I just finished watching Season 1 of For Life. Would highly recommend it. Its about a somewhat based on a true story of a man who gets railroaded by the prosecutor. The season ended on a cliffhanger where the prosecutor offered him a poison pill.

Looking at everything that has happened with President Trump and General Flynn and the ungodly amount of corruption and prosecutorial misconduct that existed in that case, its apparent that no one is interested in the truth, only their agenda.

The Aubry case is similar on that nature. Depending on your POV, a change of prosecutor for political purposes either override a legitimate self defense investigation and determination or prevented a grave injustice from occurring. Either way, the prosecutor, who generally has a vested interest in the outcome, had almost complete control of the process, less the final outcome itself.

Does the prosecutor have too much power for one person. The idea of justice being blind is based on a prosecutor, who had unlimited resources and complete control of the narrative, to be more interested in justice over a favorable outcome for their interest. In this day and age where elected officials have the morals and ethics of a petulant preschooler, is it wise to give a prosecutor so much unchecked power? It's no wonder that you have to be rich to feel somewhat confident as a defendant, it takes a lot of resources to compete with the state or federal governments.

Are there any kind of reforms we as a society could implement to reign in prosecutorial power or is our system too far gone to fix? Or am I way off base and the system is working fine

The legal system is largely about money, to a lesser extent on the criminal side, but certainly on the civil side. The bankruptcy system of justice is very tainted. Lots of issues everywhere. I just don't know what the better alternative would be.

The jury system involves too much emotion and bias also.

yes.....just a simple yes...

/sarc caveat: thank you corruptible lobbying within politics...

(05-12-2020 10:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I just finished watching Season 1 of For Life. Would highly recommend it. Its about a somewhat based on a true story of a man who gets railroaded by the prosecutor. The season ended on a cliffhanger where the prosecutor offered him a poison pill.

Looking at everything that has happened with President Trump and General Flynn and the ungodly amount of corruption and prosecutorial misconduct that existed in that case, its apparent that no one is interested in the truth, only their agenda.

The Aubry case is similar on that nature. Depending on your POV, a change of prosecutor for political purposes either override a legitimate self defense investigation and determination or prevented a grave injustice from occurring. Either way, the prosecutor, who generally has a vested interest in the outcome, had almost complete control of the process, less the final outcome itself.

Does the prosecutor have too much power for one person. The idea of justice being blind is based on a prosecutor, who had unlimited resources and complete control of the narrative, to be more interested in justice over a favorable outcome for their interest. In this day and age where elected officials have the morals and ethics of a petulant preschooler, is it wise to give a prosecutor so much unchecked power? It's no wonder that you have to be rich to feel somewhat confident as a defendant, it takes a lot of resources to compete with the state or federal governments.

Are there any kind of reforms we as a society could implement to reign in prosecutorial power or is our system too far gone to fix? Or am I way off base and the system is working fine

As a state prosecutor, I'll weigh in. At a federal level, I do believe the system is rigged against defendants. This is mainly due to the speed at which cases move. Sometimes it is called "trial by ambush."

At the state level, there are a number of checks on runaway prosecutors. The vast majority of prosecutors are ethical. The judge is able to watch over proceedings and sanction misconduct. You have a defense attorney who can challenge the prosecutor. You have to be convicted by a jury. You have numerous appeals and post-conviction remedies available. In short it would take a lot to go wrong for someone to be wrongfully convicted and it not be discovered. You'd have to look extremely guilty either through simple bad luck or fraudulent testimony. That said, the greatest danger of a wrongful conviction is a corrupt prosecutor/law enforcement that hides evidence or induces witnesses to lie. As a responsible prosecutor, I have a duty to ensure that justice is done. Often times, this means I dismiss cases if the evidence suggests the defendant is not guilty.

(05-13-2020 06:43 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 10:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I just finished watching Season 1 of For Life. Would highly recommend it. Its about a somewhat based on a true story of a man who gets railroaded by the prosecutor. The season ended on a cliffhanger where the prosecutor offered him a poison pill.

Looking at everything that has happened with President Trump and General Flynn and the ungodly amount of corruption and prosecutorial misconduct that existed in that case, its apparent that no one is interested in the truth, only their agenda.

The Aubry case is similar on that nature. Depending on your POV, a change of prosecutor for political purposes either override a legitimate self defense investigation and determination or prevented a grave injustice from occurring. Either way, the prosecutor, who generally has a vested interest in the outcome, had almost complete control of the process, less the final outcome itself.

Does the prosecutor have too much power for one person. The idea of justice being blind is based on a prosecutor, who had unlimited resources and complete control of the narrative, to be more interested in justice over a favorable outcome for their interest. In this day and age where elected officials have the morals and ethics of a petulant preschooler, is it wise to give a prosecutor so much unchecked power? It's no wonder that you have to be rich to feel somewhat confident as a defendant, it takes a lot of resources to compete with the state or federal governments.

Are there any kind of reforms we as a society could implement to reign in prosecutorial power or is our system too far gone to fix? Or am I way off base and the system is working fine

As a state prosecutor, I'll weigh in. At a federal level, I do believe the system is rigged against defendants. This is mainly due to the speed at which cases move. Sometimes it is called "trial by ambush."

At the state level, there are a number of checks on runaway prosecutors. The vast majority of prosecutors are ethical. The judge is able to watch over proceedings and sanction misconduct. You have a defense attorney who can challenge the prosecutor. You have to be convicted by a jury. You have numerous appeals and post-conviction remedies available. In short it would take a lot to go wrong for someone to be wrongfully convicted and it not be discovered. You'd have to look extremely guilty either through simple bad luck or fraudulent testimony. That said, the greatest danger of a wrongful conviction is a corrupt prosecutor/law enforcement that hides evidence or induces witnesses to lie. As a responsible prosecutor, I have a duty to ensure that justice is done. Often times, this means I dismiss cases if the evidence suggests the defendant is not guilty.

summation = why waste the time

unfortunately, sometimes that doesn't equate to = 1

therefore, the conundrum...

I can't imagine how overwhelming it's going to be moving forward on the civil side after #muhCovid plays out....

depending on which side of equation, local/state has to be squirming/licking chops at this point....

SCOTUS has to have the following bell 'ringing' in their heads, "oh shite, it's coming"

It's not beyond repair but a major overhaul is needed. The more interesting thing is how regional it is. Basically, if you are in a blue stronghold, you tend to get larger more dramatic verdicts/awards. They jury's seem to look for deep pockets to pay for poor little Sally's, a 35 year old meth addict, lifetime of injuries, after she huffed some butane and then decided to light her mouth with a lighter. Personal responsibility be damned.