Research Courtroom Participation Professional Standards

Courtroom Participations’ Professional Standards
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Prosecutorial misconduct happens when the prosecution mishandles evidence, withholds information, or fabricates details to achieve a particular outcome. A case illustrating prosecutorial misconduct is that of Pottawattamie V. McGhee. In the case, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington were sued and convicted of murder in 1978 and handed a life incarceration sentence. The Pottawattamie County found the two men guilty of killing a retired police officer, John Schweer who was working then as a security guard. However, in 2002, the judgment was reversed, and the two men were released in 2003. The prosecutors had knowingly withheld information regarding another potential suspect, hence violating the due process rights of the accused. The prosecutors coerced testimonies, manufactured, and fabricated evidence that led to the conviction of the men (Rosenzweig, Shatz, and Pierre, 2009).
In 2005, McGhee and Harrington sued the Pottawattamie County and the prosecutors for the wrong trial. The prosecutors used the absolute, sovereign, and qualified immunity doctrine to argue that they could not face civil suits and motioned for a summary judgment. The law provides absolute immunity to prosecutors for actions undertaken during trials. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2008 affirmed the District Court’s denial of the absolute immunity arguing that the prosecutors’ actions were not distinctively prosecutorial function. Additionally, they upheld the denial of the qualified immunity to the prosecutors.
The crime control model aims to deter crimes and hence places confidence in the police and the prosecutors. The vindication of the victims’ rights is critical in comparison to protecting the defendants’ rights. The misconduct of the prosecutors in the above case reflects the aspects of the model. Conversely, the Due Process Model advocates for lawful fairness, and criminal justice is expected to concentrate on both the defendants’ and the victims’ rights. In the case discussed, the prosecutors thwart the model’s objectives by neglecting the constitutional rights of the accused.
Deficient Defense Counsel
The provision of ineffective counsel violates the defendant’s right to the proper representation. The bad lawyering that may include the failure to investigate the prosecution, alibi defense, enlist expert, attend hearings among others often contribute to wrongful convictions. An example of a case with ineffective counsel is that of Missouri v. Frye decided in 2012 in the Missouri Court of Appeal. The defendant, Frye faced the charges of driving with an invalid license a felony, he had previously committed and been convicted three times (Gordon, 2013). The prosecutor offered to alternative plea bargains with one being a misdemeanor charge and a jail sentence of ninety days if he pleaded guilty. The defense counsel failed to communicate this before the expiry that led to Frye receiving a prison term of three years. The defense attorney went against the Sixth Amendment requiring criminal defendant access competent couns...