a public defender


Dallas DA wants to punish Brady violators

Posted on May 04, 2008 by Gideon

Looks like I wasn’t the only one who had prosecutorial ethics on my mind this past week. From Grits, Dallas DA Craig Watkins has about had it with these exonerations and wants to do something about it. His proposals are serious.

“Something should be done,” said Craig Watkins, whose jurisdiction leads the nation in the number of DNA exonerations. “If the harm is a great harm, yes, it should be criminalized.”

Mr. Watkins said that he was still pondering what kind of punishment unethical prosecutors deserve but that the worst offenders might deserve prison time. He said he also was considering the launch of a campaign to mandate disbarment for any prosecutor found to have intentionally withheld evidence from the defense.

And he has reason to be considering such harsh penalties. Texas has already paid $8.6 million since 2001:

Of the 45 wrongful-conviction cases for which the state has paid compensation, at least 22 of them involved prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense: 19 in the infamous Tulia drug convictions and three of Dallas County’s DNA exonerations. The remainder of the payouts involved exculpatory DNA evidence or other flaws.

The article notes the paucity of sanctions against prosecutors who withhold evidence – one of the only example given is the only case in recent history where a prosecutor was disbarred: Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse case.

But as can be expected, there are other prosecutors who take an opposing view. John Bradley, a prosecutor in Williamson County near Austin calls Watkins’ proposal “ridiculous” and “an overreaction”.

What’s ridiculous is that innocent people spend decades in prison and the prosecutors that withheld evidence to put them there don’t get as much as a slap on the wrist. Prosecutors have a duty to do justice and to seek out the truth. To turn a blind eye when they neglect that duty and in fact take affirmative steps to circumvent justice is a big f*ck you to the whole system.

There’s absolutely no reason not to have a mandatory grievance process, at the very least, for prosecutors who intentionally withhold Brady or Giglio material.

The Innocence Project of Texas, a nonprofit legal clinic that worked to free many of the Dallas County exonerees including Mr. Woodard, supports criminalizing Brady violations. Michelle Moore, a board member of the Innocence Project and a Dallas County public defender, said that doing so would reduce the number of violations.

“If he can do 27 years behind bars,” she said of Mr. Woodard, “the prosecuting attorney can face time for hiding evidence.”

Damn straight he can. I know some prosecutors read this blog. What do you think of Watkins’ proposal? Would you be in favor of something like this in your State? If not, why not?

Related Posts with Thumbnails

RSS feed | Trackback URI

4 Comments »

Comment by SHG

Is it me, or does it seem like Watkins is more concerned with the money and embarassment than with the fact that innocent people went to prison.

Comment by Gideon

I think he’s concerned with a bit of both, but he really seems to have the right idea viz. the role of a prosecutor. He’s done some impressive things in his tenure. Besides, whatever the motivation may be, if he succeeds in getting prosecutors afraid of the consequences of ethical violations, then we all benefit.

 
 
Comment by Alec Subscribed to comments via email

Watkins seemed to be concerned with both, and offended by the suggestion that cooperating with the Innocence Project was a waste of time and resources.

I am hesitant to support criminal sanctions, although theoretically that would be the harshest sanction and provide the best deterrence. Mostly because I don’t know that prosecutors would be eager to take on those cases, or that juries would be eager to convict if the wrongfully convicted defendant was not squeaky clean. Additionally, there might be complicated statute of limitations issues.

But disbarment and civil liability (i.e., abolition of absolute immunity) seem appropriate. I don’t know why disbarment for intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence is perceived as “ridiculous” by some prosecutors. As I often hear from the other side, if you have nothing to hide…

 
Comment by LJS

I would also like to see a referral to the local licensing authority in any case where an appellate court finds prosecutorial misconduct. The licensing authority may decline to find probable cause to proceed, but it would mean there would be some review and possible censure for frequent offenders.

 
Attention: Before you comment, please read the disclaimer/privacy policy and the comment policy. By commenting here, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions of this blog and you take full responsibility for your comments and any consequences thereof.

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post