Introduction
Prosecutors are more often regarded as the worst enemies of defense attorneys and their clients. The desire and pressure to succeed make the prosecutors even apply unethical methods that can backfire against their case. This has been witnessed on several occasions. This was reflected in Michael Jackson’s child molestation case and the Jesse James Hollywood murder prosecution. In very high profile cases before courts, the prosecutors are faced with a difficult task, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, and hence they are bestowed with high ethical and moral obligations as compared to the defense attorneys. The overriding cause of unethical practice by prosecutors is a conflict of interest. Prosecutors just like attorneys have professional rules of conduct that govern their duties. Moreover, being members of the bar, they have to adhere to the ethical codes of professionalism of their countries or states. Consequently, prosecutors have to follow the specific codes of conduct that are required of prosecutors.
Case Study: People of State of California vs. Michael Jackson
The case between the people and the king of pop, Michael Jackson, elicited two main ethical concerns: the passion of the prosecutor to convict the defendant and the possibility of the prosecutor to be an actor in investigations that will likely result in him/her being a witness. The prosecutor has the duty to convict a defendant that he finds guilty, but it should be understood that he/she also has a duty to control life, liberty,y and regulation, and his discretion can be dangerous. In the case of Michael Jackson, the prosecutor had substantial evidence that the defendant molested the victims based on the sexually explicit magazines found by the police in Jackson’s estate and also the admission by Jackson that he had slept with the boy. The public had the perception that the case was turning personal. This created a lot of ethical challenges on the side of prosecutor Sneddon and underrated his credibility in the way he handled the case (Levenson, n.d.).
Summary of the Case
The case involved the accusations of Michael Jackson to have committed crimes of child molestation and other thirteen charges. The defendant was represented by attorney Steve Levine while the prosecution was headed by Tom Sneddon. The proceedings took place at the Santa Barbara District attorney’s Office (CNN Justice, 2003).
Ethical Dilemma and Issue
Prosecutors are the best only if they do not permit their judgment and prosecutorial obligations to be clouded by their own financial, political, or commercial interests. Prosecutors handling high-profile cases have to avoid permitting conflict of interests to their own agenda. While pursuing an investigation into the case, prosecutor Sneddon personally met with the witnesses in Los Angeles, took photographs, and noted down the description of the search location. This act by itself was gravely unethical since it presented a scenario where the prosecutor could end up behind his own witness (Levenson, n.d.).
Outcome: In the Michael Jackson case, the jury found out that he was innocent of the charges of child molestation.
My Position on the Outcome
It was unethical for the prosecutor to participate in the investigative stage of a case actively, thus he should rely on investigative information from the police and other investigative agencies unless they fail to carry out their duties conclusively. Then, the prosecutor may be required to investigate. Sneddon found himself in a trap by choosing to meet the witnesses to the case.
References
CNN Justice. (2003). Michael Jackson was formally charged in the molestation case. CNN. Web.
Levenson, L.L. (n.d.). High-profile prosecutors & high-profile conflict. Los Angeles Law Review, 39(1), 12.