The Prosecutor, the Term “Prosecutorial Miscon- Would Clearly Fall Within a Layperson’S Definition of Prose- Duct” Unfairly Stigmatizes That Prosecutor

The P ROSECUTOR Measuring Prosecutorial Actions An Analysis of Misconduct versus Error

B Y S HAWN E. MINIHAN

Rampant Prosecutorial Misconduct The New York Times, Jan. 4, 2014

The Untouchables: America’s Misbehaving Prosecutors, And The System That Protects Them The Huffington Post, Aug. 5, 2013

Misconduct by Prosecutors, Once Again The New York Times, Aug. 13, 2012

22 O CTOBER / NOVEMBER / DECEMBER / 2014 P ROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT has become nation- in cases where such a perception is entirely unwarranted… .”11 al news. To a layperson, the term “prosecutorial miscon- The danger inherent in the court’s overbroad use of the duct” expresses “intentional wrongdoing,” or a “deliberate term “prosecutorial misconduct” is twofold. First, in cases violation of a law or standard” by a prosecutor.1 where there is an innocent mistake or poor judgment on The newspaper articles cited at left describe acts that the part of the prosecutor, the term “prosecutorial miscon- would clearly fall within a layperson’s definition of prose- duct” unfairly stigmatizes that prosecutor. A layperson may cutorial misconduct. For example, the article “Rampant assume that the prosecutor intentionally committed a Prosecutorial Misconduct” discusses United States v. Olsen, wrongdoing or deliberately violated a law or ethical stan- where federal prosecutors withheld a report that revealed dard. sloppy work on the part of the government’s forensic sci- In those cases where the prosecutor has, in fact, commit- entists, resulting in wrongful convictions.2, 3 The article ted misconduct, the term “prosecutorial misconduct” may “The Untouchables: America’s Misbehaving Prosecutors, not impose a harsh enough degree of stigmatization. If a and the System that Protects Them,” discusses State v. layperson actually understands the legal term “prosecutori- Thompson, where prosecutors, among other acts of miscon- al misconduct,” he or she may diminish the egregiousness duct, withheld blood evidence that would have exonerated of the prosecutor’s actions. Certainly, other prosecutors, the defendant.4, 5 The article “Misconduct by Prosecutors, who are used to seeing the term used for even the most Once Again,” discusses People v. Bedi, where the prosecutor honest of mistakes, may not realize the gravity of the con- withheld information that the district attorney’s office paid duct committed by their fellow prosecutor. a key witness $16,640 for hotel bills and $3,000 in cash, facts the prosecutor knew but never disclosed to the A MERICAN B AR A SSOCIATION defense.6, 7 R ECOMMENDATION 100B In the legal field, “prosecutorial misconduct” is a term of art that describes a wide spectrum of actions, ranging from Prosecutors and courts share a responsibility in delineating innocent mistakes to malicious conduct.8 It is not equiva- between misconduct and error. Prosecutors have not done lent to a finding of professional misconduct (e.g., an ethical enough to persuade district and appellate courts to distin- violation).9 It does not even require that the prosecutor guish between prosecutorial misconduct and error, and commit the act that gives rise to the misconduct finding. courts have failed to recognize that their decisions have Any persons acting in cooperation with or under the pros- implications beyond the court of law. ecutor’s control can commit misconduct attributable to the In Recommendation 100B, the ABA recognized a dis- prosecutor. Nor does it require that the prosecutor act in a tinction between prosecutorial misconduct and error. It malicious, knowing, intentional or reckless manner.10 urged courts, when reviewing claims that a prosecutor has When the court labels an act “prosecutorial miscon- violated a constitutional or legal standard, “to choose the duct,” however, it “may be perceived as reflecting inten- term that more accurately describes prosecutorial conduct tional wrongdoing, or even professional misconduct, even while fully protecting a defendant’s rights.”12

1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misconduct. August 18, 2012., available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/nyre- gion/new-charge-of-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-queens.html. 2 The Editorial Board of the The New York Times, “Rampant Prosecutorial 7 Misconduct,” January 4, 2014, available at The author has no personal knowledge of the above cases. The author is using http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/rampant-prosecu- these examples to explain the nature of prosecutorial misconduct and not torial-misconduct.html?_r=0#. giving an opinion on the facts surrounding the underlying cases. 8 3 United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172 (2013). ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/leader- 4 Radley Balko, “The Untouchables: America’s Misbehaving Prosecutors, and ship/2010/annual/pdfs/100b.authcheckdam.pdf. the System that Protects Them," Huffington Post, August 5, 2013, available 9 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-miscon- ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010). duct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html. 10 ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010). 5 State v. Thompson, 825 So.2d 552 (2002). 11 ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010). 6 Michael Powell, “Misconduct by Prosecutors, Once Again,” New York Times, 12 ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010).

T HE P ROSECUTOR 23 Recommendation 100B was adopted with the full sup- into four categories: port of not only the ABA and the National District • The first, and most egregious, category includes those Attorneys Association, but also the National Association of situations where a prosecutor intentionally violates a clear Criminal Defense Lawyers.13 It states: and unambiguous obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule or professional conduct.17 RESOLVED that the American Bar Association A prosecutor’s act is intentional when the prosecutor acts urges trial and appellate courts, in criminal cases, with the purpose of obtaining a result that an obligation when reviewing the conduct of prosecutors to dif- (e.g., an ethical rule) unambiguously prohibits, or when the ferentiate between “error” and “prosecutorial mis- prosecutor engages in conduct with knowledge that the conduct.”14 probable consequence of such action is prohibited by such obligation.18 D ELINEATING BETWEEN MISCONDUCT AND ERROR Recommendation 100B begs the question: how do we cre- The danger inherent in the ate a system that delineates between misconduct and error? The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for the court’s overbroad use of the term U.S. Department of Justice, which is tasked with investigat- ing federal prosecutors who may have acted improperly, has “prosecutorial misconduct” is tackled a similar question.15 twofold. First, in cases where The OPR created a framework for dealing with its own attorneys that courts can employ to both delineate between there is an innocent mistake or prosecutorial misconduct and error and to aid in measuring poor judgment on the part of the prosecutorial misconduct based on the degree of harm to the defendant. prosecutor, the term “prosecutorial It should be noted, in most instances, under the OPR misconduct” unfairly stigmatizes framework, the term “professional misconduct” is akin to the term “prosecutorial misconduct.” Because OPR creat- that prosecutor. ed this framework to judge its own employees, the framework has been broadened to include violations of DOJ regulation and policy. The OPR has defined professional misconduct as when an attorney “intentionally violates or acts in reckless disre- • The OPR’s second category includes those situations gard of an obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable where the prosecutor recklessly disregards a duty to comply rule of professional conduct, or Department regulation or with an obligation or standard. A prosecutor acts with reck- policy.”16 less disregard when he or she knows, or should know, of an The OPR has divided professional misconduct obligation, and that there is a substantial likelihood he or

13 ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010). 20 U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July 14 ABA House of Delegates, Recommendation 100B, *1 (2010). 6, 2005, *1. 21 15 U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July 6, 2005, available at http://www.justice.gov/opr/framework.pdf. 6, 2005, *3. 22 16 U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July 6, 2005, *1. 6, 2005, *4. 23 17 U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,”July U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July 6, 2005, *1. 6, 2005, *3. 24 18 U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July State v. Rogan, 91 Hawaii 405, 412, 984 P.2d 1231 (1999). 6, 2005, *2. 25 Com. v. Lafferty, 315 Pa.Super. 241, 244, 461 A.2d 1261, 1263 (1983). 19 U.S. DOJ, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July 26 State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 505, 996 P.2d 321 (2000). 6, 2005, *3.

24 O CTOBER / NOVEMBER / DECEMBER / 2014 she will violate the obligation, but nonetheless engages in C OURTS ALREADY CONSIDER THE DEGREE the conduct.19 The OPR, and courts, should only consider OF A PROSECUTOR’ S CULPABILITY the first two categories as misconduct.20 • The OPR’s third category includes those situations It should be noted that, when considering prosecutorial where the prosecutor exercises poor judgment. The OPR misconduct, trial and appellate courts already engage in the defines poor judgment as a situation where, when faced weighing of a prosecutor’s culpability. For example, the with alternatives, a prosecutor chooses a course of action in Hawaii Supreme Court requires that a court consider the “marked contrast” to what the OPR would consider good “nature of the conduct” of the prosecutor.24 The judgment. “[A]n attorney may exhibit poor judgment even Pennsylvania Supreme Court requires that a court consider though an obligation or standard at issue is not sufficiently “whether the prosecutor violated a direct order of the clear and unambiguous to support a professional miscon- court” and “ whether there was a pattern of repeated objec- duct finding.”21 tionable remarks.”25 The Kansas Supreme Court requires • The OPR’s final category includes those situations that a court weigh whether a prosecutor’s comments are where the attorney has made a mistake. A mistake results gross and flagrant or show ill will.26 Implementation of the from an excusable human error, despite the attorney’s use of OPR framework is simply a refinement of the analysis reasonable care. Whether a prosecutor’s error is excusable already required by many courts in the United States. depends upon the facts surrounding the error, including: 1) the attorney’s opportunity to plan, and to reflect upon C ONCLUSION the possible and foreseeable consequences of, a course of conduct Courts should recognize the distinction between prosecu- 2) the breadth and magnitude of the responsibilities borne torial misconduct and error. Courts should also adopt a by the attorney framework to distinguish between the varying levels of cul- 3) the importance of the conduct in light of the attorney’s pability of a prosecutor, which will aid courts in weighing overall responsibilities and actions the prosecutor’s culpability against the harm to a defendant. 4) the extent to which the error is representative of the Additionally, refining the terms “prosecutorial misconduct” attorney’s usual conduct.22 and “prosecutorial error” will assist the public in fully The OPR, and courts, should not consider the last two understanding the gravity of the prosecutor’s actions. categories as misconduct.23

To Err is Human conduct is still relevant. The term “misconduct” expresses a continued from page 21 willful act; it involves dishonesty, a forbidden act, a derelic- tion of duty, and/or an act that is prejudicial to the admin- istration of justice. If the court finds that the prosecutor’s acts were willful — that they were gross and flagrant or showed ill will — a prosecutor should be deemed to have Improper, not unlike the term “misconduct,” can imply a committed misconduct. willful act, not simply an erroneous one. Although “impropriety” more accurately describes the first prong of the C ONCLUSION prosecutorial misconduct test (as compared to misconduct), “impropriety” is less accurate than error, which is required Simply put, prosecutors are not immune from mistakes. A to be proven in order to establish the first prong of a pros- mistake by a prosecutor, however, does not warrant the ecutorial misconduct claim. moniker of “misconduct.” When a prosecutor commits an error, it should be deemed as such: a “prosecutorial error.” G ROSS AND FLAGRANT AND ILL WILL When a prosecutor does, in fact, commit misconduct, he/she should wear that label, without the stigma being Although a majority of the “prosecutorial misconduct” watered down by also including situations where a prose- cases are, in actuality, prosecutorial error, prosecutorial mis- cutor has simply committed an error.

T HE P ROSECUTOR 25