Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards Essay

Prosecutorial Misconduct

In July 2003, Jay Lentz was convicted for kidnapping and murdering his ex-wife. The jury that was handling his case sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, later after the sentence, a US District judge called Gerald Lee established that there was insufficient evidence on the charge. Therefore, he ordered a new trial of the case because he felt that there was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor (OpenJurist, 2011).

Further, it was argued in the case that the court ruling was based on evidence that was never presented in court. The inadmissible evidence was retrieved from the belongings of the deceased and included a list of calendar notes of threats by the victim’s ex-husband. In that effect, Judge Lee drew a conclusion that the chief prosecutor deliberately put the calendar in the evidence box taken to the jury. As a result, the jurors evaluated this evidence although they were not supposed to see it. Lee argued that putting this evidence in the jury room was not an innocent mistake. It was reckless misconduct by the prosecutor.

Moreover, the prosecutors refused to concede the truth and consequently declined to apologize for their mistakes. Instead, they questioned the authority of the judge during the case proceedings asserting assumptions that they were above the law in that context. However, their thoughts were contrary to what the judge had in mind. This judge insisted that they ought to be answerable and fortifies his intuition with claims that Mellin was intensely involved in that case. He had requested to be the one to handle that particular case before it had begun.

Mellin handled the case in court as if he had complete control of the case thereby ignoring the importance of the judiciary. The whole process of handling the case involved the judge and the prosecutor exchanging so many words in a way that no prosecutor could get away with.

Later on, as a sign of guilt Mellin requested the Department of justice: the office of professional responsibility to handle the investigation against him. He did this with hopes that the office would clear his name since this was possible in the United States of America. This common practice is actually what provided the ‘immune feeling’ to the prosecutors because there were thousands of mishandled cases in the United States of America that were covered up in a similar fashion.

Nonetheless, it has been found that most U.S prosecutors use team roles to immunize themselves against attacks on wrong charges that they give (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). They do so by defending one another when the need arises. There arouses a point of misunderstanding between the judges and prosecutors. Therefore, the law needs to be explicit on the respective duties of judges and prosecutors in the courtroom. This will bring a better understanding of how to handle cases than what is experienced in courts today. The prosecution needs to present all evidence to the court, and none should be taken lightly as they might all be very useful in handling cases.

Ineffective assistance of criminal defense counsel

A Californian jury convicted Mr. Pinholster of murder. It was reported that together with his friends, they robbed a drug dealer and killed him in the process. After examining the presented evidence, the jury decided that a death sentence was the best ruling in this case.

However, later it was found that the victim had an antisocial personality disorder. This was according to a doctor’s evaluation, which the attorney had obtained three weeks before the judicial punishment of the convict. The attorney was not provided with the documents that contained information about the early years of abuse of Mr. Pinholster. The documents dated back to his childhood. It was found that the attorney had information that Mr. Pinholster had mental health issues and faced incarceration in juvenile prison. He hardly had time since he was 10years old and the prosecution failed to present this to the jury.

As a result, the attorney giving the sentence did not have enough witnesses. Though he managed to call his mother as a witness, she only made things worse by claiming that all her children were of good conduct. This claim left out information that the accused son had a mental disorder condition, which could ease his judicial punishment.

Nonetheless, the prosecutors later called on experts to refute the doctor’s examination, labeling antisocial personality disorder to the manner in which the victim died. This was an effort to alter the evidence provided in order to justify their judgment. This is not acceptable. If justice has to prevail, evidence and the truth have to trail back to the cause in order to guide the jury or the prosecutor’s decision. They should not let their judgments be inspired by assumptions.

This case was very conspicuous, thus attracting Strickland v. Washington’s two-part-test because of the sentence imposed. Not many people would support a death sentence regardless of the crime committed. In this particular case, the evidence provided was incomplete. Additionally, the prosecuting team showed a high level of ignorance in the way it handled this case. Therefore, the verdict was not satisfactory to the criminal. This is clear from the evidence held or ignored by the prosecution, which had a sufficient guide to what the accused had undergone. It would have provided some relief had they provided it to the court. If they did, the sentence would be different. The case goes hand in hand with and is applicable to the case of Strickland and Washington.

For that matter, lawyers representing Mr. Pinholster did not present sufficient evidence. The court found his lawyers effective. However, even if they had been ineffective, the crime was still unforgivable. Since death sentences have unique legal issues, they are very difficult to handle. They are some of the most complex cases one can handle since ending a human being’s life is unjustifiable according to human nature. Every criminal law, therefore, requires experienced attorneys regardless of its degree of seriousness and complexity.

Judicial misconduct

Christopher Sheldon was a superior Court Judge in Riverside County in California when he agreed to sign his acceptance to public censure. This censure that happened in April 2009 was from the Commission on judicial performance. The commission later found that the judge used to leave the court early in spite of receiving full payment in his job. This was unacceptable to all as it cast disgrace to the general judicial office. The commission further realized that Sheldon had faced punishment on grounds of neglecting his duties and work in general.

Schmalleger (2010) further states that the law needs to be applicable to all people. It is a shame that those who are supposed to encourage people to adhere to the laws are the ones shying away from it. The laws for the judiciary are supposed to be stricter in order to make them live exemplary life on how the people can follow the rules.

The mass will always learn from the best when it comes to a specific subject matter. In a rotten judiciary, therefore, there is little or no justice. It is supposed to practice the rules in a perfect way to ensure that justice begins from the Centre of law enforcers and practitioners.

References

OpenJurist. (2011), United States v. E Lentz. Web.

Schmalleger, F., Hall, D., & Dolatowski, J. (2010). Criminal law today (4^th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Siegel, J., Schmalleger, F., & Worrall, J. (2011). Courts and criminal justice in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.