Abstract
This paper examines the issue of violation of ethical considerations and professional responsibility in the US Justice Department. It examines the behavior of federal prosecutors who attempt to conceal information and evidence that is likely to mitigate the sentence. The paper uses the case of Lyons in examining the extent of the problem in the US. A discussion of the problem is developed through an analysis of the prevalence of the problem based on the findings of recent studies in the field. A legal and ethical approach is applied to analyze this issue and determine how the prosecutors violate the ethical and moral aspects of their profession.
Introduction
In the recent past, the department of justice has faced several accusations due to the violation of ethical standards and professional responsibilities in the profession. In particular, the prosecution has faced various accusations due to the behavior of federal prosecutors. They are accused of failing to abide by the professional responsibilities and ethical standards, which compromises the justice delivery process. In the recent past, several cases of violation of these norms have been witnessed, often leading to grave mistakes that cause wrongful convictions (Bandes, 2012).
In particular, the stories of John Thompson in Connick v Thompson (2011) and Orlando v Nino Lyons (2004) are some of the recent cases in which the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court judges have ruled in favor of the accused after realizing serious violations of ethics and professional responsibility by prosecutors in the Department of Justice (Laurin, 2011). In both cases, the judges found serious violations of the rights of the accused, poor handling of cases and inadequate investigations that led to wrongful accusation of the innocent individuals for capital crimes (Peak, 2011). Noteworthy, a number of other similar cases have been revealed, especially by recent investigative journalism by the ‘USA Today Newspaper’.
The paper cited serious cases of violations of ethics and professional responsibilities in the Department of Justice, especially by prosecutors. However, this paper will investigate these two cases within the context of the existing ethical considerations and professional responsibility in criminal justice. It will take the federal prosecutors as an example of individuals and offices that have been violating these ethical standards and responsibilities and the consequences of the violations. In particular, this paper investigates the violation of the Brandy concept by prosecutors through flagrant and outrageous misconducts that often lead to prosecution and conviction of the wrong individuals, thus violating their rights (Special Litigation Division, 2012).
Background to the case
In 2001, the department of justice filed a case in Orlando accusing Nino Lyons, a businessman, of drug trafficking. The prosecution lined up several witnesses. Most of these witnesses were inmates in a local prison. They narrated how Lyons had been selling them cocaine in packages. In addition, one witness recounted how Lyon had hired him to kill two cocaine suppliers in the city. However, the prosecutors hid any information that could mitigate Lyons’ sentence (Bandes, 2012).
For instance, the prosecutors did not reveal that one of the witnesses was unable to identify the Lyons’ photo even after accusing him of selling cocaine worth hundreds of pounds (Bandes, 2012). Therefore, Lyons was found guilty of the crimes and jailed for three years. However, after appealing, the prosecutors’ misconduct was revealed and the sentence was reversed. Lyons was released and the state was ordered to compensate him.
Source of information/data presenting research information for consideration of the issue
In history, the empirical research studies attempting to examine the conduct of the attorneys and prosecutors in the Department of Justice have been relatively few. In particular, much of the information pertaining to the violation of the ethical standards and professional responsibility in the Department of Justice has emerged recently after the courts started overturning convictions of wrongly convicted individuals like Lyons and Thompson (Moore, 2012).
In addition, internal offices in the Department of Justice, the medial and law review bodies have attempted to carry out some in-depth investigations into these issues in order to reveal the kind of failures that the US Department of Justice has been experiencing. These efforts have brought the prosecutors’ misconducts into public attention. For instance, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the US Today Newspaper has highlighted numerous mistakes, violation of laws, rules and ethical standards that govern the work of federal prosecutors and other employees in the agency, especially those in criminal justice (Moore, 2012).
The internal affairs office and the office of professional responsibility (OPR), both in the US Department of Justice, are the primary sources of data for this analysis. Recently, the two offices have carried out intensive investigative studies to determine the behavior of prosecutors and other justice employees and their impacts on the outcomes of the criminal cases involved. According to the OPR’s study, more than 650 cases of infractions were documented between 2002 and 2013 (Wish, 2013).
It has been shown that a good number of these infarctions involve criminal cases. On its part, the internal affairs office at the Department of Justice revealed that over the last two decades, hundreds of prosecutors and other employees in the department were involved in numerous cases of violation of the laws, rules and ethical standards that govern their work and responsibilities (Bandes, 2012). In fact, the sources from the office have shown that more than 400 of these violations involve serious actions known as “severe end of the scale” violations, which include intentional or reckless misconduct, poor judgment and distinction from errors (Bandes, 2012).
However, critics have shown that the information released by these offices is only a small part of a large story of prosecutors’ violating the professional responsibility rules and ethical standards. It is believed that numerous cases of violations have occurred and often led to wrongful convictions of the wrongly accused individuals (Bandes, 2012).
Therefore, recent research by the USA today is an important source of data for this analysis. In a series of informative articles called “Justice in the Balance”, the newspaper carried out investigative journalism that involved in-depth and direct investigations of court cases, prosecution procedures and other aspects of the concluded cases in the past. Heath and McCoy (2010), the investigative journalists, revealed numerous violations of ethical rules and professional responsibility by the federal prosecutors (Bandes, 2012). Their work is important in this analysis because it provides firsthand information regarding the existence of numerous cases of misconduct by prosecutors. In fact, this information is normally kept secret to avoid public disturbance.
The analysis of the issue (violations of ethical rules and professional responsibilities in the Department of Justice)
From the reports given by the OPR, the internal offices in the Department of Justice and the investigations by the US Today Newspaper, it is clear that the prosecutors in the US have been violating the ethical considerations as well as the law on professional responsibility as described in the laws and modules discussed above. Although both the OPR and the internal offices in the Department of Justice have shown that the violations of ethical standards and professional responsibility law in this agency are common, the reports have not been made available. In fact, they only give information in terms of figures and statements instead of the information on the actual cases and the persons involved in the misconduct (Bandes, 2012).
In the 1990s, the Justice Department assured the nation that every piece of information about these types of misconduct would be made available to the public through the OPR (Bandes, 2012). They promised that the names of the prosecutors involved would be made public. However, this promise has never been fulfilled. Thus, it is important to draw information from other sources developed in the recent past.
According to the investigative journalism by the US Today Newspaper, the cases of Nino and Thomson are mere examples of the numerous state of violation of the ethical and professional responsibility laws and standards across the US (Bandes, 2012). These abuses put innocent people in prisons, set free the real culprits and cost the nation millions of dollars in sanctions as well as legal fees (Autry, 2012). Although Congress enacted a law to end these forms of abuses in 1997, the prosecutors have been violating the ethical and legal rules in the courtrooms (Bandes, 2012).
According to the investigation by the newspaper, about 201 cases of such violations took place between 2000 and 2009, despite the frequent warnings given by judges (Moore, 2012). In 2001 alone, more than 42 cases of such violations were detected and investigated by the internal ethics watchdogs at the Justice Department (Moore, 2012). In addition, the department investigated more than 60 similar cases in 2009 (Moore, 2012). This means that the number of cases of violation of the ethical standards and professional responsibility in the whole country is large.
The violations have been so rampant that they have even affected the political class and high-profile individuals in society. For instance, in the case of corruption against Ted Stevens, the former Alaska Senator, a Washington judge declared that the department of justice could not be trusted to investigate its lawyers and prosecutors (Moore, 2012). Thus, the judge decided to carry out the investigation independently. At the end of the case, the Department of Justice admitted that its prosecutors had violated the law by concealing evidence. The department was forced to drop the case.
A comprehensive discussion of the issues findings: A Legal and ethical perspective
The rules and laws governing ethical and professional responsibilities of the federal prosecutors
In the philosophy of law, ethics, also known as the moral philosophy, attempts to examine the issues of right and wrong and describes how people should behave and live. In essence, ethics is the process of making judgments about human actions that are good or right against those that are bad or wrong. The main role of ethics is to allow people to make morally right choices when they are about to take any action in a situation involving moral issues.
In criminal justice, ethics are the moral actions of humans. They are some of the most important aspects of the professional behavior of the individuals involved in making decisions such as discretion, due process and force. Ethically right decisions must be involved in criminal justice. To achieve this, training in ethics must be enhanced in order to ensure that the person obtains analytical skills and abilities to reason.
These skills are required in understanding the practical and theoretical aspects of criminal justice. In particular, ethics is relevant to most of the decisions involved in punishing offenders. It is also the rationale applied in making these decisions, including the choices of rehabilitating, imposing deserts, and deterring cases. The criminal justice system must be involved professionals who have the capacity and dedication to apply strong and accurate decision-making skills by exercising power and authority over others or using force and physical coercion against others (Bandes, 2012).
Thus, it is clear that these professionals must be aware of the ethical standards and responsibilities when carrying out their duties and functions (Bandes, 2012). Therefore, decisions that are made for the purpose of due process, discretion, or force must be based on ethical standards. The idea is to avoid the professionals from falling into the temptation of abusing their powers or failing to apply the authority given to them by the law.
The US law on ethical considerations and professional responsibility in criminal justice
In the US, the Brandy disclosure is a doctrine that determines whether the prosecutor’s suppression of evidence favorable to the accused on his/her request is an act that violates the due process of the law (Gershman, 2006). It originated from the case law Brandy v Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1983) in which the judges in the US Supreme Court, sitting in Maryland, ruled that the suppression of such information by the prosecution violates due process (Levenson, 2014).
Since the landmark ruling, the American common law requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence of information with the capacity to prove that the accused is innocent or enable the defense to challenge the credibility of the prosecutor’s witnesses (Peak, 2011). In addition, the concept requires the prosecution to disclose any information or evidence that is likely to reduce the severity of the expected sentence. Failure to do so, the prosecution is considered to have violated the doctrine and the accused’s rights. In this case, the prosecutor will have violated the ethical considerations and his professional responsibilities.
Model Rules of Professional Conduct
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct is based on the ruling in the case law Berger v U.S. According to the module, federal prosecutors have special duties assigned to them by the law (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2011).
For instance, they have the responsibility to act as a minister of justice and not that of a mere court advocate. The module also states that federal prosecutors must not file a case if they are aware that the accusation is not supported by probable cause. Moreover, the module declares that the prosecution is responsible for ensuring that the accused has the appropriate advice about his or her right to access the representation by a counsel. This module also involves the right of the accused to have the information disclosed on time in order to mitigate the evidence.
The ABA module Rules of professional conduct 5.1, as well as 5.3, applies to the lawyers and the prosecutors as well. This module states that lawyers have the managerial authority in a law firm (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2011). Thus, it gives the prosecutors managerial responsibilities, which are applicable in criminal justice. They must act as managers in handling these cases, including refraining from any act that is likely to violate the rights of the accused. In addition, rule 3.8 of the module gives the prosecutors the responsibility of supervision. Thus, they are required to ensure that all their subordinate lawyers in their offices comply with the ethical and legal obligations.
Conclusion
The research finds that the case of Lyons, like that of Thomson, was based on the prosecution’s acts of violating the ethical and professional responsibility rules. It is clear that the most common form of violation involves concealing information that is likely to mitigate the accused’s sentence. It appears that the purpose of the prosecutors in the Justice Department is only meant to win the cases rather than seek justice. The problem seems to be prevalent in the country. However, the Justice Department does not disclose information about the cases affected by the violations. In addition, it fails to take the appropriate actions to solve the problem.
Arguably, the problem can be solved through programs that will ensure that the prosecutors are monitored and held responsible for any violation. They must abide by the law and be aware that their purpose is not to win the cases but to deliver justice to the accused as well as the victims or the state.
References
Autry, H. (2012). Connick v. Thompson: The Costs of Valuing Immunity over Innocence”. Nat’l Law. Guild Rev. 69(1), 29.
Bandes, S. A. (2012). The Lone Miscreant, the Self-Training Prosecutor, and Other Fictions: A Comment on Connick v. Thompson. Fordham Law Review, 6(1), 134-139.
Gershman, B. L. (2006). Reflections on Brady v. Maryland. South Texas Law Review (Pace University School of Law) 47(2), 685.
Heath, B., & McCoy, K. (2010). Prosecutor’s conduct can tip justice scales. The US Today. Web.
Laurin, J. E. (2011). Prosecutorial Exceptionalism, Remedial Skepticism, and the Legacy of Connick v. Thompson. U of Texas Law, Public Law Research,12(6), 127-138.
Levenson, L. L. (2014). Discovery from the Trenches: The Future of Brady. UCLA Law Review Discovery 60(2), 74.
Moore, J. (2012). Opening the Black Box: Democracy and Criminal Discovery Reform after Connick v. Thompson and Garcetti v. Ceballos. Brooklyn Law Review 77(3), 348-352.
Peak, K. (2011). Justice administration, police, courts and correctional management (7th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Special Litigation Division. (2012). Brady v. Maryland Outline. Washington, DC: The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2011). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Wish, J. B. (2013). The United States Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility. Washington, DC: Deputy Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility, Department of Justice.