Drastic Remedies: Judge Bars Prosecutor's Evidence in Murder Trial

October 15, 2010 (Press-News.org) The judicial system is inherently adversarial. In criminal trials, prosecutors and defense attorneys are tasked with providing the most effective representation possible for the state and the person accused of a crime, respectively. These lawyers must aggressively advocate for their clients' best interests, which may be mutually exclusive -- what is good for the state is not necessarily good for the person accused of a crime, and vice versa.

However, within this adversarial system, there is an underlying expectation that everyone will play within the boundaries of the system. When a prosecuting attorney or a criminal defense lawyer refuses to adhere to the established rules, it may warrant drastic actions.

Such was recently the case in Missouri. Citing "severe misconduct" and a "culture of discovery abuses" on the part of the prosecutors, a judge has barred all of the state's evidence against a man who has been accused of murder. Although the judge did not take the most drastic action available, dismissing the case completely, he came close. The state will have little success in pursuing its case if the prosecutors cannot introduce any evidence.

What could warrant such a drastic remedy?

According to the judge, the prosecutors failed to follow court orders and to supply evidence to the defense attorneys, as required by the Missouri Supreme Court. These failings occurred in the midst of a retrial, more than ten years after the alleged crime. The original conviction reversed when the Supreme Court determined on appeal that state had failed to properly disclose surveillance video that could have exonerated the defendant.

As the court noted in the order imposing these sanctions, "throughout the ten year history of this case, [the state] has failed to comply with Constitutional and procedural rules regarding discovery." The trial Court further stated that "the actions of the state have occasioned a significant waste of judicial resources with no end in sight."

When the prosecution refuses to abide by the rules of the criminal justice system, the system cannot function effectively. Drastic remedies are the only proper response. Certainly, the court's response was extraordinary, but such response helps to ensure that the rights and interests of those who have been accused of crimes are protected.

Article provided by Paul Cramm
Visit us at www.kansascity-criminal-attorney.com