EDITORIAL: "Rampant prosecutorial misconduct," published by the New York Times on January 4, 2014. (Thanks to the Wrongful Convictions Blog for drawing this editorial to our attention.)
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Prosecutorial and police misconduct relating to forensic evidence - and misconduct by lab technicians such as Annie Dookhan in Massachusetts - is one of the white elephants of the criminal justice process in many criminal justice jurisdictions. The damage that this misconduct can cause to the justice system is very well illustrated by the sad Dookhan saga. This misconduct is widely tolerated - in spite of its perversity - as long as it results in convictions, which is most often the case. Unless judges step in and stop it in its tracks it will remain hidden (like the white elephant in the room) - and is unlikely to be checked.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
GIST: "In the justice system, prosecutors have the power to decide what criminal charges to bring, and since 97 percent of cases are resolved without a trial, those decisions are almost always the most important factor in the outcome. That is why it is so important for prosecutors to play fair, not just to win. This obligation is embodied in the Supreme Court’s 1963 holding in Brady v. Maryland, which required prosecutors to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence that could materially affect a verdict or sentence. Yet far too often, state and federal prosecutors fail to fulfill that constitutional duty, and far too rarely do courts hold them accountable. Last month, Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued the most stinging indictment of this systemic failure in recent memory. “There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land,” Judge Kozinski wrote in dissent from a ruling against a man who argued that prosecutors had withheld crucial evidence in his case. “Only judges can put a stop to it.” The defendant, Kenneth Olsen, was convicted of producing ricin, a toxic poison, for use as a weapon. Federal prosecutors knew — but did not tell his lawyers or the court — that an investigation of the government’s forensic scientist, whose lab tests were critical to the case, had revealed multiple instances of sloppy work that had led to wrongful convictions in earlier cases. A state court found the scientist was “incompetent and committed gross misconduct.” Yet the majority of the federal appeals court panel ruled that the overall evidence of Mr. Olsen’s guilt — including websites he visited and books he bought — was so overwhelming that the failure to disclose the scientist’s firing would not have changed the outcome.
This is the all-too-common response by courts confronted with Brady
violations."
The entire editorial can be found at:
The entire editorial can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/rampant-prosecutorial-misconduct.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140105&_r=1&
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com