shared by Rick Stack with a brief word of explanation by Patrick H. Moore
Yesterday was an interesting day in the brief and sometimes stormy history of All Things Crime Blog. First, I want to thank Lise LaSalle for writing a courageous post in which she lays out the prosecutorial misconduct that she believes (and I agree with her) marred the Diane Downs case. I am happy to report that most readers who have commented on Lise’s post, whether or not they agree with her, have approached it in a fair, non-judgmental, and, in most cases, positive manner.
Curiously, Lise’s post has set off a bit of a chain reaction and we received a fascinating comment from a reader named Gloria who writes:
“I read Ann Rule’s book and also believed that Diane Downs was guilty, but it is important to note that I read the book while in the California Penitentiary serving a sentence of 32-years-to- life for a crime that I did not commit. I was set up by an unscrupulous prosecutor who was prosecuted in 2007 by the Califonia State Bar for what he did to me. Over the years, I was told by other inmates who knew her that Diane Downs was innocent. Luckily for me, I was exonerated and freed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but Diane has not been so lucky…she should be released!”
I have asked Gloria to tell her story of wrongful conviction and ultimate exoneration in detail for our benefit, and hopefully she will agree to.
Meanwhile, our resident legal expert, Rick Stack — a man who has worked as both a Federal prosecutor (AUSA) and a criminal defense attorney – has been good enough to provide us with the following commentary on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct followed by an inspiring message by former U.S. Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice and chief judge at the Nuremberg Tribunals, Robert H. Jackson.
Rick Stack writes:
“Gloria, I’m glad to hear that you were ultimately exonerated of the crime for which you were convicted, but sorry to hear that you were a victim of the criminal justice system. Have you received any recompense for your wrongful conviction and/or or been able to obtain a monetary recovery from the prosecutor? Unfortunately, too many prosecutors (and some defense counsel) cut corners and follow the “win at any cost” strategy in order to further their legal or judicial careers. Such behavior corrupts the criminal justice system and seriously undermines public confidence. It’s unfortunate that more prosecutors don’t follow the advice of former U.S. Attorney General Robert H. Jackson (who later was a Supreme Court Justice and chief judge at the Nuremberg Tribunals), as to the proper role of the federal prosecutor:”
Robert H. Jackson writes:
. . . The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen’s friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.
* * * * * * * *
Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. The lawyer in public office is justified in seeking to leave behind him a good record. But he must remember that his most alert and severe, but just, judges will be the members of his own profession, and that lawyers rest their good opinion of each other not merely on results accomplished but on the quality of the performance. Reputation has been called “the shadow cast by one’s daily life.” Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just.
* * * * * * * *
The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.
http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-by-robert-h-jackson/the-federal-prosecutor/