Deputy DA Suspension For Misconduct
Four-year suspension for ex-deputy DA upheld
http://sharonstephens.blogspot.com/2011/01/deputy-da-suspension-for-misconduct.html
He intentionally withheld a witness’ statement that was favorable to the defense in a 2003 habeas corpus proceeding involving a sexual assault.
The judge found that he committed a discovery violation.
This is why most people who have become a Joinder (FEDERAL WITNESS) do not get indicted for Willful Failure to File.
When you come on as a Joinder to Dave Myrland’s Criminal Complaint you are a Federal Witness which is favorable to your defense.
Once you are indicted just makes it more difficult and costly to turn it around.
As the old saying goes… an ounces of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
Your prevention is the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT!
The foregoing came from the following website:
http://publicdefenderdude.blogspot.com/2008/07/da-finally-gets-his-comeuppance-lets.html
One of the great equalizers in the criminal justice system is supposed to be the discovery power possessed only by the defense, via Brady v. Maryland. The defense is supposed to have little or no duty to give discovery to the DA – the DA must prove the case on his/her own without help from the defense. But if the DA, or anyone working on the prosecution team,
comes across “exculpatory evidence,” then the DA must hand it over to the defense. The theory is that the DA cannot blind him/herself to evidence of innocence on the way to seeking justice. The greatest and best-used example of “Brady material” is impeachment statements by a prosecution witness (US v. Agurs) – in other words, if the DA knows a witness said something helpful to the defense, or something that contradicts in any way what he said to the police/DA (and that could be just about
anything), the DA MUST disclose it to the defense. And the DA MUST seek out such information from the other “prosecuting agencies” such as the police, the coroner, etc., and give it to the defense (Kyles v. Whiley).
A second great equalizer is that the DA cannot commit “prosecutorial misconduct” against the defense. From Berger v. US (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88: “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a
wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”
Prosecutorial misconduct takes many forms, and few courts are vigorous in pointing it out, because it can mean a reversal for no other reason than the DA “cheated.” In other words, even if a defendant is probably guilty, a court will have to reverse the conviction unless they can say that the misconduct did not infect the trial “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The phrase is, was
the error “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?” This is known as a harmless error, from California v. Chapman.
Now it leaves only civil action which seems the direction of what is going on in the collection activities.
God Bless America
