Davis 1

Frank Davis

Prof. Schindler

English 1201-01

15 December 2019

Why Should Prosecutors Be Charged for Falsely Convicting Innocent People?

With all the false convictions that have happened throughout the years, Prosecutors

should be charged for falsely convicting innocent people. It seems like all the exonerated people

have not gotten any justice for the false allegations. The false convictions are due to prosecutors

doing whatever they can to win their case. A multimillion-dollar award is not even enough to

make up for the time that the accused defendants have lost. The way prosecutors win their cases

can vary from several areas. One of the reasons they should be charged is because they convict

innocent people due to witness statements that are false. Sometimes witnesses will make things

up. Another reason is due to lack of evidence by the prosecution team. There are times where it

is due to law enforcement or lawyers hiding evidence that is very valuable. Another reason is

because some people get convicted based on their ethnic background. Prosecutors seem to use

that against defendants in the courtroom. A very big reason why I think prosecutors should be

charged is due to defendants being forced to make a false statement to have a case built against

them. Prosecutors past and present refuse to acknowledge that they convicted the wrong person.

There are a lot of dirty prosecutors who like to ignore evidence that will dismiss charges

against a defendant that is not guilty of the crimes. In an article of The New York Times, “Robert

Jones, right, wrongly convicted of a 1992 kidnapping and rape in New Orleans, spent more than

23 years in jail before being cleared of those crimes and a murder he did not commit (Wines).”
 Davis 2

“In the robbery, kidnapping and rape that began in the French Quarter of New Orleans on April

6, 1992, much of the evidence pointed to a man named Lester Jones (Wines). He fit the

description of the attacker down to his round-rimmed glasses (Wines). His car looked like the

perpetrator’s (Wines). The rape took place near the housing project where he lived (Wines). And

after the police arrested him on suspicion of other crimes in the French Quarter that same month,

they found jewelry from the robbery in his possession (Wines). Yet the Orleans Parish district

attorney’s office chose to arrest a different man, 19-year-old Robert Jones – no relation – for the

crime (Wines). Mr. Jones not only was convicted but spend more than 23 years in jail before

being cleared of those crimes and a murder he did not commit (Wines). On Tuesday, Mr. Jones

sued, charging that prosecutors had deliberately and repeatedly covered up evidence that would

have undermined the case against him (Wines). More than that, he charged that he was neither

the first nor the last victim of such treatment – that prosecutors had an unwritten policy of

hobbling the legal defenses of accused citizens without their knowledge (Wines).” In the article

“Why do prosecutors go after innocent people,” John Pfaff states that “Clearly, prosecutors do

file charges against innocent defendants.” “The instances that receive media attention tend to be

intentionally wrongful, those were the evidence of innocence of is overwhelming but

prosecutors’ storm ahead anyway, out of malice or blind ambition. “But I bet most wrongful

convictions aren’t the product of such decisions (Pfaff). Prosecutors generally deal with

ambiguous cases (Pfaff). What incentives do they face, when acting in good faith, to err on the

side of “safety” and file charges vs. erring on the side of “caution” and dropping the case?(Pfaff)

Locally elected prosecutors surely do think about innocence, and not just because they don’t

want a wrongful conviction scandal to derail a reelection campaign, but there aren’t many

restrictions keeping them from filing charges beyond increasingly weakened trial protections and
 Davis 3

personal ethics(Pfaff). Prosecution in the United States is a highly local affair. Almost all

criminal cases are handled by one of the nation’s approximately 2.400 prosecutor offices, and in

46 states these prosecutors are elected in county-level elections (Pfaff). While prosecutors almost

always win their reelection campaigns and often run unopposed, electoral victory isn’t

guaranteed. Data indicate that prosecutors running for reelection win 95 percent of the time, but

only 69 percent of the time when facing opposition (although that rate rises to almost 80% in

larger districts) (Pfaff). And several people have reminded Pfaff that prosecutors are political

creatures, and thus they are sensitive to electoral pressures even when victory seems assured

(Pfaff).” On Pfaff’s article, weakened trials are a good indication on why prosecutors choose to

go after innocent people. If prosecutors see a trial that is not strong enough to prove a person’s

innocence, they will use that to their advantage the first chance they get. I believe the reason they

do that is because they know the defendant’s attorney cannot gather enough evidence. The

stronger attorneys are always able to uncover information that was never reported by either the

police or the lawyers. I feel that assigning more experienced attorneys to high crime cases will

decrease the number of false convictions. They will be able to find evidence that the prosecution

team refuses present during a trial.

It is possible that the prosecutors are trying to make sure that they do not leave a suspect

out. So instead of charging one, they will go ahead and charge the other to prevent any danger

from other citizens in public (English). “In order to carry out their distinct duty to “seek justice,”

prosecutors possess a dual role as both an advocate and a “minister of justice (English).” While

this dual role is nowhere clearly defined is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided

upon the basis of sufficient evidence (English).” Trying to balance the quasi-judicial role of

protecting the innocent and the advocate’s role of pursuing convictions can be a difficult task
 Davis 4

(English). “In fact, one former prosecutor candidly described the attempt to satisfy this dual role

as “ongoing schizophrenia (English).” Faced with these seemingly conflicting roles, prosecutors

must determine which role takes priority in each situation (English). For example, when

prosecutors evaluate cases for prosecution, they exercise their quasi-judicial role as “ministers of

justice (English).” At trial, however, while not losing sight of their ongoing obligation to

administer justice, prosecutors assume the role of zealous advocates in pursuit of convictions

(English). The Supreme Court confirmed the need for prosecutors to act as zealous advocates in

Marshall v Jerrico, Inc. (English). The Marshall Court held that prosecutors “need not be entirely

neutral and detached.” Rather, the Court noted that adversary system, are necessarily permitted

to be zealous in their enforcement of the law (English).” Nowhere is the unique role of

prosecutors more apparent than at trial. Like their dual role and their “seek justice” admonition,

prosecutors’ trial obligations differ significantly form those of other lawyers. Indeed, American

criminal procedure provides defendants with substantial protections to ensure that innocent

people are not convicted (English). It seems to me that the American criminal procedure does not

provide defendants with enough substantial protections. If they were, the rate of wrongful

convictions would not keep increasing. Majority of the time, convicting too many people is

hurting whoever is innocent in a certain matter. We have to understand if the real suspect

confesses, that they are responsible alone, that should be clear evidence that the other defendants

were not guilty.

Race is a very big reason why there are wrongful convictions. In the article “Race

Contributes to Wrongful Convictions,” Cassandra Stubbs explains how an unusual collection of

advocates, exonerated men and a crime victim gathered this week in Raleigh, North Carolina, to

highlight the role that race plays in wrongful convictions (Stubbs). The group file an amicus brief
 Davis 5

in the case of Melvin White, and African American death row inmate in North Carolina who

maintains his innocence and has filed a claim under North Carolina’s historic Racial Justice Act

(Stubbs). As the brief recounts, African American defendants are more likely to be wrongfully

convicted of crimes punishable by death (Stubbs). In North Carolina, six of the seven exonerated

death row inmates were people of color (Stubbs). The last three men exonerated from death row

in North Carolina were all African American including ACLU client Bo Jones (Stubbs). The

majority of nationwide death row exoneration are all also disproportionately people of color

(Stubbs).

From an opposing viewpoint, not all ethnic codes are the same. The inconsistencies

between the ethical rules of different states give federal regulators essentially two options

(Tennis). “First, federal regulators could simply tolerate a certain degree of inconsistency and

insensitivity to federal interests—an unpalatable option. In the alternative, federal bodies must

adopt a sweeping preemptive code, which would replicate my proposal in effect if not in

structure, thus undermining the clear preference for local control that lay behind the proposals in

this Section in the first place (Tennis). The question of the ethical distinction between state and

federal prosecutors, though it has implicitly lurked beneath past debate on the substance of

federal regulations and the appropriate locus of regulatory authority, has only recently begun to

receive scholarly attention (Tennis). There is no reason to think that the mandate to seek justice,

the basic ethical aspiration from which more detailed ethical detailed regulations for prosecutors

are derived, would apply with either greater or lesser force in the federal context (Tennis).

Abstract ethical constraints, derived directly from the universal mandate that prosecutors see that

justice is done without reference to a particular enforcement and prosecution regime—such as a

duty for a prosecutor to prevent the conviction of the innocent as vigorously as he seeks to
 Davis 6

convict the guilty—apply equally to federal and state prosecutors (Tennis). Regulators may find

that state and federal prosecutors should be subject to different ethical constraints (Tennis). Since

federal prosecutors appear exclusively before federal courts, the creation of a national code of

legal ethics for federal prosecutors allows the government interest in uniform administration of

federal law to be satisfied to without disturbing the existing regulatory regime for any other

group of lawyers (Tennis). A national code tailored specifically to federal prosecutors would

allow regulators to take the distinct interests of federal prosecutors into account without directly

disturbing the ethical regulation of other classes of lawyers (Tennis). It would help to ensure

consistent criminal enforcement across jurisdictions. Consistent ethical regulation requires that

each aspect of a prosecutor’s conduct be regulated by only one authority (Tennis). However, the

creation and enforcement of rules have always been divided among multiple authorities: federal

prosecutors might find themselves subject to disciplinary action by their departmental superiors,

federal courts, or state bar associations (Tennis). Practicing prosecutors and those who interact

with them regularly, such as judges or other DOJ attorneys, are in a considerably better position

to accurately predict the impact of a given ethical provision (Tennis). The candidate with the

strongest claim to expertise in the intricacies of federal prosecution is the Department of Justice

itself (Tennis). There are certainly benefits to developing an ethical code via administrative

rulemaking overseen by the Department of Justice (Tennis). Given both the flexibility and broad

solicitation of stakeholder input typical of administrative rulemaking, as well as the Department

of Justice’s considerable experience with federal criminal enforcement, such a code is likely to

be highly detailed and to take account of the unique requirements of prosecuting federal crimes

(Tennis).” From my understanding, all ethnic codes should have the same regulations and

standards. Having ethnic codes remain different will only continue to create chaos in the justice
 Davis 7

system. An African American should be given the same treatment as a white person in the

community. Just because someone is of color does not mean they are guilty of a crime. And just

because a person is of non-color does not mean they are innocent. That is the biggest problem in

our justice system today. Prosecutors look to convict mostly based on color of skin. If nobody

does not see that this is still a problem, then we should think back on the time when George

Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman for walking

while wearing a hood. When Zimmerman went to trial, he was found not guilty in the court

room. I feel that if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were each other’s opposing racial

backgrounds, there would have been a conviction.

We live in a world where prosecutors are more than willing to believe what a witness

says. Why do we always tend to believe the witness? You never know when they are telling the

truth and when they are making up a lie. Even Radley Balko believes that we should take the

defendants testimony into questioning so that pieces fit the puzzle. He gives a brief explanation

in his article “Are prosecutors obligated to believe the evidence they present at trial?” “At the

very least, we should expect them not only to refrain from forth evidence they know to be false

but also to exercise some due diligence to ensure that everything they tell jurors is true (Balko).

As it turns out, that just isn’t the case (Balko). Two recent stories at the Marshall Project

illustrate the problem. The first, from Andrew Cohen, concerns Paysun Long, an Illinois man

convicted for a 2001 murder at a housing development in Peoria (Balko). There was no physical

evidence linking Long to the crime, only the testimony of four eyewitnesses, two of whom later

recanted (Balko). Incredibly, prosecutors showed jurors video of the two recanting eyewitnesses’

original claims, without telling them that those witnesses had since changed their stories (Balko).

The defense then had to call those witnesses so that the jury could hear their recantations
 Davis 8

(Balko). Long’s first conviction was later overturned because a prosecutor told the jury that the

recanting witnesses had done so out of fear, which wasn’t true. At the second trial, it was more

of the same (Balko). Prosecutors again showed jurors video of the recanting witnesses’

testimony, and again refused to tell them they had recanted (Balko). One of the recanting

witnesses changed her story again, this time implicating Long (Balko). She then lied on the

witness stand, claiming she never said at Long’s first trial that she had recanted (Balko). In short,

prosecutors allowed the jury to hear evidence they knew was false or misleading and simply left

it to Long’s defense attorneys to correct the record. As Cohen points out, there’s plenty of

precedent laying out a prosecutor’s obligation to correct witnesses who give false statements

(Balko). But that precedent has no enforcement mechanism. And if the courts don’t want to

enforce it, a defendant is out of luck (Balko).” It can only mean two reasons why prosecutors

will leave evidence out. They either think that the lawyer for the defense does not have any proof

of what happened, or they feel that it is their best chance of winning the case. That shows how

dirty a lot of lawyers can be when they want a conviction. But a witness can easily get charged

for making a false statement. A witness in court is automatically under oath when making a

statement.

Even after all the investigating, prosecutors will still believe that the exonerations were a

misunderstanding. I think it is due to them wanting to prove that their allegations were true all

along. Whether they were true or not, it is all likely to catch up to them. One prosecutor that

continues to stick to her claims is Linda Fairstein. Fairstein was one of the prosecutors for the

Central Park Five case. Kate Storey explains in her article “When They See Us Sparked a

Boycott Against Central Park Five Prosecutor Linda Fairstein” how Fairstein’s actions finally

caught up with her. “The hashtag #CancelLindaFairstein has led to the prosecutor-turned-
 Davis 9

novelist to be dropped by her book publisher, literary agency, and to step down from the boards

of various nonprofits (Storey). In the first episode of the Netflix mini-series When They See Us,

New York prosecutor Linda Fairstein, played by Felicity Huffman, sits in front of a map of

Central Park as five teenage boys sit in the precinct (Storey). After a woman was brutally raped

in the park, the authorities brought in those who they believed were in the vicinity (Storey). But

in a key scene about halfway through the episode, the focus of the conversation with Kevin

Richardson, 15, Raymond Santana, 14, Antron McCray, 15, Yusef Salaam, 15, and Korey Wise,

16, changed (Storey). ““All this is happening in the park and it’s not connected (Storey)?”” the

Fairstein character says, looking at the times in which the boys were apparently in the park

(Storey).” ““They’re not witnesses. They’re suspects (Storey).”” Though there was no physical

evidence to tie the boys to the crime, the mini-series depicts Fairstein of being immediately

convinced of their guilt (Storey). The interrogations Fairstein oversaw led to four of the five boys

falsely confessing to the crime, resulting in lengthy prison sentences—until 2002 when a man

named Matias Reyes confessed to the rape and his DNA supported his confession (Storey).

Richardson, Santana, McCray, Salaam, and Wise were exonerated (Storey). After 3 decades of

service, Fairstein left the D.A.’s office and focused on writing novels (Storey). Fairstein has

continued to defend her work on the Central Park jogger case (Storey). In fact, after Reyes

confessed to the crimes and DNA supported his confession, Fairstein told the New Yorker, “” I

think Reyes ran with that pack of kids. He stayed longer when the others moved on (Storey). He

completed the assault (Storey). I don’t think there is a question in the minds of anyone present

during the interrogation process that these five men were participants, not only in the other

attacks that night but in the attack on the jogger (Storey).”” The men and their lawyers have

fiercely denied any involvement, and they were awarded a $41 million settlement from the city
 Davis 10

of New York in 2014 (Storey). Just last year, Fairstein defended the prosecution, writing in the

New York Law Journal: The confessions were not coerced … The questioning was respectful,

dignified, carried out according to the letter of the law and with sensitivity to the young age of

the men (Storey).” When I mentioned actions coming back on you, Storey gave a good example

with Fairstein’s situation. “In 2018, the Mystery Writers of America awarded her their

prestigious Grand Master title, a lifetime achievement award (Storey). But just two days later,

the group rescinded the award for the first time after the decision was met with fierce backlash

from other authors of Fairstein’s involvement in the so-called Central Park Five case (Storey).

Writer Attica Locke tweeted: ““As a member and 2018 Edgar winner, I am begging you to

reconsider having Linda Fairstein serve as a Grand Master in next year’s awards ceremony

(Storey). She is almost singlehandedly responsible for the wrongful incarceration of the Central

Park Five (Storey).”” Personally, I have watched the film series “Whey They See Us.” One of

the things I noticed is that they questioned Yusef Salaam without a parent or guardian present.

He was only 15. The required age to be questioned without a legal guardian present was 16. And

Korey Wise was the only 16-year-old out of the five.

To conclude, it all starts with the police when knowing what the prosecutors were given

as evidence. Prosecutors hide evidence when they know they have it. There are a few times that

they are unaware of some evidence that is missing. They want to protect the citizens that could

be possible victims. That becomes their biggest reason for trying convict anybody that was

present when a crime happened. When it comes down to race, different ethnic regulations give

prosecutors their own rules for the court proceedings. If a person says over and over that they did

not commit the crime, there is no reason why they should be pressured into giving law

enforcement a false answer. Sooner or later, the truth will come out.
 Davis 11

Work Cited

Balko, Radley “Are prosecutors obligated to believe the evidence they present at trial?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/11/09/are-prosecutors-obligated-to-

believe-the-evidence-they-present-at-trial/

English, Michael “A Prosecutor’s Use of Inconsistent Factual Theories of a Crimes in Successive

Trials: Zealous Advocacy or a Due Process Violation?”

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?&httpsredir=1&article=3607&context=flr

Plaff, John “Why do prosecutors go after innocent people?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/21/why-do-prosecutors-go-after-

innocent-people/

Storey, Kate “When They See Us Sparked a Boycott Against Central Park Five Prosecutor Linda

Fairstein”

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27699384/linda-fairstein-netflix-when-they-see-us-

central-park-5-prosecutor-boycott/

Stubbs, Cassandra “Race Contributes to Wrongful Convictions”

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/race-contributes-wrongful-

convictions

Tennis, Bradley T. “Uniform ethical regulation of federal prosecutors”

 Davis 12

https://go-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Journals&resultListType=RESULT_LIST

&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=2&doc

Id=GALE%7CA241515631&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXA

Y-

MOD1&prodId=OVIC&contentSet=GALE%7CA241515631&searchId=R2&userGroup

Name=dayt30401&inPS=true

Wine, Michael “Prosecutors Had the Wrong Man. They Prosecuted Him Anyway.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/us/prosecutors-new-orleans-evidence.html