well, tell that to the innocent victims who spent 15 years or more in the pokey for some crimes they didn't commit all. and its because the DA hid evidence that would clear them.
most of those issues are at the state level. lots of examples of prosecutorial misconduct.
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Tell what to them?
The reason why "most of those issues are at the state level" is there are a lot more contested trials in the "state level," which results in those issues being an "issue" in the first place. BTW: That's one reason state's attorneys on the average have more trial experience than Federal prosecutors. But what you may be overlooking is a lot of Federal cases are worked by local LE agencies under the "supervision" of Federal agent who is supposed to be looking after what's going on with the gathering and safeguarding of evidence.
For some "reason" you keep posting like you believe I am defending prosecutors. Is that an effort to discredit me or marginalize what I'm posting?
Do you believe OJ Simpson killed his wife and her boy pet?
For some "reason" you also believe the system can be perfect. It's not and won't be, because of the human factor. Like going to work in the morning you don't plan on becoming involved in a collision, but you do, because of someone else's carelessness and inattention. As hard as you try to avoid the collision ("defensive driving") you get caught in it. It is a tragedy to say the least when someone is incarcerated for a crime they did not commit. It's also a tragedy when someone is acquitted of a crime they did commit. It is also a tragedy when someone is accused of something they did not do and they successfully defend themselves, which costs them their job, the family (marriage), and all their property that they do not recover..... and did I mention an election to the United States Senate~! After the not guilty verdict the chatter continues: "he got off" ... "it was a legal technicality" .... and "he had a good lawyer"! No one "assumes" he is INNOCENT, but he IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, BECAUSE the government/state didn't overcome the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. Is that "defending" anyone? Nope! It's recognizing REALITY!