Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights. Prosecutorial Misconduct: Taking the Justice Out of Criminal Justice. by Christopher Zoukis

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights. Prosecutorial Misconduct: Taking the Justice Out of Criminal Justice. by Christopher Zoukis"


1 VOL. 25 No. 11 ISSN Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Prosecutorial Misconduct: Taking the Justice Out of Criminal Justice by Christopher Zoukis Inside Prosecutors Breaking Bad 24 From the Editor 28 Death Sentences Reversed 30 Wells Fargo & Private Prisons 32 Prison-Based Systems 35 Repackaging Mass Incarceration 36 $1 million for FL Jail Death 40 Habeas Hints 42 CCA Prison Inspections in Ohio 44 Norris Henderson: A Profile 46 Problems with Video Visitation 48 MO Censorship Suit Settled 50 News in Brief 56 The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous... While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst. Former U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson In a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, veteran judge Henry F. Floyd offered a rare public rebuke of federal prosecutors in North Carolina, who, the court found, had engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Mistakes happen, Floyd wrote. Flawless trials are desirable but rarely attainable. Nevertheless, the frequency of the flubs committed by [the prosecutors] raises questions regarding whether the errors are fairly characterized as unintentional. Yet the United States Attorney s office in this district seems unfazed by the fact that discovery abuses violate constitutional guarantees and misrepresentations erode faith that justice is achievable, he added. Something must be done. To demonstrate the seriousness of the violations, the appellate court ordered a new trial for federal prisoner Gregory Bartko, who had been convicted in 2010 in connection with a conspiracy to sell millions of dollars in fraudulent securities. See: United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied. As an additional sanction, the Fourth Circuit panel said it would present its concerns to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is ultimately responsible for the actions of federal prosecutors, and to the Department of Justice s Office of Professional Responsibility. Judging from several decades of data demonstrating there is virtually no accountability for both state and federal prosecutors, it is unlikely that the prosecutors in the Bartko case will face sanctions for their misconduct. Indeed, prosecutors appear to enjoy special dispensation for abuses committed in the pursuit of justice few are ever held accountable or face meaningful discipline. This article examines the pervasiveness of prosecutorial misconduct in the U.S. justice system and the broken and inadequate means of preventing and punishing such wrongdoing. has reported extensively on abuses by prosecutors, which have resulted in untold numbers of compromised trials, unfair sentences and wrongful convictions. Prevalence of Prosecutorial Misconduct Prosecutorial misconduct is, in the words of noted Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, rampant. Due to the lack of a uniform reporting body each state has its own attorney discipline system the number of criminal cases affected by prosecutorial abuses is unknown. Research studies have shed some light on this subject, though. A 2003 report by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit government watchdog group, examined more than 11,400 allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in appellate rulings between 1970 and In 2,012 of those cases (17.6%), misconduct by prosecutors led to dismissals, sentence reductions or reversals. Few prosecutors, however, were sanctioned for the violations cited by the appellate courts; only 44 faced disciplinary action, and seven of those cases were dismissed. A comprehensive 2009 study by the Northern California Innocence Project examined 707 cases in which California appellate courts found prosecutorial misconduct between 1997 and Of those cases, the misconduct in 159 was deemed harmful. The study noted that 67 prosecutors were found by the courts to have committed multiple infractions; however, during that time period just six were disciplined. While most criminal cases are handled by state and local prosecutors, federal prosecutors popularly viewed as having higher

2 TAKE ACTION ON PRISON PHONE RATES CONTACT THE FCC NOW! After nearly a decade, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took action in 2013 and issued an order, effective February 11, 2014, that capped the cost of interstate (long distance) prison phone rates. This led to an almost 80% decrease in interstate phone costs in some states, and those costs are now capped at $.25/minute for collect calls and $.21/minute for debit and prepaid calls. On September 25, 2014, the FCC indicated that it plans to take further action to reduce prison phone rates, including in-state (intrastate) rates which still remain high in many jurisdictions. In fact, in-state phone rates are now higher than long distance rates in many cases. You can submit a public comment to the FCC; even if you have sent comments before, you can resubmit them or submit new information. Please write to the FCC as soon as possible, addressing any of the following topics: Positive Impact of the FCC Order Reducing Interstate Calls: Let the FCC know how the rate caps on interstate prison phone calls have resulted in lower costs or helped you and your family! Negative Impact of Intrastate Phone Calls: While the FCC capped long distance phone rates, the order did not apply to in-state calls, which make up 85% of all calls from prisons and jails. How much do you or your family pay for in-state phone calls? The FCC needs to hear about this issue so they know why intrastate prison phone rates need to be reduced, too. Ancillary Fees: Do you or your family have to pay extra fees (ancillary fees) to make or accept calls, such as fees to set up, add money to or cancel a prepaid or debit prison phone account? Are you charged fees but were not told about them before they were charged? How much are these fees? Have they increased? Importance of Prison Phone Reforms: Tell the FCC why it is important to enact permanent reform of prison phone rates for interstate and in-state calls, including rate caps and the elimination of commission payments to corrections agencies. Also, the FCC needs details about fee-based video visitation services. Comments can be sent by mail to: Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission th Street, SW; Room TW-B204 Washington, DC Address the letter Dear Secretary Dortch, and please speak from your personal experience. You must state the following in your letter: This is a public comment for WC Docket Number Note that your comment will be made part of the public docket. People with Internet access can register their comments online with the FCC, by entering Proceeding Number and uploading a document at this address: For more information about the fight to reduce prison phone rates, visit the Campaign for Prison Phone Justice: 2

3 a publication of the Human Rights Defense Center EDITOR Paul Wright MANAGING EDITOR Alex Friedmann COLUMNISTS Michael Cohen, Kent Russell, Mumia Abu-Jamal CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Matthew Clarke, John Dannenberg, Derek Gilna, Gary Hunter, David Reutter, Mark Wilson, Joe Watson, Christopher Zoukis research associate Mari Garcia advertising director Susan Schwartzkopf LAYOUT Lansing Scott HRDC litigation project Lance Weber General Counsel Sabarish Neelakanta Staff Attorney PLN is a monthly publication. A one year subscription is $30 for prisoners, $35 for individuals, and $90 for lawyers and institutions. Prisoner donations of less than $30 will be pro-rated at $3.00/issue. Do not send less than $18.00 at a time. All foreign subscriptions are $100 sent via airmail. PLN accepts Visa and Mastercard orders by phone. New subscribers please allow four to six weeks for the delivery of your first issue. Confirmation of receipt of donations cannot be made without an SASE. PLN is a section 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization. Donations are tax deductible. Send contributions to: PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL PLN reports on legal cases and news stories related to prisoner rights and prison conditions of confinement. PLN welcomes all news clippings, legal summaries and leads on people to contact related to those issues. Article submissions should be sent to - The Editor - at the above address. We cannot return submissions without an SASE. Check our website or send an SASE for writer guidelines. Advertising offers are void where prohibited by law and constitutional detention facility rules. PLN is indexed by the Alternative Press Index, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index and the Department of Justice Index. Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) ethical standards were the subject of a sixmonth USA Today investigation, published in 2010, that uncovered 201 cases since 1997 in which courts found that Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) had violated laws or ethics rules. That number did not include cases involving misconduct not officially addressed by the courts, or violations handled internally. Yet only six federal prosecutors faced discipline and none were disbarred. An August 2010 study by the Innocence Project, Court Findings of Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims in Post- Conviction Appeals and Civil Suits Among the First 255 DNA Exoneration Cases, found that of the 65 cases in the study involving documented appeals and/or civil suits addressing prosecutorial misconduct, 31 (48%) resulted in court findings of error, with 18% of findings [leading] to reversals (harmful error). In another report published in April 2013, ProPublica, which produces independent journalism in the public interest, analyzed 30 cases where prosecutorial misconduct contributed to the vacatur of convictions between 2001 and 2011, including a number of cases in which victims of such misconduct received monetary compensation. Only one prosecutor involved in those cases faced serious discipline. That prosecutor, Claude Stuart, was forced to resign in 2002 after repeated misconduct including withholding exculpatory evidence and lying to a judge resulted in the reversal of multiple convictions. According to the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, studies over the past 50 years, including some of those cited above, indicate that in 3,625 identified cases of prosecutorial misconduct, public sanctions [were] imposed in only 63 cases less than 2% of the time. And of that discipline, just 14 prosecutors were suspended or disbarred. The Center maintains a national registry of prosecutorial misconduct, available at www. Overall, the consensus across these studies is that very few cases of prosecutorial misconduct result in disciplinary sanctions and most sanctions amount to a proverbial slap on the wrist. Considering that reported cases of misconduct are relatively infrequent due to arcane complaint procedures, lax enforcement, and a culture of secrecy 3 and indifference by regulatory agencies, one must conclude that the problem of prosecutorial misconduct in our nation s criminal justice system is much greater than the official numbers reflect. Each year, thousands of Americans are victimized by prosecutors who overcharge, withhold key evidence, and engage in a myriad of other forms of professional misconduct, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity stated in a 2013 report. When these persons later seek redress, they encounter denial, resistance, and delays. More often than not, their efforts to receive even an apology end in futile exasperation. Types of Misconduct The prosecutor s role in our adversarial justice system to obtain convictions, regardless of a defendant s guilt or innocence necessarily creates competitiveness in terms of winning cases. But as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, [W]hile he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. See: Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). According to the Innocence Project and the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, the foul blows that prosecutors may strike can assume many forms, including: Charging a suspect with more offenses than is warranted Making race-based jury selection decisions in violation of Batson v. Kentucky Withholding or delaying the release of exculpatory evidence Deliberately mishandling, destroying or losing evidence Allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify Pressuring or threatening defense witnesses not to testify Pressuring or threatening witnesses to testify for the prosecution Relying on fraudulent forensic experts During plea negotiations, overstating the strength of the evidence Making statements that are designed to arouse public indignation Making improper or misleading statements to the jury or court Failing to report misconduct by other prosecutors Prosecutorial misconduct has many

4 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) permutations. Beyond the more typical examples cited above, sometimes prosecutors simply break the law themselves, using their position of authority to further their own personal interests. In one such case, on February 11, 2014, former Cameron County, Texas district attorney Armando R. Villalobos, once seen as a rising political star, was sentenced to 13 years in federal prison following his conviction for taking more than $100,000 in bribes. According to the U.S. Attorney s office, his misconduct was part of a pattern of extortion, favoritism, improper influence, personal self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, and conflict of interest. Among other abuses, Villalobos was accused of allowing Amit Livingston, a convicted murderer, to remain free without bond before reporting to prison to serve a 23-year sentence. Why? So the $500,000 in Livingston s bond money could be released to settle a civil lawsuit filed by the family of his victim, with Villalobos receiving a $80,000 kickback from attorney fees paid in the suit.! Livingston didn t report to prison and fled to India, where he was eventually caught. A Focus on Brady Violations By far, the most commonly-cited type of prosecutorial misconduct in wrongful conviction cases involves the withholding of exculpatory evidence. While many forms of misconduct can result in a conviction being overturned, so-called Brady violations, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), are most often reported, as the withheld evidence can lead to the reversal of a conviction or finding of innocence. For example, Michael Morton spent almost 25 years in Texas prisons for murdering his wife, only to discover that Williamson County district attorney Ken Anderson had withheld evidence at his trial including a transcript of a telephone conversation in which his young son said a monster, not his father, had beaten his mother to death and that his father was not home at the time. Neighbors had seen a man in a green van parked in front of Morton s house several times before his wife s murder.! Prison Writing Contest!!! Have something interesting to say about prison life? Enter your essay to win money! TOP 20 writers have a chance to become regular paid contributors to, an upcoming website about prison reform. Write a 1-3 page essay (hand-written or typed) about your personal experiences and observations about a particular slice of prison life. Your essay can be serious, funny or straightforward.! SUGGESTED TOPICS (or pick your own): *prison food *privacy *cellmates *sentencing *survival skills *solitary *education *visitation *getting out *gangs *lockdowns *medical care *violence *impact on families *how you spend your time SEND SUBMISSIONS TO: Kelly Lussia Contest Administrator Prison Reform 101, Inc. P.O. Box 1430 New York, NY 10276! DEADLINE: January 1st, 2015 PRIZES 1st place = $250 2nd place = $100 3rd place = $50! 17 runner-ups = $25 Include your name, DIN # and mailing address *Please do NOT write about your individual case, your guilt or innocence, your parole suitability or your interest in attaining legal help. *Due to the volume of entries, we won t be able to return unpublished manuscripts. Based on the belated disclosure of this evidence, a DNA test on a bloody bandana found near the crime scene was matched to another suspect, Mark Alan Norwood, and Morton was released from prison in October He was exonerated two months later. Williamson County district attorney John Bradley had objected to the DNA testing. [See: PLN, Feb. 2012, p.50]. In Brady, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. There are three components of a Brady violation: The withheld evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it is exculpatory or can be used for impeachment purposes; the evidence must have been suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or unintentionally; and prejudice to the defendant must have resulted. Even when a defendant fails to properly request favorable evidence, the government is still liable for failure to disclose certain information. Constitutional error results if favorable evidence is withheld and there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. While nondisclosure of Brady material constitutes a violation of sundry constitutional protections and professional standards, such violations are, in the words of the Sixth Circuit, still a perennial problem, as multiple scholarly accounts attest. In a case involving Abel Tavera, a defendant charged with drug offenses, federal prosecutor Donald W. Taylor was Awesome Deal 7photo pk.+ free cat. For 7.50 or 20 stamps For cat. Only send 2.75 or 9 stamps to: Picture Entertainment, PO Box 54806, L.A., CA We also buy stamps at.31 each 4

5 informed by a co-defendant that Tavera had no knowledge of the drug conspiracy. However, Taylor did not share that information with defense counsel. The appellate court reversed Tavera s conviction and recommended that the U.S. Attorney s office for the Eastern District of Tennessee conduct an investigation of why this prosecutorial error occurred and make sure that such Brady violations do not continue. See: United States v. Tavera, 719 F.3d 705, 708 (6th Cir. 2013). Brady violations persist, in part, because few prosecutors face any consequences for failing to disclose evidence. The Morton case is an exception, as the former prosecutor in that case, Ken Anderson, who later became a Williamson County district judge, was arrested in 2013 and charged with criminal contempt, fabricating evidence and other offenses related to his misconduct in Morton s prosecution and wrongful conviction. In a September 2013 letter to Texas Governor Rick Perry announcing his resignation from the bench, Anderson made no mention of the Morton case, blandly stating that [t]here comes a time when every public official must decide that it is time to leave public office. Anderson, who also surrendered his law license, pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 10 days in jail and a $500 fine on November 8, He served a total of 5 days, which pales in comparison to the 8,989 days that Morton spent in prison. In an editorial, The New York Times called Anderson s sentence insultingly short. Morton received almost $2 million in compensation plus a lifetime annuity from the State of Texas for his wrongful conviction; following a Court of Inquiry ordered by the Texas Supreme Court, Williamson County paid approximately $500,000 in legal costs and fees. The Michael Morton case is described in detail in a book titled Getting Life: An Innocent Man s 25-Year Journey from Prison to Peace, published in July Most prosecutors, however, manage to evade responsibility for Brady violations, even in cases that are highly publicized such as the botched prosecution of the late Ted Stevens, a former U.S. Senator. In 2008, Stevens was found guilty of receiving illegal financial benefits and failing to report them. His conviction was set aside before sentencing and the indictment dismissed after the Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted federal prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence related to statements made by the chief witness at Stevens trial. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted the government s motion to dismiss in April 2009, and appointed a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute such criminal contempt proceedings as may be appropriate against the AUSAs involved in the Stevens prosecution. In nearly 25 years on the bench, I ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I ve seen in this case, Judge Sullivan stated. Although the special prosecutor found the evidence establishes that this misconduct was intentional, it was also legally insufficient to support a conviction under the federal criminal contempt statute, 18 U.S.C The reason? None of the discovery orders issued by Judge Sullivan specifically directed the prosecutors to disclose the Brady evidence at issue. Absent a clear order from the court, it could not be Need Post Conviction Relief? Contact Timberwolf Litigation and Research Services LLC Specializes in Federal Post Conviction Relief All Work done under supervision of licensed counsel. First direct appeal briefs Motions for return of personal property (rule 41) Challenges to conditions of supervised release Sentence Reduction Motions and Memorandums under 28 USC 2241, 2255, and 18 USC 3582, 3583 Background research and FOIA requests For more information, call toll free if you can t call toll free call (260) Petitions for rehearing Writs of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court Clemency and pardon applications Challenges to constitutionality of Federal and State statutes and reporting requirements Institutional medical malpractice claims If you can t call at all, then write us at Timberwolf Litigation and Research Services LLC 402 North Wayne Street, Suite B, Angola, Indiana You don t have to do it alone! with the Pack! attorneys, paralegals, researchers and consultants dedicated to serving your legal needs. 5

6 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) proven that the prosecutors actions rose to the level of contempt, notwithstanding that disclosure of exculpatory evidence is a basic tenet of our criminal justice system. Sadly, Stevens, who had steadfastly maintained his innocence, lost his bid for reelection shortly after he was convicted and died in a plane crash in 2010, the year after the charges were dismissed. The federal prosecutors accused of withholding evidence, Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke, were suspended without pay for 40 days and 15 days, respectively. [See: PLN, March 2013, p.38]. Ironically, their suspensions were overturned in April 2013 after an administrative judge found the Justice Department had violated its own procedures. A third prosecutor involved in the Stevens case, Nicholas Marsh, committed suicide. Prosecutorial misconduct occurs for a variety of reasons, but with respect to Brady violations, an inadequate oversight system to detect, review and sanction such abuses may encourage some prosecutors to take their chances by withholding evidence. Further, although Brady and its progeny decisions have routinely bemoaned the unfairness that results when prosecutors deprive a defendant of favorable evidence, post-trial appellate reviews of such violations focus on the effect the evidence might have had on the verdict, requiring the defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the evidence been disclosed a fairly subjective standard. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the materiality inquiry is not just a matter of determining whether, after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the jury s conclusions. Rather, the question is whether the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. See: Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 282 (1999) (prosecution s failure to produce notes of conflicting statements made by eyewitness deemed insufficient to constitute Brady violation in death penalty case) (citations omitted). With our results-oriented judiciary, the higher the stakes the smaller the likelihood of reversal for Brady violations. As such, from an adversarial point of view, the temptation for prosecutors to withhold evidence can be an obvious one, as the worst-case scenario is usually a retrial and not dismissal of the charges, and sanctions are unlikely. Simply put, the manner of review of Brady violations carries little disincentive for a prosecutor who puts winning a conviction above their ethical obligation to seek justice. There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a dissenting opinion in December Only judges can put a stop to it, he added. See: United States v. Olsen, 737 F.3d 625, 626 (9th Cir. 2013). On August 21, 2013, a federal district court in Pennsylvania granted a death row prisoner s petition for writ of habeas corpus and vacated his conviction and death sentence due to Brady violations by the prosecution that included withholding exculpatory evidence. See: Dennis v. Wetzel, 966 F.Supp.2d 489 (E.D. Pa. 2013) [PLN, July 2014, p.34]. Connick v. Thompson: An Impossible Standard The stakes are highest in a capital murder case, and the now-infamous prosecution of John Thompson demonstrates just how far prosecutors are willing to go to stack the deck to obtain a conviction. The Thompson case is a prime example not only of how the justice system permits abuses by prosecutors, but also of how little recourse is accorded to victims of such misconduct. Indeed, even people like Thompson, who came within days of being executed for a crime he did not commit, appear to have no means of obtaining justice when prosecutors abuse their considerable power. The Criminal Case In December 1984, someone shot and killed Raymond T. Liuzza, Jr., the son of a prominent New Orleans business executive. One person who witnessed the incident described the shooter as a six-foot-tall black man with close cut hair. Three weeks later, in another part of New Orleans, a man attempted to rob three siblings at gunpoint. During a scuffle, the perpetrator left his blood on the pants leg of one of the victims; a test on a swatch from the pants revealed that the robber s Photo Tryst PO Box 103 Chapmansboro TN Quality Pics of Quality Babes 6 All catalogs 450 full color pics Summer 2013 free with SASE All other catalogs $4 or 10 forever stamps, and ship with a coupon for 5 free pics with your minimum order of 10 Winter 2014 Spring 2014 Topless #1 (contains frontal Nudity) All Nude #1 (you see it all) Our next general (season) catalog free with each order You can deposit funds with us and order your pics on account We accept institutional checks, personal checks from friends and family, and money orders Stamp orders are only with stamp coupons obtained with regular orders Oregon and Utah consistently deny our catalogs so we cannot do business there. Sorry

7 blood was Type B. John Thompson and Kevin Freeman were arrested and charged with the Liuzza murder. Their arrest came after Richard Perkins, who knew Thompson, approached the Liuzza family seeking a $15,000 reward they had publicized for information about the crime. Freeman fit the eyewitness six-foot, close-cut hair description; his nickname was Kojak because he kept his head nearly shaved. Freeman would later become a key prosecution witness at Thompson s first trial for the murder of Liuzza. After Thompson s arrest, his photo (with a large afro) was displayed in the newspaper. One of the armed robbery victims saw the picture and said Thompson was the one who had robbed them; they later picked the same photo out of a photographic lineup. Thompson was then indicted for the robbery. During the investigation of the armed robbery, a crime scene technician wrote that the prosecution [m]ay wish to do a blood test. District Attorney Harry F. Connick had appointed his third-in-command, Eric Dubelier, to prosecute the high-profile Liuzza case, and later named him special prosecutor in the armed robbery case. Assistant district attorneys Jim Williams and Gerry Deegan were also appointed to the prosecutorial team. In a strategic move, the prosecutors successfully petitioned the Orleans Parish Criminal Court to switch the order of the trials so Thompson would be tried for the armed robbery first (even though the robbery had occurred after Liuzza s murder). Two days before the trial, the bloody swatch from the robbery was identified as being blood Type B; Thompson s attorneys were not advised of the test results. On the first day of trial, Deegan checked out the bloody swatch from the evidence file and it was never returned. The strategic value of reversing the order of the trials was two-fold. A robbery conviction would likely keep Thompson from testifying on his own behalf at the later murder trial, because the conviction would be disclosed to the jury if he testified. Further, the robbery conviction could be used to increase the likelihood of a death sentence in the murder case. The blood test evidence was not mentioned at the armed robbery trial. Based solely on the descriptions of the robber by the three victims, Thompson was convicted and sentenced to 49.5 years in prison without parole the maximum sentence. During pretrial proceedings in the armed robbery case, Thompson s attorney had filed a Brady motion seeking access to all evidence favorable to the defendant and material and relevant to the issue of guilt and punishment, as well as any results or reports [of ] scientific tests or experiments. When Thompson s attorney went to inspect the evidence he was unaware of the bloody swatch, which had been checked out by the prosecution. A month later, Thompson was tried for the Liuzza murder. As with the blood evidence at the armed robbery trial, the prosecutors did whatever they could to prevent Thompson from accessing evidence helpful to his defense in the murder case. First, they did not disclose available audiotapes of Perkins calls to the Liuzza family seeking a reward, which would have rebutted the prosecution s claim that there was no direct evidence that reward money had motivated any of the witnesses. 7

8 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) Second, the prosecutors withheld a police report that could have contradicted Freeman s trial testimony, depriving Thompson of key impeachment evidence. Third, they withheld police reports of the initial eyewitness description of the shooter as being six-foot with close cut hair. This would have provided Thompson with much-needed information suggesting that Freeman, a.k.a. Kojak, had committed the crime. Thompson was found guilty of firstdegree murder. Since he was already serving a de facto life sentence for the armed robbery charge, the prosecution urged that the only way to punish him for murder was to execute him. The jury sentenced him to death. Fourteen years after his murder conviction, Thompson had exhausted all of his appeals. His execution was scheduled for May 20, In April, in a last-ditch effort to save Thompson s life, an investigator once again reviewed the evidence file and found a microfiche copy of the crime lab report containing the blood type from the evidence in the armed robbery case. Thompson was then tested his blood was Type O and after his attorneys presented this evidence to Connick s office, a stay of execution was ordered. In the ensuing investigation, it was learned that in 1994, prosecutor Deegan had confessed to a former colleague that he had intentionally suppressed the blood type evidence. Deegan made the confession only after learning he had cancer, and he later died. The colleague, Michael Riehlmann, himself a former Orleans Parish prosecutor, did not tell anyone about the confession until after Thompson s stay of execution. Three other prosecutors were aware of the blood evidence but did not disclose it to defense counsel. Thompson s conviction in the armed robbery case was vacated upon the state s motion, and he was not retried. Connick then convened a grand jury, ostensibly to consider charges related to the concealment of the blood type evidence. He terminated the grand jury after one day, however, leading John Glas, the assistant district attorney prosecuting the concealment case, to resign in protest. Thompson filed a motion for postconviction relief on the murder charge and, in 2001, his death sentence was changed to life imprisonment on the grounds that the wrongful armed robbery conviction had been used as evidence in the capital sentencing proceedings. The Louisiana Court of Appeals reversed Thompson s murder conviction in 2002 but did not address the merits of his Brady violation claims. See: State v. Thompson, 825 So.2d 552 (La. Ct. App. 2002). Not satisfied with this outcome, District Attorney Connick retried Thompson for the Liuzza murder. This time Thompson testified in his own defense and was able to use at least ten new pieces of evidence that had not been available during the first trial. They included the police reports describing the assailant s close cut hair, reports about informant Perkins meeting with the Liuzza family and seeking a reward, audio tapes of those meetings and inconsistent statements made by Freeman, the probable shooter. Additionally, numerous other witnesses testified who had not been disclosed by the police at the first trial. Even considering transcripts of Freeman s original trial testimony he had been killed in the interim the jury deliberated only 35 minutes before returning a verdict of not guilty. Thompson was then released from prison, having served more than 18 years. The Civil Case In 2003, Thompson filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Connick, other officials in his office and the District Attorney s office itself had violated his constitutional rights. He alleged state law claims, including malicious prosecution, in addition to 1983 claims of wrongful suppression of evidence and conspiracy. Prior to a February 2007 trial, all claims were dismissed except one alleging that Connick and the District Attorney s office were liable for having an unconstitutional Brady policy and being deliberately indifferent to Thompson s rights and the need to adequately train and supervise employees making Brady determinations. The jury found for Thompson, awarding him $14 million in damages, and the district court awarded around $1 million in attorney fees. [See: PLN, Oct. 2007, p.22]. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in December In doing so, the appellate court rejected Connick s argument that establishing deliberate indifference requires evidence of a pattern of misconduct. The Court of Appeals held that deliberate indifference could be established when the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. The Fifth Circuit granted rehearing Earn an Adams State University Degree via Correspondence Courses Through the Mail No internet access required Degree options available Associate of Arts or Science, Bachelor degrees in English/Liberal Arts, Business Administration, HAPS/Political Science, HAPS/History, Interdisciplinary Studies, Sociology, Master Degree in Business Administration, and Paralegal Certificate Program Affordable tuition $165/semester hour for undergraduate correspondence courses, $350/semester hour for Master level correspondence courses. Payment options include cashiers check, credit card, money order or verified personal check. Accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (the highest level of post-secondary accreditation available) 20+ years of experience serving incarcerated students Veteran friendly/gi Bill accepted FREE unofficial evaluation of previously earned credits Student advisor with over 21 years working with incarcerated individuals 8 Prison College Program Call or write to receive additional information: Adams State University PLN Inquiry, Suite Edgemont Blvd. Alamosa, CO 81101

9 en banc and affirmed the judgment in an evenly-divided decision. In four separate opinions, the appellate court disputed whether Thompson could establish municipal liability on a failure-to-train theory based on the single Brady violation in his case, without proving a prior pattern of similar violations that is typically required to find municipal liability although the court acknowledged that Thompson has suffered a horrible wrong inflicted by agents of the government. See: Thompson v. Connick, 578 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Fifth Circuit in a 5-4 decision, overturning the $14 million jury award. See: Connick v. Thompson, 131 S.Ct (2011) [PLN, Aug. 2011, p.30]. In sum, the Court reversed the judgment on the basis that Thompson failed to prove that Connick had actual or constructive notice of, and was therefore deliberately indifferent to, a need for adequate Brady training. A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees was necessary to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of a failure-to-train claim. It mattered not that Connick and his office had been taken to task on numerous occasions for Brady violations even by the Supreme Court itself in a previous case, Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct (1995). Nor did it matter that the District Attorney s office had failed to offer any formal Brady training to its prosecutors, because, as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, all attorneys must graduate from law school or pass a substantive bar examination... [t]hese threshold requirements are designed to ensure that all new attorneys have learned how to find, understand, and apply legal rules. Formal training also was not needed because junior prosecutors were trained by senior prosecutors who supervised them as they worked together to prepare cases for trial, and trial chiefs oversaw the preparation of the cases. The majority opinion indicated the Supreme Court had great confidence in the ability of prosecutors to monitor themselves and in the legal profession to punish those who violate ethical standards. Ultimately, Thompson could not satisfy a failure-to-train theory of liability based upon a single Brady violation. Thompson needed to show that Connick was on notice that, absent additional specified training, it was highly predictable that the prosecutors in his office would be confounded by those gray areas and make incorrect Brady decisions as a result. The Supreme Court concluded he did not make that showing, and therefore reversed the judgment and jury award. In doing so, the Court created a virtually impossible standard of proof for those who sue municipalities for prosecutorial misconduct: one must not only prove a violation of constitutional rights, but that the violation was part of a pattern of such misconduct. This effectively gives municipalities a free bite or several free bites at the prosecutorial misconduct apple before they can be held liable. And notably, municipalities are often the only defendants that victims of prosecutorial misconduct can sue, since prosecutors have absolute immunity for conduct related to their prosecutorial duties. Only one prosecutor was disciplined in Thompson s case Michael Riehlmann, who was cited for not reporting Deegan s confession about suppressing the blood type evidence in a reasonable time. The Win Your Lawsuit Sue in California Superior Court Without a Lawyer $39.99 Order from P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL Add $6 shipping for orders under $50 WELCOME TO KRASNYA BABES & KRASNYA STUDS WORLD TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THE HOTTEST AND MOST SCANDALOUS BABES & DUDES FOUND ON THE PLANET. EACH CATALOG PAGE HAS 120 BEAUTIFUL GIRLS OR BOYS POSING JUST FOR YOU! ORDER ONE CATALOG PAGE FOR ONLY $4.50 OR FOR 10 U.S. FOREVER STAMPS WITH AN SASE ENCLOSED. WE WILL SEND YOU VOLUME ONE. EACH ADDITIONAL VOLUME THE SAME PRICE! WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER INQUIRES HOWEVER, DUE TO MAILING COST AT $0.49 CENTS A LETTER, PLEASE ENCLOSE AN SASE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS, OTHERWISE NO REPLIES! WHAT ABOUT OUR PRICES AND POLICIES COLOR PRINTS ON 4x6 GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER AS LOW AS $0.35 CENTS PER PRINT ON ORDERS OVER 500 SHIPPED ACCORDING TO POLICY: 25 PICTURES PER ENVELOPE EVERY 24 HOURS. S&H $2.00 PER ENVELOPE. ***************************************************METHOD OF PAYMENT**************************************************** U.S. POSTAL SERVICE MONEY ORDERS-STATE & FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CHECKS PAYABLE ONLY TO: KRASNYA L.L.C. OUR SEASONAL SPECIALS MEAN A KICKOFF OF SAVINGS! $24.95 S&H FREE FOR GRAB BAG OF 50 PHOTOS FROM ALL OUR CATALOGS SPECIFY RACE AND MAIN AREA OF YOUR INTERESTS WE WILL PICK SELECTION FOR YOU BONUS 1 COLOR CATALOG PAGE OF 120 BABES (NUDE OR BOP-FRIENDLY) 3 BRAND NEW FLAT BOOKS OF 20 U.S. FOREVER STAMPS FOR GRAB BAG OF 45 PHOTOS FROM ALL OUR CATALOGS. SPECIAFY RACE AND MAIN AREA OF YOUR INTERESTS WE WILL PICK SELECTION FOR YOU BONUS 1 COLOR CATALOG PAGE OF (BABES OR STUDS-NUDE OR BOP-FRIENDLY) PLEASE INCLUDE 6 FOREVER STAMPS WITH YOUR ORDER FOR S&H KRASNYA BABES HAS SPRUNG SALE! FREE SAMPLE CATALOG FROM KRASNYA! 120 BABES IN EACH CATALOG ENCLOSE ONE SASE WITH TWO FIRST CLASS STAMPS! 1 CATALOG PER CUSTOMER PLEASE SPECIFY MALE OR FEMALE BABES NUDE OR BOP-FRIENDLY FOR KRASNYA CLIENTS WHO WORK THE YARDS; HAVE WE GOT A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU MR. HUSTLE GRAB BAG BARGAIN DAY$ ONLY $0.25 CENT$ PER BABE/PRINT 5 GRAB BAG MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIRED $2.00 SHIPPING AND HANDLING PER BAG 25 AWESOME BABES PER BAG AT ONLY $6.25 YOU MUST BUY AT LEAST 5 GRAB BAGS THIS***GRAB BAG BARGAIN*** IS NOT GOING TO BE OFFERED AGAIN THIS YEAR. SO STOCK UP NOW! AS YOU KNOW YOU GET AN ARRAY OF 25 GORGEOUS BABES YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE EITHER MALES OR FEMALES, ALL NUDES OR BOP SAFE YOU MAY WANT TO SIT DOWN FOR THIS BONUS BARGAIN! OUR BABES CATALOGS SPECIAL OF THE DECADE - 5 COLOR CATALOGS FOR $ COLOR CATALOGS FOR $ COLOR CATALOGS FOR $ COLOR CATALOGS FOR $ OUR CATALOGS SPECIAL AVAILABLE WHEN YOU PURCHASE THE 5 GRAB BAG MINIMUM! THIS PRICE INCLUDES FREE SHIPPING ON THE CATALOGS BECAUSE OF SHIPPING TERMS ALL CATALOGS SOLD IN MULTIPLES OF 5 FOR $6.00 ONLY. YOU CHOOSE EITHER MALE OR FEMALE CATA- LOGS AND IF YOU WANT NUDE OR BOP SAFE!! KRASNYA L.L.C. P.O.BOX 32082, BALTIMORE, MD & CORRLINKS REQUESTS ACCEPTED AT: 9

10 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommended a six-month suspension but the state Supreme Court imposed only a public reprimand. Asked by a Huffington Post reporter whether any prosecutors had ever said they were sorry for his wrongful conviction, Thompson responded, Sorry? For what? You tell me that. Tell me what the hell would they be sorry for. They tried to kill me. To apologize would mean they re admitting the system is broken... That everyone around them is broken. It s the same motherfucking system that s protecting them. Less than a year after the Supreme Court s ruling in Connick v. Thompson, the Court found Brady violations by the Orleans Parish District Attorney s Office in another prosecution. In that case, the Court reversed the murder convictions of a defendant based on claims that prosecutors had withheld material evidence. See: Smith v. Cain, 132 S.Ct. 627 (2012). ABA Model Rule 3.8 The American Bar Association s Model Rules of Professional Conduct are widely recognized as the touchstone of ethical behavior for attorneys. Model Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, has been adopted by 49 states, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. California is the only state to not adopt a similar rule. While the ABA s Model Rules apply equally to all attorneys, Rule 3.8 is notable because it s the only rule specific to prosecutors. As such, most commentators view Rule 3.8 as the starting point for prosecutorial ethics. Rule 3.8 defines special ethical duties applicable to prosecutors, including the following, among others. The Rule provides that prosecutors shall: Refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; 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; 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; When informed 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 promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority and, if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor s jurisdiction, promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and 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; and 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. Model Rule 3.8 imposes disclosure obligations that are separate from and broader than the Brady constitutional standards, as the ABA noted in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in Smith v. Cain. With this in mind, Rule 3.8 would seem to require prosecutors to adhere to a heightened standard of conduct. Yet this is only in theory because, as a 2011 Yale Law Journal Online article notes, the Rule s vague terminology undermines its efficacy and enforceability in practice. For example, Rule 3.8 s prescriptive force is [] greatly diminished by its failure to address many important aspects of the prosecutorial function, including plea bargains. More than 90% of federal criminal prosecutions are resolved through guilty pleas [see: PLN, Jan. 2013, p.20]; however, Rule 3.8 fails to address prosecutorial conduct during plea negotiations. In sum, Model Rule 3.8 promises on its face more than it delivers in practice, the Yale Law article concludes. While there are many instances of prosecutorial misconduct that clearly fall within its ambit, the Rule fails to address some of the more significant aspects of the prosecutor s justice-seeking role. Even if flawed, Rule 3.8 is still one of the few existing tools for curbing prosecutorial misconduct. Indeed, Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck and former federal judge Nancy Gertner co-authored an article recommending that defense attorneys specifically cite Model Rule 3.8 AFFORDABLE INMATE CALLING SERVICES Keeping you Connected while saving you Money! NO hidden fees. One flat monthly rate NO setup fee with referral information NO charges to add/ remove numbers NO transfer fees 100% BOP Compliant! Additional holiday minutes, no extra charge. 2 vanity numbers for $15 + tax /month, additional # for $1.50 each Ask us about our REFERRAL PROGRAM! Contact Us: Inmates: Families:

11 when filing pretrial motions for disclosure of evidence, accompanied by a proposed order mandating such disclosures. Yet in spite of Rule 3.8, state bar requirements, and Brady and other case law related to prosecutorial misconduct, abuses by prosecutors continue to occur. The Trayvon Martin Case Most people are familiar with the Trayvon Martin case, in which Florida neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman was prosecuted for shooting and killing Martin, 17, as the teenager was walking back to his house. Zimmerman was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on July 13, Not as many people are aware of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in connection with the Trayvon Martin case. According to a lawsuit filed by Ben Kruidbos, a former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, who oversaw Zimmerman s prosecution, he was fired by Corey after testifying on behalf of Zimmerman in regard to Brady material he believed should have been disclosed. Kruidbos, terminated from his job as director of information technology for the State Attorney s office, testified at a pretrial hearing that he was shocked that prosecutors had not turned over to Zimmerman s attorneys evidence of photos and text messages he had recovered from Martin s cell phone. The photos included images of a pile of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana and a hand holding a semiautomatic weapon, plus a text message concerning a gun transaction. They appeared to fall under Florida s Brady-based disclosure rules, and Kruidbos said he ed them to Corey s lead prosecutor in the Martin case. Concerned that the prosecution had not shared the photos and texts with the defense team, Kruidbos directed his attorneys to contact Zimmerman s lawyers concerning the withheld evidence. The defense finally received the evidence shortly before Zimmerman s trial began. While the photos were ultimately ruled inadmissible by the judge because there was no proof that Martin himself took the pictures, the failure to disclose that evidence prompted Zimmerman s attorneys to move for sanctions against Corey and the prosecution team. Florida Bar rules require that the prosecutor make timely disclosure of all evidence known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense. After contacting Zimmerman s attorneys, Kruidbos was initially placed on leave and then fired, with his termination letter accusing him of deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions. He then filed a $5 million whistleblower suit against the State Attorney s office. Corey filed a counterclaim against Kruidbos in February 2014, stating he had been terminated for violating policy by deleting files and sharing information during a pending case. See: Kruidbos v. Corey, Fourth Judicial Circuit Court (FL), Case No CA Kruidbos lawsuit alleges conduct that appears to constitute a clear violation of the prosecution s Brady obligation to share evidence with the defense. However, Zimmerman s legal team announced in March 2014 that it was dismissing the motion for sanctions against Corey and lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. Kruidbos suit remains pending. His attorney, Wesley White, a former employee of the State Attorney s office himself, said Kruidbos firing sent a message to other employees to not disclose wrongdoing by prosecutors. If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead, he remarked. [The] State Attorney s office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual, Second Edition, by Dan Manville By the co-author of the Prisoners Self- Help Litigation Manual, this book provides detailed information about prisoners rights in disciplinary hearings and how to enforce those rights in court. Available in from Prison Legal News Publishing. $49.95, shipping included Order by mail, phone or on-line. By: p check p new postage stamps p credit card p money order Name DOC/BOP Number Institution/Agency Address City State Zip PO Box 1151, Lake Worth, FL Tel

12 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) destroy their reputations in the process. Prosecutorial Misconduct in Miami At the southern end of Florida, prosecutorial misconduct is alive and well in the federal courts, too. Several high-profile criminal cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea G. Hoffman have come undone due to her misconduct; as a result, several Columbian nationals charged in large-scale, multi-national drug investigations are headed home. Fifty-six Columbians were arrested in multiple investigations Operation Seven Trumpets, Operation Under the Sea and Operation BACRIM (Bandas Criminales) that resulted in the seizure of 20 tons of cocaine and heroin, millions of dollars in cash, 21 airplanes and even 12 submarines. The arrests were hailed at a press conference that included the President of Columbia. Due to Hoffman s wrongdoing, some of those cases have fallen apart. First, defendants John Winer and Jose Buitrago no longer faced sentences of life without parole after U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Cooke held that Hoffman had withheld key evidence from the defense, including cash payments made by the DEA to Columbian officers. After Hoffman changed her story about her knowledge of the payments and offered a tepid apology, Judge Cooke said she believed the government knew about the payments but did not disclose that information to defense counsel. The prosecutor was ethically and legally bound to turn the information T Y P I N G S E R V I C E S Provided since 1998 Specifically designed, with special rates for the incarcerated person. Black / Color Printing and Copying SEND A SASE FOR A FREE PRICE LIST AND MORE INFORMATION TO: LET MY FINGERS DO YOUR TYPING Sandra Z. Thomas (dba) P O Box 4178 Winter Park, Florida Phone: Special Offer: $2.00 off first order. Special offer void after: 12/31/2010 Special offer void after: 12/31/2014 over, she stated in May This does not make sense to me. This is all you do. Answer this: Why does the government get a pass? Hoffman had no answer. A deal was then struck for Winer and Buitrago to plead guilty to a lesser conspiracy charge; they were sentenced to 36 months in prison with two years pretrial credit, and subsequently released. Operation Seven Trumpets suffered other setbacks due to Hoffman s misconduct. Defendant Daniel Bustos had arranged to purchase inside information from another defendant in the drug case, Fabian Cruz, that he could use to testify against Winer and Buitrago in exchange for a lighter sentence. Hoffman had been prepared to let Bustos testify until the defense team uncovered the scheme and Judge Cooke ordered Hoffman to produce a letter, which she had not disclosed to the defense, indicating that Bustos was buying information from Cruz. Further, Hoffman was forced to drop charges against defendant Carlos Ortega-Bonilla on August 31, 2013 after investigators proved he was not a participant in the case, notwithstanding Hoffman s argument that she had a secret witness implicating him. Another defendant, William Gil- Perenguez, was also freed after a fellow prisoner, Neixi Garcia Lamela, told him DEA agents and Hoffman pressured me to implicate you, but I refused because I knew I would be fabricating testimony to implicate an innocent person. Federal judge Donald Graham later freed Gil-Perenguez after finding that he had been wrongly identified in wiretaps. Gil-Perenguez filed suit, but the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of his complaint because the claims arose in a foreign country. See: Gil-Perenguez v. United States, 49 Fed.Appx. 781 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied. Charges against two other Columbians, Luis Alfonso Rubiano Ramos and Jose Mejia Cortez, also were dismissed. In an unrelated earlier case involving an award of $601, in attorney fees and costs against the federal government, U.S. District Court Judge Alan S. Gold publicly reprimanded Hoffman and another prosecutor, Sean Paul Cronin, for acting vexatiously and in bad faith in prosecuting Dr. Ali Shaygan, who was acquitted of federal charges of overprescribing medications. These events are profoundly disturbing, wrote Judge Gold. They raise troubling issues about the integrity of those who wield enormous power over the people they prosecute... Our system of criminal justice cannot long survive unless prosecutors strictly adhere to their ethical obligations; avoid even the appearance of partiality, and directly obey discovery obligations and court orders. The public reprimands and award of fees and costs were later reversed by the Eleventh Circuit, which found the district court had violated Hoffman and Cronin s due process rights. See: United States v. Shaygan, 661 F.Supp.2d 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2009), vacated, 652 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2011), cert denied. Hoffman remains employed in the appellate division of the U.S. Attorney s office for the Southern District of Florida. Appellate Ruling in Lopez-Avila The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had strong words about prosecutorial misconduct in a criminal case involving Aurora Lopez-Avila, a Mexican national and low-level drug offender. The Assistant U.S. Attorney in that case, Jerry R. Albert, was found to have intentionally misrepresented testimony from a plea hearing during Lopez-Avila s trial. Circuit Judge Donald Walter told a news reporter that he was surprised to hear Albert was still a prosecutor, but apparently not surprised enough to do much about it even though he said Albert s conduct was the worst [he d] ever seen from an Assistant U.S. Attorney. The Court of Appeals issued an 12

13 amended decision after the U.S. Attorney s office asked the Court to remove Albert s name from its original ruling. In the amended opinion, the appellate court noted: The Department of Justice has an obligation to its lawyers and to the public to prevent prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors, as servants of the law, are subject to constraints and responsibilities that do not apply to other lawyers; they must serve truth and justice first. Their job is not just to win, but to win fairly, staying within the rules. That did not happen here... When a prosecutor steps over the boundaries of proper conduct and into unethical territory, the government has a duty to own up to it and to give assurances that it will not happen again. Yet, we cannot find a single hint of appreciation of the seriousness of the misconduct within the pages of the government s brief on appeal. (citations omitted). Regardless, it is not our task to conduct a thorough investigation of Albert s conduct for disciplinary purposes, the Ninth Circuit wrote. However, we do not need a record greater or different than we have here to determine that Albert should not have misrepresented the transcript s question. Accordingly, we are in a position to do three things to ensure that this matter is handled properly following this disposition: we remand the case to allow the district court to consider dismissal with prejudice of the indictment as an exercise of its supervisory powers and to prevent other misconduct in the future; we instruct the district court to consider disciplinary options also pursuant to its supervisory powers; and we note that the Office of Professional Responsibility within the Department of Justice has the responsibility of investigating allegations of misconduct by federal prosecutors. See: United States v. Lopez-Avila, 678 F.3d 955 (9 th Cir. 2012). Following remand, the district court dismissed all charges against Lopez-Avila. Noting that dismissal under the court s supervisory powers for prosecutorial misconduct requires (1) flagrant misbehavior and (2) substantial prejudice, the district court found dismissal was appropriate due to Albert s direct misrepresentation to the court. Albert subsequently received a reprimand from the state presiding disciplinary judge on June 17, 2013, and was assessed $1,200 for the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. He is no longer employed by the U.S. Attorney s office. New Orleans Prosecutors Resign U.S. District Court Judge Kurt Englehardt set aside the convictions of five New Orleans police officers involved in the infamous Danziger Bridge killings in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when officers shot and killed two unarmed citizens and wounded four others. The court took this action after it was revealed that prosecutors from the local U.S. Attorney s office and the Department of Justice s home office had attempted to create adverse pretrial publicity in the case, perhaps to contaminate the jury pool, through anonymous Internet postings. They had also leaked information about the case to the news media. One of the postings, for example, referred to New Orleans police officers as a collection of self-centered, self-interested, self-promoting, insular, arrogant, overweening, prevaricating, libidinous fools... who, when not having sex with each other, [are] beating, burning and abusing the citizens. Thank God for the Feds can you imagine Stamps for CASH! Great Goods will buy your stamps! 70% 65% 60% of Face Value: Complete books, sheets or sheets or rolls of Forever of Forever Stamps Stamps and Global Forever Stamps of Face Value: Complete books, sheets sheets, or rolls or rolls of 49-cent of 45-cent stamps stamps of Face Value: Complete books books or or sheets sheets of of high high denomination denomination stamps stamps (higher above than 49-cent) 45-cent Payment sent within 24 hours of receipt. We will send your funds as a money order, electronic payment to anywhere you designate. Great Goods can also send payment to an approved package vendor. Please provide complete name and address of where to send your funds. Also include any required forms or special instructions. MUST GREAT GOODS PO PO Box Box 399, 2027, West Bloomington Chesterfield IN NH STAMPS USPS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 13

14 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) ****7 DAY FREE TRIAL**** INMATE NEWS + SERVICES BOP INMATES - CORRLINKS USERS DAILY S + UPDATES ON SPORTS NEWS, MUSIC, ENTERTAINMENT - TV TONIGHT S MOVIE AND SPORTS GUIDE P.O. BOX SAN ANTONIO, TX New Orleans without a Federal presence? When it was discovered that some of the postings could have only come from the prosecution s files, Judge Englehardt took the extraordinary step of vacating the police officers convictions for civil rights violations on September 17, 2013 and granting a new trial. In a 129-page opinion, he wrote that the prosecutors had violated federal regulations, court rules, bar disciplinary rules and Department of Justice policies, and said the case had been compromised by grotesque prosecutorial misconduct. Judge Englehardt stated he would be referring the matter for disciplinary proceedings against the prosecutors and their superiors, demonstrating that at least some in the judiciary are concerned about misconduct. The prosecutors accused of the inappropriate online postings were senior litigation counsel Sal Perricone and AUSA Jan Mann. See: United States v. Bowen, 969 F.Supp.2d 546 (E.D. La. 2013). In December 2012, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten, who was in charge of the New Orleans office, resigned due to the scandal. On July 28, 2014, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held that Perricone (a former FBI agent) and Mann could no longer practice law in that court. Perricone has appealed the restriction, arguing that because he was on prescription medication at the time, he could not remember his inappropriate Internet comments. Mann and Perricone left the U.S. Attorney s office in 2012 and agreed not to practice in federal court in the Eastern District, which includes New Orleans; however, they are still able to practice in other federal districts. A Failed Disciplinary System Prosecutorial misconduct has become commonplace in our criminal justice system primarily because the disciplinary process purporting to address such violations is ineffectual and deeply flawed. In Connick, one of the Supreme Court s justifications for prohibiting most lawsuits against municipalities for prosecutorial misconduct was that the disciplining of rogue prosecutors is already being addressed. An attorney who violates his or her ethical obligations is subject to professional discipline, including sanctions, suspension, and disbarment, the Court stated. Yet while it s true that prosecutors are subject to professional discipline, the cases in which they are actually brought before disciplinary tribunals and sanctioned are exceedingly rare. In fact, some commentators assert that such discipline isn t really occurring at all. As noted above, of the thousands of documented cases where prosecutorial misconduct was found by the courts, only a fraction have resulted in disciplinary proceedings. Why does the disciplinary system fail to address prosecutorial misconduct in a meaningful way? The reasons are several. First, most bar associations and other agencies charged with attorney discipline do not usually initiate investigations themselves. Rather, aggrieved members of the public or others involved in the justice system file a formal complaint that may or may not result in an investigation. Public Complaint Process With respect to the public, complaints often come from those who claim to have been wronged by the prosecutor. The process for initiating complaints can be inconvenient and complex. For example, twelve states do not offer a complaint form that can be downloaded, printed and mailed. Only four states Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia allow the submission of complaints online. Kentucky and New Hampshire require that a complainant file a notarized statement. Several states go to great lengths to discourage complaints against attorneys, such as Georgia, which requires that a complainant first go through a mediation process. In other jurisdictions the complaint form itself can be complicated; adding to the confusion, the forms often are not designed for complaints against prosecutors, but rather intended for disputes between private attorneys and their clients. Many states have statutes of limitations for complaints, some computed from the time that an incident occurred even though prosecutorial misconduct, such as concealing evidence, may not be discovered for years or even decades. As one example, New Hampshire allows for only a two-year MARILEE MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW California State Bar Board of Specialization Certified Criminal Law and Appellate Law Specialist If you have a California case you need a California lawyer! (626) State and Federal Appeals and Writs, Lifer Parole Hearings and Related Writs 31 years of success 595 East Colorado Blvd Suite 324 Pasadena, CA 14

15 period computed from the date of the misconduct, making many, if not most, incidents of prosecutorial misconduct unchallengeable through the complaint process. While other states compute statutes of limitations from the time when the misconduct was discovered, some statutes can be confusing and conditional upon various timing events, as in North Carolina, where the statute of limitations for attorney misconduct is three years unless the violation involved felonious criminal conduct. Further, many states conduct disciplinary proceedings in secret, impose strict confidentiality on complainants and require preliminary investigations that dictate whether a complaint will proceed at all. Even when a violation is found, an investigation may be terminated as a matter of resource allocation. Florida advises the public that the investigation of a complaint frequently has deterrent value in and of itself, allowing for dismissal of complaints on that basis alone. This is equivalent to saying that criminal charges serve as a deterrent even if the charges are dropped and the accused set free. Notably, many states consider the complainant to be a witness to the disciplinary process and not a party, leaving no recourse to appeal an adverse finding or dismissal of a complaint. Twenty-three states do not afford a complainant the right to appeal the initial dismissal of a bar investigation. And if a complaint makes it through the preliminary proceedings, formal action before a disciplinary tribunal is conducted by the bar, leaving the complainant out of the process entirely. Further, the protracted length of formal proceedings can take its toll. In Louisiana, where John Thompson was victimized by prosecutorial misconduct, the average time between the filing of a complaint and the issuance of a decision is over three years. Government Oversight As for government watchdog agencies, notwithstanding statutory and regulatory duties to investigate prosecutorial misconduct, the culture tends to be restrictive and secretive. For example, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the U.S. Department of Justice s internal agency for attorney discipline, routinely refuses to release the names of prosecutors who have committed wrongdoing. The OPR has repeatedly ignored calls for more transparency, arguing that the Privacy Act of 1974 precludes the release of such information. OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out, said Jim E. Levine, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government s ability to police itself. [See: PLN, Aug. 2011, p.12]. According to the OPR s 2013 annual 15

16 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) report, the agency received 819 complaints that year and opened 126 investigations or inquiries. It also resolved 122 cases in 2013, which included complaints from previous years. Of the 122 investigations and inquiries closed in 2013, the vast majority were dismissed upon a finding of no merit to the allegations. Only 18 cases resulted in a finding of professional misconduct up from 14 in In March 2014, the Project on Government Oversight reported that over a 12-year period, from fiscal year 2002 through 2013, the OPR had documented 650 infractions committed by federal attorneys and other Department of Justice employees. More than 400 of those violations were considered serious, involving reckless disregard to or intentional violation of a law, rule or ethical standard. The OPR does not consider lesser infractions, such as exercising poor judgment and making mistakes, to constitute misconduct. Reporting by Defense Attorneys Relying on defense counsel to report prosecutorial misconduct has not resulted in consistent results, either. The disincentives are many. First, most misconduct proceedings related to criminal cases cannot begin until after the case has been resolved. At that time, a defense attorney s representation of his or her client is usually over, leaving the lawyer without compensation for the time and effort required to pursue a disciplinary complaint. Second, many defense attorneys are hesitant to file complaints against prosecutors they must deal with on a day-to-day basis, and who will be opposing them in future cases. This is especially true in rural areas, where making enemies in the only courthouse in town is not an attractive proposition. Lastly, with more than 90% of all criminal cases being resolved through plea bargains, when misconduct occurs it may be used as a bargaining chip during plea negotiations, precluding a formal complaint. In short, reliance on the defense bar to report prosecutorial misconduct is an inadequate means of oversight. Judicial Disciplinary Referrals Many judges, notwithstanding welldefined duties to report known incidents of misconduct, seem hesitant to report prosecutors for disciplinary proceedings as indicated by the relative dearth of disciplinary complaints filed by the judiciary. The fact that many judges are former prosecutors themselves may also be a contributing factor. Moreover, despite Judge Henry Floyd s complaint that something must be done about recurring wrongdoing by prosecutors, many judges seem content with allowing others to handle the dirty work of disciplinary complaints, vacating convictions when necessary due to the taint of misconduct but infrequently referring cases for disciplinary action. In its ruling in the Lopez-Avila case, while noting that various disciplinary options were available, the Ninth Circuit stated: [I]t is not our task to conduct a thorough investigation of [AUSA] Albert s conduct for disciplinary purposes, and We recognize that this court is not the proper venue for direct discipline of Albert, so we will not state here that the blow struck by him necessarily was one so foul as to require some form of official sanction. Further, judges may choose to focus on other issues in post-conviction appeals rather than allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. For example, in September 2014, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the murder conviction of Hannah Ruth Overton. Overton had been sentenced to life without parole for the death of her 4-year-old foster child, which was caused by hypernatremia (a salt overdose); on appeal she raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, the latter related to a Brady violation. In reversing Overton s conviction, the appellate court based its decision on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and, therefore, wrote there is no need for us to address the second issue of whether the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. In fact, the majority did not mention any details related to the Brady claims, though they were described in a concurring opinion. Judge Cathy Cochran, concurring, wrote that Overton s Brady claims included the alleged withholding of records showing the low sodium content of [the child s] vomit when he was brought to the Urgent Care Center... [and] the purported failure Serving You with Excellence Since 2009 Any time you refer a new customer and they sign up, you both get 300 free minutes! Some restrictions apply. Details upon request. We make it simple. You reach your loved ones by calling a local number. That s a lot cheaper than calling long distance. It s that simple! We charge $2.50 per month for the number. For Calls to anywhere in the U.S., we charge you 5 per minute Cancel anytime; any money left on the account is refunded Tell Your Folks to Sign Up at Or Mail: FreedomLine PO Box 7 - SCA Connersville, IN Also see our long-running Classified Ad in this and every issue FCC Reg. No

17 to disclose... medical records and knowledge that [the child] suffered from undiagnosed cognitive deficiencies that caused him to have temper tantrums, throw feces, and eat inappropriate items, such as salt. Judge Cochran also noted: At the habeas hearing, the lead prosecutor conceded that, during this 2007 trial, she was an alcoholic who was also taking prescription diet pills that affected her memory. She was later fired by the District Attorney... for unrelated ethical violations. During the habeas hearing, the prosecutor repeated seventy-two times that she did not recall or did not know the answers to questions concerning the investigation or trial of applicant. The prosecutor accused of misconduct in the case was not identified in the court s ruling. She was former assistant district attorney Sandra Eastwood. See: Ex parte Overton, 2014 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 971 (Tex.Crim.App. Sept. 17, 2014). Prosecutorial Self-Policing Relying on prosecutors to police themselves has not been successful. A 2013 white paper by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, titled An Epidemic of Prosecutor Misconduct, noted that prosecutor associations, such as the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), have failed to adequately address the issue of misconduct. The paper stated that A search of the NDAA website using the search terms prosecutorial misconduct or prosecutorial error fails to identify a single office, program, or even publication that is devoted to rectifying this problem. The same can be said of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), which in 2012 adopted a resolution urging courts, when reviewing the conduct of prosecutors, to differentiate between errors and prosecutorial misconduct, calling the latter a term of art in criminal law. Former federal prosecutor Mary Judge Darrow, fired from the North Carolina Eastern District office in 2004, later won $170,000 in a discrimination suit against her former employer. She said she had been criticized by her supervisor for giving too much discovery material to defense attorneys. For some reason, that was wrong, she stated. A few district attorneys offices have established Conviction Integrity Units (CIUs), also known as Conviction Review Units, to examine potential wrongful convictions, new evidence and allegations of misconduct. The first CIU was created in 2007 in Dallas County, Texas following a number of exonerations. Other units have been established in Houston, Texas; Santa Clara, California; Cook County, Illinois; Baltimore, Maryland; Wayne, Michigan; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Brooklyn and Manhattan in New York. The Manhattan CIU reportedly investigated 140 cases from 2010 to April 2014, re-examined at least a dozen of those cases and agreed to vacate three convictions. Some Conviction Integrity Units only review wrongful convictions after the fact, rather than trying to prevent them in the first place; others do not review cases where the defendant pleaded guilty, even though prosecutorial misconduct may have induced a guilty plea; and some lack public transparency. Plus, of course, such units are typically staffed and overseen by prosecutors, who review convictions obtained by their colleagues (clients only collect) Legal Services for California Inmates: APPEALS WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS Civil Litigation Catastrophic Injury Litigation Money Management Business Windup Contracts CIVIL RIGHTS-SECTION 1983-FEDERAL AND STATE APPEALS AND WRITS- ONLY COMPLEX AND UNIQUE CASES PRISON-TRANSFER-DISCIPLINE-VISITING-CLASSIFICATION-HOUSING PROP. 36 RE-SENTENCING-3 STRIKES-MEDICAL-PAROLE HEARINGS OUR CLIENTS GO HOME, HOW ABOUT YOU? Please submit a single page summary of your case. Due to the volume, we cannot return documents or respond to all inquires. We are not a low cost or pro bono law firm, but if you want results, write us. P.O. BOX FRESNO, CA

18 Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) Legislative Reforms There have been various legislative efforts to address prosecutorial misconduct. In May 2013, on the 50 th anniversary of the Brady decision, Texas lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1611, also known as the Michael Morton Act. The bill not only expands the discovery obligations of prosecutors in criminal cases, it takes the additional step of adopting the ethical rule standard of requiring Texas prosecutors to timely disclose all information that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment. The bill had the support of both the Texas District and County Attorneys Association and the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on May 16, It is hoped that codifying these requirements, instead of allowing prosecutors to simply interpret their Brady obligations and other legal precedents, will ensure the disclosure of exculpatory and mitigating evidence to defendants. The law provides a framework for defense attorneys to move for contempt citations, bar discipline and other sanctions. Texas also passed another bill as a result of Morton s wrongful conviction, the Prosecutor Accountability Act (Senate Bill 825), enacted in June 2013, which provides for at least some discipline when a prosecutor violates his or her ethical requirements. While relatively mild in its scope in some cases, public censure is the only sanction the bill is seen as a step in the right direction, which is more than most other states have done. At the federal level, there have been attempts to make the Brady disclosure rule a statutory requirement and otherwise address prosecutorial misconduct. In March 2012, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors introduced S.2197, the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act. The bill sought to clarify implementation of the Brady rule, and was the culmination of a lengthy fight by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) to codify Brady s requirements and correct two important misunderstandings of the Brady rule. First, that favorable evidence and not merely exculpatory evidence is required to be disclosed under Brady.At least in the federal courts, prosecutors would have to turn over anything favorable to the defense whether or not it is exculpatory. Such statutory language would, according to NACDL, require agencies like the Department of Justice to change its focus to evidence that, in the words of the proposed bill, may reasonably appear to be favorable to the defendant. Second, the Act would help to abandon the materiality requirement for Brady evidence applied by many prosecutors. As indicated in Connick and other decisions, some prosecutors take it upon themselves to weigh the relative evidentiary value (materiality) of disclosable information when deciding whether or not to provide it to the defense. Third, the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act would cover all information favorable to the accused without regard to the prospective admissibility of that information. Brady itself involved only a sentencing proceeding where the rules of evidence generally do not apply. Fourth, the Act would require disclosure of favorable material without delay after arraignment and before the entry of any guilty plea. Later-discovered material must be disclosed as soon as is reasonably practicable. No triggering demand by defense counsel is required. The Act would supersede any timing provisions for other disclosures, such as the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, which allows prosecutors to withhold Brady material contained in the statements of a witness until the witness has completed his or her direct examination. Further, the Act would allow for the recovery of costs and other appropriate remedies from the prosecution upon a finding of non-compliance with discovery obligations, irrespective of the outcome of the case. While the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act died in committee at the end of the 112th Congress, it may be reintroduced in future sessions. In March 2014 Senator Murkowski introduced the Inspector General Empowerment Act (S.2127), which would move investigations involving misconduct by DOJ attorneys and law enforcement personnel from the Office of Professional (Void in New York) Somers, CT.) 18

19 Responsibility to the Office of the Inspector General. Attorney General Holder has expressed opposition to the bill, preferring to keep prosecutorial misconduct investigations at the OPR. Remedial Recommendations There are no easy fixes that will change the tacit, and sometimes not-sotacit, tolerance of prosecutorial misconduct in our nation s criminal justice system. However, recent efforts to identify and prevent such violations have at least paved the way for additional reforms. Statutory Solutions Legislative efforts like those in Texas, and proposed in Congress, are perhaps the most significant steps that can be taken to address issues related to Brady violations and other prosecutorial misconduct. As a 50-year series of Supreme Court decisions has done little to change the culture of resistance to constitutional evidence disclosure standards, compliance needs to be mandated by statute. Undoubtedly, such efforts will be met with opposition by district attorney associations and law enforcement groups, but the reality is that decades of allowing prosecutors to make evidence disclosure decisions based on their own standards and internal policies, and to self-police those disclosures, has been a failure. Adopting uniform disclosure obligations via statutory provisions will ensure that all parties involved in criminal proceedings have concrete expectations with respect to disclosure of evidence, which will allow for a more streamlined review process when violations occur. Likewise, mandatory reporting of prosecutorial misconduct should be required by statute and not solely addressed through professional standards, which lack the force of law and statutorily-imposed penalties. In May 2014, New York lawmakers introduced a bill that would create an independent state watchdog commission on prosecutorial conduct, to review allegations of misconduct and impose discipline when ethical violations are found. I think it would be helpful to both prosecutors and the public to have more confidence in the system, said Senator John DeFrancisco, the bill s sponsor. The legislation, S6286A-2013, remains pending in committee. Other states would do well to consider a similar approach. Open File Discovery Rules Perhaps the fastest way to address the problem of prosecutorial non-compliance with evidence disclosure obligations is the widespread adoption of an open file discovery process. In some jurisdictions, district attorneys offices simply open their files so defense counsel can examine all of the evidence and information in a case. While the potential for abuse still exists in open file discovery there are numerous cases in which unscrupulous prosecutors have withheld evidence most observers agree that open file discovery is more effective than leaving it to individual prosecutors to make subjective Brady assessments. Education on Ethical Obligations In its Connick decision, the Supreme Court s rationale for requiring a pattern of misconduct to prove a failure-to-train claim as a means of imposing municipal liability included a reference to the law school education, bar examinations and professional Save on Prescription Eyeglasses & Shades Send for a FREE Catalog Money Back Guarantee Prism Optical, Inc NW 7th Ave Dept: LN1114 LN0812 Miami, FL Inquiries from Friends and Family Welcome Since 1959 BRANLETTES BEAUTIES OUR SIMPLE POLICIES: SPECIAL REQUESTS ARE NOT PERMITED AND ALL MODELS ARE OF LEGAL AGE (BOP-FRIENDLY). DUE TO TREMENDOUS TIME AND COST ANSWERING LETTERS, UNLESS YOU ARE PLACING AN ORDER OR A QUESTION REGARDING YOUR ORDER, WE WILL NOT REPLY TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. Save on Prescription Eyeglasses & Shades SASE ARE REQUIRED FOR ANY INQURIES OR CONCERNS! YOU AND YOU ALONG ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SELECTIONS BEING ALLOWED INTO YOUR FACILITY: KNOW YOUR INSTITUTIONS POLICIES AS TO WHAT IMAGE CONTENT IS ALLOWED. RETURNED ORDERS ARE NON-REFUNDABLE. THEY WILL BE HELD FOR 14 CALENDAR DAYS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO SEND Send SELF-ADDRESSED for a FREE STAMPED; 3 FIRST Catalog CLASS STAMPS PER ENVELOPE, WITH A STREET ADDRESS FOR EVERY 20 PICTURES. ALL RETURNED IMAGES HELD AFTER TWO WEEKS WILL BE RE- Money Back SOLD AND Guarantee WE WILL RETURN TO OUR STOCK. ALL PAYMENTS ARE BY INSTITUTIONAL CHEACKS OR U.S. POSTAL SERVICE OR WESTERN UNION MONEY ORDERS. Prism Optical, Inc NW 7th Ave Dept: LN0812 Miami, FL THESE PAYMENTS ARE PROCESSED IMMEDIATELY AND SHIPPED IN LESS THAN 3-4 WEEKS. ANY OTHER COMPANY MONEY ORDERS DELAY SHIPMENT 8-10 WEEKS OR UNTIL THAT MONEY CLEARS OUR BANK. YES, WE DEAL WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE, WHILE IN PRISON, STILL TRYING NICKEL AND DIME SCAMS... ALL SALES ARE FINAL! EACH CATALOG HAS 84 GORGEOUS LADIES TO CHOOSE FROM HIGH QUALITY PRINTS ON 4X6 GLOSSY PHOTO PAPER OUR PRICES ARE SIMPLE: SHIPPING & HANDLING: Inquiries from Friends PHOTOS and Family = 0.45 CENTS Welcome EACH PHOTOS = 20% DISCOUNT 1-9 CATALOGS : $3.00 EACH ( +SASE ) 10 CATALOGS: $25.00+SASE (4 STAMPS ) BRANLETTES BEAUTIES SELECT YOUR FAVORITE: WHITE CATALOGS (60 VOLUMES) BLACK CATALOGS (60 VOLUMES) ASIAN&LATINO CATALOGS (60 VOLUMES) PLEASE STATE WHAT STYLE PHOTOS S: PROVOCATIVE POSES Since OR 1959 NUDE DUE TO VARIOUS PRISON POLICIES REGARDING HOW MANY PICTURES CAN BE SENT IN ONE ENVELOPE, OUR POLICY IS AS FOLLOWS: 01-5 PHOTOS----$1.00 PER ENVELOPE PHOTOS---$1.50 PER ENVELOPE PHOTOS $2.00 PER ENVELOPE FREE CATALOG??? YOU READ IT RIGHT! JUST SEND US TWO U.S. FOREVER STAMPS AND A SELF ADDRESSED SELF ENVELOPE AND WE WILL SEND TO YOU ONE NUDE OR BOP-FRIENDLY SAMPLE CATALOG (1 PER CUSTOMER) WITH 84 GORGEOUS GIRLS IN FULL COLOR. ACT NOW AS THIS OFFER WILL NOT BE AROUND LONG!! BRANLETTES BREATHLESS BEAUTIES BAG A RANDOM SELECTION OF 50 OF THE RARE AND EXOTIC ***YES, FIFTY BEAUTIES ALL POSING JUST FOR YOU!*** PLUS TWO OF OUR FINEST COLOUR CATALOGS ONLY $19.95 DID YOU READ THAT RIGHT??? ***$19.95???*** YES, ONLY $19.95 FOR 50 0F BRANLETTES BREATHLESS BEAUTIES (PLEASE SPECIFY NUDE OR BOP-FRIENDLY) +++PLUS+++ TWO OF OUR FINEST COLOUR CATALOGS FREE (YOU PICK A VOLUMES) OUR REGULAR SHIPPING AND HANDLING POLICIES APPLY. Save on Prescription Eyeglasses & Shades Send for a FREE Catalog Money Back Guarantee Prism Optical, Inc NW 7th Ave Dept: LN0812 Miami, FL Inquiries from Friends and Family Welcome BRANLETTES P.O.BOX 5765 BALTIMORE, MD Since

20 ACCREDITED BUSINESS Prosecutorial Misconduct (cont.) training that all attorneys are presumed to have received. Sadly, the Court s reliance on such education and training appears misplaced. Indeed, some law schools do not even require criminal procedure as mandatory coursework. The Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, where the Connick case originated, requires students to take Criminal Law. However, the Constitutional Criminal Procedure course at the school is an elective. In no area of the law does an individual attorney have more effect on other peoples lives than in the role of prosecutor, and it is therefore essential to ensure that prosecutors receive sufficient training on their professional and ethical obligations. For those who claim that prosecutors already receive education and training in those areas, it is apparent from the examples of misconduct cited in this article that the current syllabus is inadequate. Methods to implement such a requirement include via bar certifications to NEW FRIENDS, HIGHER EDUCATION, AND EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING UPON RELEASE THROUGH WRITEAPRISONER.COM PROFILES SContact & tart Looking Forward To Mail Call! AS SEEN ON CNN, 20/20, Fox News, Dr. Phil, O Magazine, E! True Hollywood, and hundreds more! Simply the largest, highest ranked, & most visited website of its kind!* Pen-pal Profiles are affordably priced at $40 for the first year, $30 for renewing year Features a comprehensive search that allows viewers to find your profile by age, race, location, keywords, & more - 32 search options in all Your new friends can their first message to you along with a photo Advertises non-stop on every major search engine with thousands of websites linking back to us Offers free Reintegration Profiles for inmates seeking employment and housing upon release and education during incarceration Translated into 51 languages & geared for international search engines Viewers can "subscribe" to your profile to be notified when your profile is updated, blog is added, artwork is posted, poetry is added, your release is near & much more Pen-pals have the option of helping you with a broad range of topics using BBB R practice as a prosecutor, or through statutory provisions or local court rules. Greater Transparency The practice of keeping attorney disciplinary proceedings secret is perhaps the greatest barrier to improving the accuracy and fairness of and public confidence in our nation s criminal justice system. In no other area of public service is there such a lack of transparency. This institutional secrecy extends to the judiciary, as many court rulings that address prosecutorial misconduct purposefully do not mention the name of the prosecutor involved. United States v. Olsen, for example, in which Chief Judge Alex Kozinski voiced a strongly-worded dissent, involved allegations that a federal prosecutor had failed to disclose that a forensic analyst who handled evidence in the case was under investigation for misconduct which had already resulted in three wrongful convictions. Yet the Ninth Circuit s ruling never identified the prosecutor Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Hicks. It is perhaps ironic that those who run for public office are often required to disclose detailed information about their personal life, Get Started Today! Friends & family can submit your entire 250 word profile, photo, and payment for you online by visiting Or for a FREE Brochure, Send a S.A.S.E. to: PO Box 10- PLN Edgewater, FL USA Proud member of the Better Business Bureau of Central Florida & the Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce. *Our website traffic can be independently verified at finances and potential conflicts of interest, yet when it comes to prosecutors who engage in misconduct, such violations of the public trust are deemed too sensitive to reveal to the public. Requirements to disclose prosecutorial wrongdoing can only improve the public s trust and faith in the justice system. After all, the transgressions of criminal defendants are public record; why should violations by those who prosecute them be any less transparent? Disciplinary proceedings need to be open to the public, which in itself would provide a deterrent effect to prosecutorial misconduct. Many state bar disciplinary boards also impose private sanctions that are not publicly reported, such as private reprimands or admonishments, which are insignificant punishments. Additionally, in order to promote transparency, agencies that handle complaints involving prosecutors should be independent and not under the authority of the district attorney s office or U.S. Attorney s office on the state and federal levels, respectively. As stated in the 2011 Yale Law Journal Online article on prosecutorial misconduct: The lack of any external oversight of prosecutors offices creates an environment in which misconduct can go undetected and undeterred. Motions for Ethical Disclosures As mentioned above, there appears to be little downside in promoting a campaign for defense attorneys to file pretrial motions asking courts to require prosecutors to confirm their compliance with ethical and regulatory obligations. One critic of the current system that fails to adequately address prosecutorial Know What s Good On TV With s free Self-Help Series Daily schedules for over 120 channels Weekly TV best bets Over 3,000 movie listings TV Crossword, Sudoku, celebrity interviews and more 1 Year (12 issues) for just $35 Mail your $35 check or money order payable to Channel Guide Magazine to: Channel Guide Magazine AAKPLNG PO Box 8501, Big Sandy, TX Include your name, ID number and address. Or call or ad_1014.indd 1 9/10/14 2:34 PM