Prosecutor Charges and Convicts in the Same Day

A banner headline in the New York Times reads: 44 Charged by U.S. in New Jersey Corruption Sweep. The assistant United States Attorney in announcing the charges simultaneously rendered a guilty verdict by concluding: "For these defendants, corruption was a way of life. They existed in an ethics-free zone." He went on to state that average citizens "don't have a chance against the culture of influence peddling the investigation unearthed." Hey, isn't this why we have juries? Has the presumption of innocence become a quaint old relic?

Those charged may well be guilty of serious crimes, but the time for summations is at trial not at a charging press conference. Unless prosecutors wish to allay fears by announcing the arrest of persons such as serial murderers or rapists, no legitimate purpose is served by a press conference outlining the evidence against the accused and pronouncing their guilt.

In Denver, City Attorney Larry Manzanares committed suicide after being charged with stealing a state-owned computer, which the district attorney announced at a press conference contained pornographic material. The district attorney defended himself by saying that he had treated Mr. Manzanares no differently than anyone else. Therein lies the problem.

The Duke rape case should have taught all prosecutors the potential danger and unfairness of such pre-trial conduct and statements. No acquittal or dismissal of charges will ever end the stigma that attaches to such serious criminal accusations. Prosecutors should present their evidence and summations in the courtroom; not in the media.

Comments

[AkashicRecords]

Now if only Eric Holder's DOJ could be as swift to uphold the law once all evidence is gathered.

[northstar11]

ASHCROFT while AG, did this stuff routinely ------no one said a word-

this stuff taints juries------ those who engage in this kind of grandstanding ought to be FIRED

[goldcoastsailor]

This is completely absurd and anti first amendment. People in a free society can "editorialize all they please.

[rbarthjr]

But these aren't "people"; they're government officials speaking in their official capacities. Learn the difference on who can "editorialize" all they please. (Oh, and was there some reason for the open quote before "editorialize," and no close quote?)

[rlugbill]

District Attorneys are elected, so they sometimes like to grandstand to show off to the public all the great work they are doing. The problem is that this politicizing of the legal process threatens our legal system. It reverses the presumption of innocence.

It taints juries. It raises legal questions that make trying the case difficult. Can you get a fair trial after the case has been highly publicized by the press (because the prosecutor called a press conference)? Even if there is a change of venue, can it be fair, since the press coverage was national, not local?

Shouldn't the defendants be entitled to their own press conferences? Doesn't this just make it a media circus instead of a dignified legal proceeding if the case is being tried in the media instead of the courtroom?

And, what if some of these defendants are later found to be not guilty? They have been smeared in the press and there is no way to undo what was done to them. There is no liability of the part of the prosecutor for slamming these guys, draining their bank accounts for legal fees and ruining their lives and reputations.

The system is unbalanced with no checks on the prosecutors for ruining people's lives to further their own political careers.

[PDH5204]

Judge, I have to agree with the one soul, as this isn't Nixon and the Manson trial. Nothing said that isn't rather directly implied by the indictment. Would you prefer that the indictment be mailed and/or emailed to every NJ resident? What was said pales in comparison to the allegations contained in the indictment.

Lastly, indeed having read the indictment, it is far tamer than some. Pales in comparison to the indictment in the McMartin Preschool matter and, closer to home for you, the indictment in the matter of State v. Michaels. I'll leave it for you and the other jurists, present and past, to ask themselves how something that appears so entirely implausible on its face on paper could have ever been sustained on a probable cause hearing. My favorite example is a CPS case that I handled, with the one child reporting to the school counselor, before the whole thing got going, that the best thing she could say about her mom was that mon didn't beat her when she misbehaved. It was supposed to be a physical abuse case, leading to the obvious question: if mom doesn't beat the child when she's misbehaved, why are we to believe that mom ever beats the child? It took two and a half years to reunite mom and her children, and none of it was public. So your time would be better spent enlightening your peers as far too many simply don't know how to think.

[lastpost]

“The assistant United States Attorney in announcing the charges simultaneously rendered a guilty verdict by concluding: "For these defendants, corruption was a way of life.”

One can only assume that he was judging them, by reference to himself.

[mperl95]

The judge makes an interesting point and compares it to the mess that was made in Duke Rape Case. These boys were convicted in the media and it was fed by an irresponsible prosecutor.
Turned out this woman lied and there was no evidence a crime was commited.
Everyone has the presumtion of innocence and allow the court of peers with the evidence to decide.
This is a complex case and the prosecutors need to walk a tight rope.

[GrahamInCanada]

But your honor, you misunderstand the presumption of innocence, with all due respect.

The presumption of innocence is more accurately stated by the old legalese, incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

In US law, the prosecutor is he who asserts. While mindful the prosecutor could actually say, "I assert that for these defendants, corruption was a way of life. They existed in an ethics-free zone." it would also be redundant.

Despite the fact that the prosecutor asserts that for these defendants, corruption was a way of life, and has charged the defendants with various crimes; in the trial of these charges, the burden of proving the assertions rests with the prosecutor, because the defendants are presumed to be innocent of the charges the prosecutor asserts.

That is why the media calls defendants before the trial "alleged" criminals. And who did the alleging? The prosecutor.

To say that the prosecutor cannot assert charges against defendants because the defendants are presumed to be innocent leads to the conclusion that prosecutors cannot assert charges against defendants at all because they are presumed to be innocent.

[ThinkCreeps]

Releasing details beyond the simple charges outside the court could prejudice the jurors. Isn't that the main concern? I think the judge is correct here, in that there were lots of details.

Nevertheless, when there's a high-profile arrest, it is important for an official statement to be available to avoid rumors, which are likely to be more damaging to the defendant's reputation.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

I do not question the right of prosecutors to assert charges against persons. What I do challenge is the editorializing about their guilt. You mention that the media calls the defendants "alleged" criminals. All I suggest is that the prosecutors do the same.

[GrahamInCanada]

Dear Mr. Sarokin,

Again, with all due respect, are you not begging the question?

Would it not be redundant for prosecutors to call defendants "alleged" criminals, since it is prosecutors who are alleging that they are criminals?

While mindful that the prosecutor could say, "I allege that this person is a criminal", it is also redundant, when the prosecutor says "This person is a criminal" it is an allegation.

I am not trying to play with you, I agree that there is prosecutorial discretion and there may be limits to what the prosecutor may do or say while alleging someone is a criminal.

Nevertheless, to say a prosecutor must preface an allegation with a statement saying "this is an allegation" is redundant, or at least, it assumes such ignorance on the part of the public that they do not know that prosecutors are employed to allege and then prove crimes.

I also agree that prosecutors must be mindful of the health and welfare of the alleged criminals, and once allegation are made, the prosecutor has a duty to ensure that the health and welfare of the alleged criminal is maintained until the allegation is tested in court.

But you did not confine yourself like this, and I say again, it is redundant for prosecutors to say "alleged"; prosecutors are the ones that are making the allegation.