, but their true motives can be just as questionable and just as prone to compromise their professed principles.

Yes, the dishonorable desire of prosecutors to help visit punishment on someone, to enjoy a win, and to fulfill the function the system employs them to fulfill are not any more noble than the motives of supposedly sleazy defense lawyers. In fact a good case can be made for the view that defense lawyers have more character, but I won't go off on that tangent here.

To sum up, prosecutors are moralistic functionaries of the government, judgmental cogs in the machine of the criminal justice system who are sometimes so keen on punishing someone they've mentally convicted that they'll sophistically spin their logic, distort the picture of the crime they paint, and even fudge the facts to get a judge and jury to convict. No, sadly prosecutors often don't really deserve the positive public image they enjoy.
And let me make clear here that the problem with prosecutors is not that they put perps and perverts in prison, the problem is that due to their judgmentalness and their retributory role in the system they tend to treat every suspect they're presented with like perps and perverts. The milk of human kindness curdles within their souls.

At the risk of sounding too polemical, prosecutors are modern-day, secular inquisitors who often take too much sanctimonious satisfaction in the righteous suffering they dish out to sinners against the authority of the system. But as long as prosecutors continue to be portrayed as heroes on TV dramas the myth that they're more upright and less mercenary than defense lawyers will endure.

www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com

[mike5]

This doesn't belong in legal topics.

[Grey]

Prosecutors for the win!!

[Donnie]

Prosecutors are the good guys. A few paragraphs of drivel does not change that.

[Californian]

Nov 6, 2010 20:09:55 GMT -6 @charleslb said:

Not quite, I'm sorry to say. Prosecutors are themselves prostitutes, prostitutes to the public's desire for retribution. And "*deleted*" to their role in the system, which is to seek punishment and enforce the legal power of the state. Zealous prosecutors sell out their intellectual honesty, their integrity, and their sense of mercy and compassion to their ruthlessly professional commitment to punitively locking up people for the system.

So, what are your charges? And you're innocent, of course?

[mike5]

He posted the same commie crap on pto and they deleted it.

When you're too crazy for the crazies, give it up!

[whitediamonds]

Nov 14, 2010 14:18:49 GMT -6 mike5 said:

He posted the same commie crap on pto and they deleted it.

When you're too crazy for the crazies, give it up!

Nah, I know the logic behind the deletion. pto love's it and agree's, just make it want to look good for lurkers, so they do not look like they would endorse it. Bluff

[Deleted]

[quote

[/quote]

So, what are your charges? And you're innocent, of course? [/quote]


One doesn't have to be a criminal to hold the views expressed in my post, the idea that one does is sadly simpleminded.

[Deleted]

Nov 14, 2010 14:18:49 GMT -6 mike5 said:

He posted the same commie crap on pto and they deleted it.

When you're too crazy for the crazies, give it up!

Sticks and stones, well, that's what I'd expect a caveman conservative to use! Yeah, thanks for outing your political mind-set with the "commie" crack, so your support of the death penalty doesn't merely come from a place of caring about victims and wanting justice for them, it comes from a right-wing mentality. And we all know how profoundly compassionate the right-wing mentality is, yeah, you right-wingers are really being intellectually honest when you claim to care about victims, and as the old saying goes, I have a bridge in the desert to sell you too.

[mike5]

Nov 15, 2010 16:29:20 GMT -6 @charleslb said:

Nov 14, 2010 14:18:49 GMT -6 mike5 said:

He posted the same commie crap on pto and they deleted it.

When you're too crazy for the crazies, give it up!

Sticks and stones, well, that's what I'd expect a caveman conservative to use! Yeah, thanks for outing your political mind-set with the "commie" crack, so your support of the death penalty doesn't merely come from a place of caring about victims and wanting justice for them, it comes from a right-wing mentality. And we all know how profoundly compassionate the right-wing mentality is, yeah, you right-wingers are really being intellectually honest when you claim to care about victims, and as the old saying goes, I have a bridge in the desert to sell you too.

Loser: You have an icon of a raised fist on your crappie website plus some bullshite article called "capitalism sucks." Yeah, you're a commie. I guess a 100 million victims wasn't enough for you and your ilk...
red charles

[ltdc]

Nov 15, 2010 16:29:20 GMT -6 @charleslb said:

Nov 14, 2010 14:18:49 GMT -6 mike5 said:

He posted the same commie crap on pto and they deleted it.

When you're too crazy for the crazies, give it up!

Sticks and stones, well, that's what I'd expect a caveman conservative to use! Yeah, thanks for outing your political mind-set with the "commie" crack, so your support of the death penalty doesn't merely come from a place of caring about victims and wanting justice for them, it comes from a right-wing mentality. And we all know how profoundly compassionate the right-wing mentality is, yeah, you right-wingers are really being intellectually honest when you claim to care about victims, and as the old saying goes, I have a bridge in the desert to sell you too.

still upset about last weeks political drubbing you took? ;D ;D ;D

[mike5]

Nov 15, 2010 17:36:57 GMT -6 ltdc said:

Nov 15, 2010 16:29:20 GMT -6 @charleslb said:

Sticks and stones, well, that's what I'd expect a caveman conservative to use! Yeah, thanks for outing your political mind-set with the "commie" crack, so your support of the death penalty doesn't merely come from a place of caring about victims and wanting justice for them, it comes from a right-wing mentality. And we all know how profoundly compassionate the right-wing mentality is, yeah, you right-wingers are really being intellectually honest when you claim to care about victims, and as the old saying goes, I have a bridge in the desert to sell you too.

still upset about last weeks political drubbing you took? ;D ;D ;D

Judging from his choice of words in his comments, he is not American.

[Californian]

Nov 15, 2010 16:24:12 GMT -6 @charleslb said:

One doesn't have to be a criminal to hold the views expressed in my post,

It certainly helps tho, hmmmm?

[halflife1052]

I have to say that you obviously don't know a decent prosecutor (that is assuming that you don't get your information from tv). You have never sat and talked with one into the wee hours of the night while they go round and round asking themselves " Am I doing the right thing here?" . I have. You have no idea of the amount of turmoil that they put themselves through. For what? For the kind of "thanks" like the drivel in the original post. For your information, defence lawyers are required to do all that they can for their client regardless. The prosecutor is required to push for a conviction if the evidence points towards the accused. Adversarial System is the term. BTW, I don't think it unreasonable to ask what you are being charged with given the tainted view you just articulated above.

[uicipher]

Labeling prosecutors, defense attorneys, police, or judges as "good" or "evil" is a flawed strategy for understanding the legal system. The above named parties are people, capable of doing as much "good" or "evil" as they see fit.
Here's an example where 3 defense attorneys sat on a confession for 26 years which kept an innocent man in prison:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24083675/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (In 2009 Logan was found to be certifiably innocent)

The most interesting part of that story to me is that the defense lawyers were doing their jobs, there was no misconduct involved their actions (except morally).

There are cases where lawyers commit severe misconduct such as this one:
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-09-22-federal-prosecutors-reform_N.htm

However, my issue is not that some prosecutors are unethical, it's that their are no repercussion. If my actions lead to someone loosing their freedom or their life, it's called kidnapping or murder. If a lawyer's misconduct causes the same it's an issue with the Bar that might result in a fine or (in a worst case) suspension of their right to practice law.

[whitediamonds]

Dec 7, 2010 18:56:55 GMT -6 @uicipher said:

Labeling prosecutors, defense attorneys, police, or judges as "good" or "evil" is a flawed strategy for understanding the legal system. The above named parties are people, capable of doing as much "good" or "evil" as they see fit.
Here's an example where 3 defense attorneys sat on a confession for 26 years which kept an innocent man in prison:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24083675/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (In 2009 Logan was found to be certifiably innocent)

The most interesting part of that story to me is that the defense lawyers were doing their jobs, there was no misconduct involved their actions (except morally).

Defense lawyers then, should face repercussion too, if a murderer or rapist is freed onto society and rapes/murders yet again. That is past morals. It is murder is aiding and abiding No??? ...................


There are cases where lawyers commit severe misconduct such as this one:
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-09-22-federal-prosecutors-reform_N.htm

However, my issue is not that some prosecutors are unethical, it's that their are no repercussion. If my actions lead to someone loosing their freedom or their life, it's called kidnapping or murder. If a lawyer's misconduct causes the same it's an issue with the Bar that might result in a fine or (in a worst case) suspension of their right to practice law.

[uicipher]

Dec 7, 2010 19:13:38 GMT -6 whitediamonds said:

Defense lawyers then, should face repercussion too, if a murderer or rapist is freed onto society and rapes/murders yet again. That is past morals. It is murder is aiding and abiding No??? ...................

If a defense lawyer does their job and a guilty person goes free, they are no more culpable than a prosecutor where an innocent person is put to death. No system is infallible, however, if a lawyer (prosecution or defense) goes outside the bounds of the legal system by withholding evidence or tampering with evidence, then the consequences should be extremely severe. In the example I noted on defense lawyers, none of them actually stepped outside the law, they simply stepped outside the bounds of what most of us would consider moral; in that case we need to reform the system. However, if a defense lawyer stepped outside the bounds of the law (for example by suborning perjury) and it allowed a killer to go free, then I agree, it's aiding and abiding *.

*or some other equally severe charge.

[honkybouffant]

I'll agree that prosecutors are no 'better', morally speaking, than defense counsel. But that's where my agreement with the principal poster stops. As Halflife and uicipher have pointed out, this is an adversarial system. The prosecution's job is to push for guilt coupled with the harshest possible sentence. A prosecutor who does this, in my view, is to be commended, whether or not he does it for ego, pay, or whatever. He is doing his job well.

The defense attorneys who withheld evidence thanks to attorney client privilege, a pair of cowards if you ask me. It's a shame that the man falsely accused didn't get sentenced to death, because the pros here tell me that when that happens, miracles occur and magical facts align to prove the defendant's true innocence.

[Rev. Agave]

Dec 20, 2010 11:08:25 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

The prosecution's job is to push for guilt coupled with the harshest possible sentence.

That is not true at all. The job of a prosecutor is "to see that justice is done." I've never seen a prosecutor go for the maximum sentence in anything but the most serious cases.

[honkybouffant]

Dec 20, 2010 12:05:17 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

Dec 20, 2010 11:08:25 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

The prosecution's job is to push for guilt coupled with the harshest possible sentence.

That is not true at all. The job of a prosecutor is "to see that justice is done."

I would have thought that was the job of a judge. In any case, I've never seen a prosecutor go "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you have heard my arguments, but I think on balance the defense did a better job..." I can explain why on my adversarial model. You can't.

[Rev. Agave]

Dec 20, 2010 12:09:15 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Dec 20, 2010 12:05:17 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

That is not true at all. The job of a prosecutor is "to see that justice is done."

I would have thought that was the job of a judge. In any case, I've never seen a prosecutor go "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you have heard my arguments, but I think on balance the defense did a better job..." I can explain why on my adversarial model. You can't.

Dude, the role of the prosecutor is defined in the Code of Professional Responsibility in probably every state. Under the Model Rules, it states:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Advocate
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

When it comes to sentencing, I have never heard of a prosecutor always going for the max. Prosecutors almost never ask, or threaten to ask, for the maximum sentence except in the most serious cases.

[honkybouffant]

Dec 20, 2010 12:48:59 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

Why isn't there a rule that says:

(z) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a defendant did indeed commit an offense, the prosecutor shall not hide or otherwise attempt in any way to conceal that evidence from the court or appropriate judicial body.

?

[Rev. Agave]

Dec 20, 2010 13:02:26 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Dec 20, 2010 12:48:59 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

Why isn't there a rule that says:

(z) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a defendant did indeed commit an offense, the prosecutor shall not hide or otherwise attempt in any way to conceal that evidence from the court or appropriate judicial body.

?

Because that would clearly fall under (d), (g), and (h):

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

[honkybouffant]

Dec 20, 2010 13:08:17 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

Dec 20, 2010 13:02:26 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Why isn't there a rule that says:

(z) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a defendant did indeed commit an offense, the prosecutor shall not hide or otherwise attempt in any way to conceal that evidence from the court or appropriate judicial body.

?

Because that would fall under (d):

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

You aren't reading closely enough Agave.

I asked why there wasn't a rule that forbade the prosecutor from withholding evidence that proves the defendant guilty. (d) on the other hand, forbids the prosecutor from withholding evidence that helps to prove the defendant innocent.

[Rev. Agave]

Dec 20, 2010 13:43:25 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Dec 20, 2010 13:08:17 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

Because that would fall under (d):

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

You aren't reading closely enough Agave.

I asked why there wasn't a rule that forbade the prosecutor from withholding evidence that proves the defendant guilty. (d) on the other hand, forbids the prosecutor from withholding evidence that helps to prove the defendant innocent.

I did read your question closely. If the prosecutor has evidence that another person or another defendant was guilty of the crime in question, the prosecutor has to disclose that.

Section (g) says:

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

The fact that (2) is in addition to (1) shows that (1) does not only apply to the defendant that the prosecutor is prosecuting.

[honkybouffant]

Try again.

[Rev. Agave]

Dec 20, 2010 13:57:33 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Try again.

WTF are you getting at? I don't know why the rule is not written exactly to your liking. If a prosecutor knows that someone else committed the crime other than the defendant, the prosecutor has to disclose that. If prosecutor learns that a defendant in another jurisdiction has been convicted of a crime that another person committed, that has to be disclosed too. What else do you want, and why?

[honkybouffant]

Dec 20, 2010 14:03:03 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

Dec 20, 2010 13:57:33 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Try again.

WTF are you getting at? I don't know why the rule is not written exactly to your liking. If a prosecutor knows that someone else committed the crime other than the defendant, the prosecutor has to disclose that. If one prosecutor learns that a defendant in another jurisdiction has been convicted of a crime that another person committed, that has to be disclosed to. What else do you want, and why?

How interesting. You are much more rattled by perceived slights to your intelligence that perceived insults to your morality.

Read again what I wrote above, repeated here with emphasis:

"I asked why there wasn't a rule that forbade the prosecutor from withholding evidence that proves the defendant guilty. (d) on the other hand, forbids the prosecutor from withholding evidence that helps to prove the defendant innocent."

So, for that matter, does (g).

[Rev. Agave]

Dec 20, 2010 14:16:34 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

Dec 20, 2010 14:03:03 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

WTF are you getting at? I don't know why the rule is not written exactly to your liking. If a prosecutor knows that someone else committed the crime other than the defendant, the prosecutor has to disclose that. If one prosecutor learns that a defendant in another jurisdiction has been convicted of a crime that another person committed, that has to be disclosed to. What else do you want, and why?

How interesting. You are much more rattled by perceived slights to your intelligence that perceived insults to your morality.

Read again what I wrote above, repeated here with emphasis:

"I asked why there wasn't a rule that forbade the prosecutor from withholding evidence that proves the defendant guilty. (d) on the other hand, forbids the prosecutor from withholding evidence that helps to prove the defendant innocent."

So, for that matter, does (g).

The only reason, that I can see, that you want such a rule is to prevent a person being convicted of a crime that someone else did. In other words, you want to prevent prosecutors from withholding evidence that someone else did it. But that situation is already covered by the rules. If a prosecutor has evidence that someone has been convicted of a crime that someone else did, he would violate the rules by not disclosing that. So, in effect, the prosecutor would have to disclose evidence that the other convict was guilty.

[honkybouffant]

Dec 20, 2010 14:24:49 GMT -6 Rev. Agave said:

Dec 20, 2010 14:16:34 GMT -6 @honkybouffant said:

How interesting. You are much more rattled by perceived slights to your intelligence that perceived insults to your morality.

Read again what I wrote above, repeated here with emphasis:

"I asked why there wasn't a rule that forbade the prosecutor from withholding evidence that proves the defendant guilty. (d) on the other hand, forbids the prosecutor from withholding evidence that helps to prove the defendant innocent."

So, for that matter, does (g).

The only reason, that I can see, that you want such a rule is to prevent a person being convicted of a crime that someone else did. In other words, you want to prevent prosecutors from withholding evidence that someone else did it. But that situation is already covered by the rules. If a prosecutor has evidence that someone has been convicted of a crime that he someone else did, he would violate the rules by not disclosing that.

You're not following, so I am giving up.