Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The case for punishing prosecutor misconduct

At Texas Monthly, Pam Colloff yesterday made "the case for punishing prosecutors who abuse their power," focusing on the Hannah Overton, Michael Morton and Anthony Graves cases. She also highlighted a case that's gotten less attention:
Take the case of Alfred DeWayne Brown, currently on death row. In 2005 Brown was convicted of killing a Houston police officer in a bungled robbery that also left a store clerk dead. Brown always stuck by his alibi: on the morning of the crime, he said, he never left his girlfriend’s apartment. He claimed to have called his girlfriend at her workplace at around ten—the same time prosecutors said he was at another location, with two co-defendants, having just committed the double homicide. At the time of his trial, prosecutors did not turn over any phone records. Not until 2013 did it come to light that those records did, in fact, exist and that a prosecutor had asked to review them. The records, which were found in an investigator’s garage, show that a call had been placed from Brown’s girlfriend’s residence to her workplace at 10:08 a.m. on the morning of the crime. The Harris County DA’s office, which claimed that its failure to disclose the phone records had been inadvertent, readily agreed in May 2013 that Brown should seek a new trial. Although more than a year has passed, the CCA has still not issued an opinion in the case, and until it does, Brown will remain on death row.
Colloff suggested the State Bar of Texas must "radically reform the way it handles allegations of prosecutorial misconduct; right now, the bar’s guiding principle seems to be to ignore even the most egregious examples of bad behavior by prosecutors unless there is enough attendant media attention that some sort of action must be taken—and even then, it’s usually a slap on the wrist."

She also recommended that, "the Legislature should examine the issue of absolute immunity for prosecutors. There are good reasons why DAs need to have some degree of protection; if they could be sued for any decision they made, they could not perform their jobs. But because they are shielded from any civil liability, they have no motivation to play by the rules, especially when the only other check on their behavior is a toothless state bar."

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Bar has plenty of teeth. The problem is a lack of cajones to put them to good use.

Anonymous said...

And yet another biased, superficial and agenda driven EDITORIAL by Pamela Colloff. Grits, do you think it's a coincidence or just shitty research on Ms. Colloff's part that she completely fails to mention the Legislature's passage of SB825 (Whitmire) last year that extended the statute of limitations for grievances for Brady violations by prosecutors and removed the private reprimand sanction for prosecutors who are found by the bar to have committed a Brady violation? I wonder if that information might have any influence on the reader's opinion as to the merits of her argument regarding the need for more remedies? But then again, this type of "reporting" by Ms. Colloff on these "innocence" issues has become all too typical of late. So the Nueces County D.A. has decided to retry Ms. Overton again, huh? Well apparently, there is another side to THAT story that Ms. Colloff is not reporting as well.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

I don't think it's a coincidence or shitty research, 9:43. I think Colloff likely recognized that that bill was a minimalist tweak that NOBODY thinks in and of itself is enough to change prosecutor behavior. It was a decent bill that I supported, but as long as the state bar fails to sanction prosecutors, it won't solve the problem.

RE: the Overton case, if she's guilty as you say then it won't do any harm to have a retrial in which the prosecution doesn't conceal probative evidence from the defense. Even if she's guilty, Americans have a right to a fair trial and if the prosecutor concealed exculpatory forensics, she didn't get one.

Anonymous said...

9:43 complains about an "agenda" driven editorial? Shame on anyone for having an "agenda" to promote fairness and honesty in the criminal justice system. Could it be that 9:43 has an "agenda" which is to protect his own ability to lie, cheat and steal to get convictions? I don't know why so many prosecutors, like 9:43 have such little faith in their own skills as attorneys. Their need to defend a system which allows them to withhold evidence, manufacture evidence, coerce witnesses, etc., seems to indicate that they are insecure about their abilities to win in a fair fight. I guess the prosecutors office is the place for attorneys who can't win unless the game is rigged. If you can't win in a fair fight, 9:43, maybe you shouldn't be an attorney.