TIME: Power Outrage

[question everything]

Thursday, Jul. 26, 2007
Power Outrage
By Reynolds Holding

(snip)

The power, if not the arrogance, of prosecutors would grate on Angela Davis throughout her 12 years at the D.C. Public Defender Service, three as its director. Now a law professor at American University, she has made a mission of exposing that power--on radio and TV and in a new book, Arbitrary Justice--with hopes of reining it in. Her task, lonely at first, has gained support since North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong lost his job and his law license for hiding evidence in the now defunct rape case against Duke lacrosse players. (On July 26 he is scheduled to face charges of lying in court.) In October, Davis will lead a national conference on prosecutorial power, sponsored by the esteemed (at least by liberal bigwigs) American Constitution Society.

(snip)

When prosecutors pick which criminal charges to file, they need have only probable cause, or reasonable belief that the suspect committed the crimes charged. This low standard creates room to pile on the most severe charges possible to bully a defendant into a plea bargain. If a case ends up going before a jury, the prosecutor would have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. So why give him the chance, Davis argues, to "intimidate, harass or coerce a guilty plea" with charges he knows he cannot prove at trial? Davis would bump the probable-cause standard to something requiring more certainty.

The Constitution requires a grand jury to indict a suspect before he can be tried for a federal felony, and about half the states have a similar setup. This panel of ordinary people is supposed to check the prosecutor's power by making him present a preliminary case in a kind of minitrial, though one without a defense attorney. But because the prosecutor gets to decide which witnesses to call and which questions to ask, Davis wants to make the process less one-sided by requiring prosecutors to tell jurors about evidence that helps the suspect.

The vast majority of defendants cut deals because fighting charges at trial can result in much longer sentences. Prosecutors and public defenders like to settle cases too, given their massive caseloads. But prosecutors generally hold all the cards: in a case's early stages, a defendant rarely knows how strong the evidence is against him. And the mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes give prosecutors a clearly defined punishment to hold over a defendant's head. That is the reason Davis wants to make prosecutors open their files before offering a deal. "Their job, after all, is not to win but to see that justice is done," she says.

As Davis advocates putting these new rules in legal-ethics codes enforced by state bars, prosecutors argue that such changes would tie their hands unnecessarily. But some prosecutors are at least willing to open themselves to scrutiny. In places like Milwaukee, San Diego and Charlotte, N.C., they are letting the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice examine their charging decisions and plea-bargain offers for discrepancies in how black and white suspects are treated. The three-year study will go through 2008, and these offices have promised to use the results to make their practices fairer. It's a significant start and one Davis hopes will prod other prosecutors to move in the same direction. But if it doesn't, there's still the power of fear. After all, she says, "nobody wants to be the next Mike Nifong."


* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647456,00.html

[autorank]

1. K*R...things must be really bad when Time features Angele Davis.

Thanks, I needed that.

[Kagemusha]

2. The Nifong crack is gratuitous

What Nifong did was conspire with the head of a DNA lab to not hand over exculpatory DNA evidence to the defense, and claim that there was no evidence to turn over. That's a big difference, exculpatory vs. how strong evidence of guilt is. It's the difference between cards close to the vest and misconduct as an officer of the court.

[pnwmom]

3. I don't think so. The Duke defendants were lucky that a few years

ago, North Carolina changed to an "open discovery" law, which required that the prosecution turn over all of its evidence. One of the reasons Nifong is in trouble now is that he did not.

But in many parts of the country there is no open discovery law -- and in the face of a prosecutor like Nifong, defendants would have even less of a chance. As it is, the Duke defendants' own lawyer said recently that much of the reason for winning when they did simply came down to LUCK. The system was rigged against them, and Nifong took full advantage of that. How much worse it is, obviously, for defendants without the caliber of attorneys that the Duke students had.

[Kagemusha]

4. My point is that you don't become a Nifong by accident.

You do it by conscious design. It's not as if Nifong didn't know the law.

I'm all for open discovery when it comes to crucial hard scientific evidence like this. Inconclusive results are one thing. Exculpatory... well that's just unjust, not to reveal that.