Research Question
The problem with judges and prosecutors is that they have a significant amount of power over those being judged and, when abused, can have extremely dire effects on that individual's life. With rising distrust of the criminal justice system from the American Public, it questions the extent to which judges and prosecutors are
held accountable.
Effects of Abusive Power
The Innocence Project sought to explain why holding them accountable is so difficult in the first place, citing how "credible leads to suppressed evidence can’t be pursued because the original files are destroyed, or witnesses have died or gone missing" (Zack 4). This illustrates the problem with three sides of justice because prosecutors may hide or conceal defensive evidence to win a case and get a conviction.
As the Innocence Project looked to describe, there was a case where a prosecutor held back information that was in favor of the defense, resulting in the wrongful conviction of someone. This sort of corruption is a clear representation of why we need objective justice instead of skewed justice. From the judge's side of things, "527/660 cases of prosecutor misconduct were upheld" showing the prejudice carried by said judges because if a judge truly believed in blind justice, they would throw out the conviction due to the misconduct (Zack 4). In cases like these, I think the judge has an unconscious prejudice against the defendant and they use the prosecutors as a way to affirm their own suspicions.
Biases in the legal system
Judges and Prosecutors are made to be entities of the government that hold you to a standard and allow you to be judged. Still, this tie to the government can share a significant amount of bias due to countless examples seen through corrupt cases where even when the judge does find the prosecutor performing harmful misconduct, the prosecutor isn't removed until the 2nd ethical violation. This seems like it makes sense but when the violation isn't an accident and they are choosing to withhold something to spin a narrative they know can be proven untrue with their evidence, it is undoubtedly corrupt for them to stay. The question is, is this due to a legal bias of them both being government entities or purely a result of something else?
While there are systems meant to hold prosecutors accountable there are also limitations to these systems. Take, for example, how judges and prosecutors often have immunity from civil lawsuits, and disciplinary proceedings can be lengthy and bureaucratic allowing them to be exempt from any wrongdoing in those fields. Additionally, public opinion may not always be effective in holding them accountable, especially if the misconduct is not widely publicized or if the public is not aware of the issue. This, combined with the ability for the judge to just let them walk free, allows it to be put into perspective the scale of which the prosecutors can use loopholes to escape justice, which obviously, opens up the conversation for new reforms and a proper solution for the criminal justice system.
D.P.I.C Misconduct Map
This map ported from the death penalty information center easily captures the frequency at which this problem is sweeping across the United States. What this map truly illustrates is the number of times that judges have explicitly declared that there was judicial misconduct, and the cases where the judge declared that the misconduct would not affect the case, is still the %80 we don't see as cited by the D.P.I.C. which introduces even more concern for the security and the justness of our legal system. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime puts it best, stating how, "Implementing a meaningful way for the public to be protected from judicial misconduct is vital-- there has to be review. Furthermore, it must be done with minimal risk of unlawful intervention by forces trying to prevent unpopular, but correct, rulings on the law" which I believe is the correct solution, but combined with the previous limitations on prosecutor regulation, I think is almost unfeasible due to those senses of immunity (Sachar 6).
Plea-Bargaining
Angela Davis from a political journal, investigates ways that prosecutors can successfully convict suspects through the use of plea bargaining. For example, "The vast majority of criminal defendants engage in plea-bargaining because going to trial is risky business. If a defendant is charged with several offenses and each offense carries a lengthy term of imprisonment, the defendant faces the prospect of many years in prison if he is convicted of all charges. If one or more of the offenses carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, that prospect becomes a guarantee" (Davis 12-13). The plea is used as a sort of play on emotions because most people aren't willing to gamble their freedom on a trial even if they know they are innocent if they feel like the prosecutor might have even a slight chance of winning because then their life is over. The increase in mandatory minimum sentences and longer prison terms has inflated the importance of the plea-bargaining process because the risks associated with exercising one’s constitutional right to a trial have become too high.
Corrupt Judges
The extent to which a judge's corruptness can affect the lives of individuals can be shown through how "Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide" (Shiffman 1). This shocking fact exemplifies a different level of judicial corruption, the extent to which a judge can pursue a punishment and at times how unreasonable that punishment can be. With the entire foundation of criminal justice being ethics, it is clear how this is a representation of misconduct to the fullest extent. This was more than just a temporary problem for the defendant, as it is stated how, "Marquita Johnson, who was locked up in April 2012, says the impact of her time in jail endures today. Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused," contributing to the narrative of the judges and their decisions holding a significant amount of power over the defendant's lives, and when abused, can destroy families and ruin lives (Berens 2). The most shocking fact about a case like this is that even though Judge Hayes was completely in the wrong, he was not barred from serving as a judge, and after a dispute with the judicial commission, would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension.
To broaden the perspective, "Hayes is among thousands of state and local judges across America who were allowed to keep positions of extraordinary power and prestige after violating judicial ethics rules or breaking laws they pledged to uphold," and there are countless stories of judges committing misconduct and being let back on the bench with little to no punishment at all (Shiffman 5). This helps to illustrate the full complexity of the issue, how the prosecutors can bring whatever charges they want and that allows abuse of power, but also the judges can control the extent of the punishment, and in the case of prosecutorial misconduct, 80% of the time judges stated it did not affect the trial, and when it was judicial misconduct, those judges were placed back on the bench without much of a punishment at all.
Conclusion
Overall, prosecutors and judges aren't held accountable for much of their actions at all, and the gray area that allows for the abuse of power is arguably too big to leave without making a change to stop these waves of new victims. Through the stricter judicial and prosecutorial review, these corrupt officials can be removed from these seats, and allow for better resolutions for people like Marquita Johnson so their lives and their families aren't ruined and they can work towards a better and ethical American Criminal Justice System.
Resources and Connections
Berens, Michael, and John Shiffman. “Thousands of U.S. Judges Who Broke Laws or Oaths Remained on the Bench.” Reuters, 30 June 2020, www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/.
​
Davis, Angela J. “The Power and Discretion of the American Prosecutor.” Droit et Cultures. Revue Internationale Interdisciplinaire, vol. 49, no. 49, 1 Jan. 2005, pp. 55–66, journals.openedition.org/droitcultures/1580?lang=en#text, https://doi.org/10.4000/droitcultures.1580.
​
“Misconduct and Wrongful Convictions.” Death Penalty Information Center, deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/prosecutorial-accountability/misconduct-and-wrongful-convictions.
​
Sachar, David. “Judicial Misconduct and Public Confidence in the Rule of Law.” Unodc.org, 2019, www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/08/judicial-misconduct-and-public-confidence-in-the-rule-of-law.html.
​
Wheeler, Russell. “The Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct: Enforcement Confusion, Extrajudicial Activism.” Brookings, 29 Nov. 2023, www.brookings.edu/articles/the-supreme-courts-code-of-conduct-enforcement-confusion-extrajudicial-activism/.
​
Zack, Emma. “Why Holding Prosecutors Accountable Is so Difficult.” Innocence Project, 23 Apr. 2020, innocenceproject.org/why-holding-prosecutors-accountable-is-so-difficult/.