In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, novelist John Grisham asks for consequences for prosecutors who have continued to receive a flood of exonerations because of the following misconduct:
1. Concealing evidence that would benefit defendants
2. Fabricating evidence to convict the defendants
3. Making false statements to the court and defense attorneys
4. Offering perjured testimony
5. Cutting deals with witnesses in custody who may be inclined to testify to anything in exchange for freedom
6. Using “junk science” experts as witnesses
7. Intimidating favorable and unfavorable witnesses in cases
The editorial calls for disciplinary action against prosecutors. Mr. Grisham is correct — prosecutors who engage in the above behaviors need to experience consequences. Mr. Grisham forgot one small detail — to look at similar layers of misconduct on the defense side and throughout the civil calendars in the courts. Prosecutors are not alone in lawyer misconduct cases. Mr. Grisham wants a public commission to be created and charged with handling prosecutorial misconduct. Funny, the state bars have been charged with the same responsibilities, under the auspices of their state supreme courts. Seems to the Barometer that the call for action should go to the self-policing mechanism of professional organizations that has obviously fallen short.