The US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Armstrong will make it more difficult to bring selective prosecution cases, but there are other steps that courts can take to signal prosecutors that they may be abusing their discretion. The Court established that, to be entitled to discovery, plaintiffs must show both discriminatory intent and effect as well as showing that other offenders not members of the class being discriminated against were not prosecuted. In light of these barriers, soft enforcement by courts and action by agencies and legislators should be the focus of efforts to reduce abuses.
A former top county official facing criminal charges for failing to properly report gifts from a developer is accusing the District Attorney's Office of selective prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct. Jim Erwin, former chief of staff to Supervisor Neil Derry, is pushing to have the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office recused from his case, which he says should be handled by the state Attorney General.
[Brad Orsini] was the lead FBI agent investigating [Cyril Wecht]'s case. But as Wecht's attorneys later discovered, Orsini had admitted falsifying other agents' signatures on evidence packets used in other cases. Orsini has since been reassigned, but he still draws a government salary. Given that Wecht is facing federal charges for deceptive paperwork, one wonders how the Justice Department can keep Orsini on its payroll. While the feds indicted Wecht for overcharging his clients, it seems they've done some overcharging themselves. Last week, prosecutors withdrew more than half of the charges they originally filed against Wecht. They did so in part because they'd accused Wecht of committing mail fraud ... when the documents he'd sent "may have been handdelivered instead. What if lots o...
STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSES; NO CULPABLE MENTAL STATE; STATE V. HORNER; VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE; NOTICE OF VIOLATION; UNFAIR SURPRISE; WEIGHT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY; JURY INSTRUCTIONS; JURY QUESTIONS; PLEA AGREEMENT; BILL OF PARTICULARS; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT; OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE; VOID FOR VAGUENESS; EQUAL PROTECTION/SELECTIVE PROSECUTION; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CUMULATIVE ERROR.
HARRISBURG -- A Dauphin County judge on Wednesday blocked subpoenas for dozens of legislators and staffers who were sought as witnesses by ex-House Democratic Whip Mike Veon and other defendants accused of public corruption. Common Pleas President Judge Richard Lewis dismissed a motion by Veon and other defendants alleging "selective prosecution" and prosecutorial misconduct by Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett.
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Armstrong set a judicial review standard for selective prosecution claims that is so high as to effectively preclude most claims. The increase in federal criminal prosecutions has made defendants, particularly drug offense defendants, more vulnerable to prosecutorial abuses. The presumption of validity implicit in the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion should be replaced with a fiduciary model that highlights the prosecutorial duty owed to the public.
The Supreme Court ruling on the evidence required during the discovery phase of a race-based prosecution claim is so high that almost no defendants making this claim will be able to obtain discovery and prove such a claim. The Court should have used Justice Marshall's three-prong test from his dissent in Wayte v. United States, which posits a lower threshold for the defendant to obtain discovery in a race-based prosecution defense than is necessary for the claim on the merits at trial.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2013, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Nathaniel Cater | The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation | inheritance taxes california | Osman Taha | obligor limit | treppiccione riccardo | norme iso 14001 | terrestre vialidad
