The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.
The innocent defendant will feel like there is no hope for them, with that being said they will accept any plea bargain that might not be fair so that they don’t have to spend an enormous amount of time behind bars. Now just because a prosecutor does their does job, does not mean that the procedures that they are following are unethical or illegal. With Plea bargains this relieves the court of a trial, and the prosecutor does not have to prove the case with a reasonable doubt. According to David Shetokas in Plea Bargaining in Criminal Cases most cases tend to plea. It states that 97% of federal cases will take a deal.
It outweighs the fraudulent officer. The Rodney King trial was flawed from start, but it was only worsened by the distortion of the facts and evidence by the defense. Similarly, in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’, there was very little evidence to convict Tom Robinson, but the distortion of facts caused the verdict to go
Countless people are getting placed in the criminal justice system on meager charges. Then, the system offers them “Legal Misrepresentation,” even though Gideon v. Wainwright (Alexander, 2012, p. 85) stated that they are entitled to an attorney if they are accused of a serious crime and indigent. Yet, public defendant attorneys lack resources and are overburdened with a substantial caseload that they cannot give defendants suitable representation. Subsequently, these accused people are forced into a plea deal to offset spending the mandatory maximum sentences in prison. Bad Deal
In the case of Missouri vs. Seibert lies many liable facts within the case. Some of the relevant facts is that a woman named Patrice Seibert along with accomplices which includes her son and his friends, sets their mobile home on fire with the dead body of her 12-year-old son along with a mentally ill 17-year-old Donald Rector whom was living in the household, and days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. Once she had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then preceded to read her, her Miranda rights and resumed questioning after she waived those rights. The officer swayed her to reiterate the confession
During the course of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to another serious crime. Ultimately, the courts decided that since Miranda had not been informed of his fifth amendment rights and had not waived them, his confession was not valid. It is because of this case that law enforcement officers today read what is known as
The Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” ( US Constitution) As you can see, the Bill of Rights 6th Amendment allows the accused to understand the charges against them: the accused is told what he/ she is being accused of, who is accusing them, and is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it allows for the movement of rightful convictions.
Now there is two possible outcomes, there was police misconduct and abuse of power, or the police officer did everything correctly and by the book. Either way there needs to be something that can protect the public from police misconduct and also protect law enforcement from dealing with false accusations that can tarnish their reputation. That is why body worn cameras need to be mandatory for all police officers to wear because it protects the public and the police officers that are wearing them. A couple positive outcomes police officers wearing body cameras is how they can lower police officers misuse of authority and also lower false complaints against officers as well. These are two
Many people, like myself, believe that police officers do not always get in trouble when situations like police racism or brutality happen. They do not think about getting in trouble because most of them literally don 't at all. When cops get caught for illegal actions they are just going to get in trouble by there own friends on the force, just to be put on paid leave. Not being caught is a big issue and is mainly why cops think that they can do whatever they want and completely get away with it. In many
In order for the people whose job it is to determine innocence or guilt of a person need more than just expert testimony in the form of a long drawn out explanation. Videos, photographs, or audio recordings are all helpful tools when presenting a case to a jury. In this case with Andrea Yates, there was so much evidence presented that could either have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the trial. Prosecuting attorneys gave the jurors quite a horrific scene to digest mentally.
Youngblood case has great relevance to today’s and future court cases. There are three things that this case has proved to today’s society. The first is that it covered the potential acts of good faith in the police officer, and how the evidence that was claimed to not be stored properly. The defendant blamed the officer and thought they should be accountable for the length of Youngblood’s sentences. It has been proven that even though the evidence is an essential piece to the individual case, the officer should not be held fully responsible for the entire sentence for a mistake.
All too often media airs news reports with details only revealed that support their own political agenda. Even with that said, if the very officer that is supposed to uphold the laws in society is engaging in misconduct or illegal activity, the public will diminish an officer’s credibility and legitimacy. (Elliot) This is why body worn cameras are so important. Credibility is everything to an officer.
People should not believe everything online when only officers are doing their job. None of them like to be judged on how they are doing their work, officers are doing their job how they are shown. Most officers cannot show any kind of weakness, if they do many will take advantage of them and it will not be right for people to be getting away with many things. The body cameras, officers have will always speak the truth and show no police brutality is given towards others. Officers do not have them on at all times, which is a little of a crutch that people can get out of.