Prosecutors Lie in Court

[JustANobody]

Prosecutors cannot both serve in the role as prosecutor and testify as witnesses in a legal proceeding. If they're prosecuting, they thus cannot be committing perjury; and if they're testifying, they're not prosecuting a case.

A defense attorney may argue that the state cannot prove his client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and a prosecutor may argue that the defendant is so obviously guilty that no reasonable person could disagree, but that doesn't mean that either statement is inappropriate as advocacy even if the jury ultimately disagrees in its verdict.

Prosecutors can indeed commit perjury of oath and misprison of felony. Many in today's America do both with unaccountable abandon and get away with that and much more since the system effectively grinds most down to nothing by the time the dust has settled and they have standing to proceed.

Prosecutors are to be forbidden from misstating the law or advancing positions adverse to authority, and certainly not without disclosing as much and providing case law for such a reckless path.

Further, prosecutors opinions have ZERO place in the courts and this has been clearly established many many years ago.

However, most wish to win at any cost and their rebuttals of the defenses closing argument generally always crosses over all reasonable lines.

"[Prosecuting] attorneys are government officials and clothed with the dignity and prestige of their office. What they say to the jury is necessarily weighted with that prestige. It is their duty to see to it that those accused of crime are afforded a fair trial . . . . [para. ] It would be a sad day for the administration of justice if this court were to condone the substitution of the personal belief of the district attorney . . .that the accused should be convicted because the district attorney thinks he should, for what the law guarantees -- a fair jury trial."

“The statement `we try to prosecute only the guilty is not defensible. Expressions of individual opinion of guilt are dubious at best...This statement takes guilt as a pre-determined fact. The remark is, at the least, an effort to lead the jury to believe that the whole governmental establishment had already determined appellant to be guilty on evidence not before them.” <good luck finding a panel of jurorists that don't really have that mindset anyhow> (Hall v. U.S. (5th Cir. 1969) 419 F.2d 582, 587; see also Cargle v. Mullin (10th Cir. 2003) 317 F.3d 1196, 1218 ["'It is always improper for a prosecutor to suggest that a defendant is guilty merely because he is being prosecuted.' [Citations].]")

Improper arguments in rebuttal are deemed more likely prejudicial. See United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777, 788 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding significant "[t]he prosecutor's improper comments occurred during his rebuttal argument and therefore were the last words from an attorney that were heard by the jury before deliberations"), cited by U.S. v. Sanchez, 659 F.3d 1252, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011).

Your attorney, as part of the local frat club of cronies, are in it to uphold the system and make money. This is why prosecutor abuse and misconduct is seldom challenged in America and allowed to be the rule, instead of the exception.

[Taxing Matters]

Prosecutors can indeed commit perjury of oath and misprison of felony. Many in today's America do both with unaccountable abandon and get away with that and much more since the system effectively grinds most down to nothing by the time the dust has settled and they have standing to proceed.

Not so. Your distain of prosecutors (and I’ll guess the justice system as a whole) is apparent and you are entitled to your opinion. But it is also clear you do not understand either perjury or misprison of felony. Perjury is the crime of giving false testimony under oath or otherwise under penalty of perjury. Prosecutors do not get on the stand to testify in the cases they prosecute and thus cannot commit perjury in the cases they prosecute, as Mr. Knowitall correctly stated. Misprison of felony is the act of concealing a felony crime. The prosecutor in prosecuting a case is not concealing it. There are certainly wrongs a prosecutor can commit while prosecuting a case, but those two crimes are not among them.

[JustANobody]

They perjure their oaths almost on a regular basis and clearly you look past my making the distinction between perjury and perjury of oath they swear to...........

any act of official misconduct by those acting in the power of the state are almost always felonies, even crimes which otherwise would be misdemeanors

my disdain is for corrupt prosecutors that sell justice and abuse their positions for political and other reasons, not limited to racking up a game so local cronies can also profit

and this happens every day all across this land and likely because people like them saw sun setting dueling laws might be wise for self preservation

you'd be in deep denial to believe it does not

[Taxing Matters]

and this happens every day all across this land

There are certainly pockets of corruption in this country. I once lived in such an area so I would certainly not say such things cannot occur. Perhaps the area in which you live is also one of them. But many parts of the country are largely free of such corruption and I have lived in several such areas. So it is clear to me that it does not indeed happen “every day all across this land”. Pretty much any statement that characterizes most members of any profession or occupation as being corrupt or criminals is going to be wrong. Target those who indeed are corrupt, but don’t tar the innocent along with the guilty.

[Guybrush]

Let's be fair guys. Not only are prosecutors human (and thus capable of lying) but defense attorneys as well are human (and capable of lying). Yes, there are many that "bend" the truth and perhaps to the point of out right lying. I've seen it a few times. It is sad, but the US justice system is not designed to force attorneys to do the honorable thing. It is designed to have each side try to "win" the case - and it is expected that attorneys stretch, bend, push the limits. Otherwise there would be a lot of broke defense attorneys. I'm not saying it is a good system - just that it is what we currently have.

PS - don't look now, but there are lying, crooked, people in every profession. Police, doctors, priests, the list goes on....

[cbg]

There is also the fact that "truth" is not always black and white and there can be more than one truth to the same set of facts. My husband is colorblind. He owns a shirt that as far the rest of the world
is concerned is purple, but he sees it as blue. Because his eye senses light differently than mine does, is he lying if he says the shirt is blue?

We all see events through our own filters. It is possible for different people to see the same set of facts differently. If they describe them differently, neither of them has to be lying if they are each telling the truth as they see it. Also keep in mind that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney was present and is working from what they have been told.

[asa_jim]

There is underlying objective truth regardless of our subjective perceptions. Regardless of what my eyes perceive, purple reflects light at a specific wavelength. I may say the color is blue without lying. That does not make my perception the truth. If there are no objective truths then the world becomes chaos where we each have to respect everyone else's "truth" as being as valid as our own. Oh, wait, that's the world we've decided to create (regardless of objective truth).

Regarding the role of the prosecutor, it is not to present the truth. A prosecutor presents evidence to a jury. It is up to the jury to determine what the truth is based on the facts proven by that evidence and whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

[cbg]

But there is a difference between lying, and being mistaken. Certainly my husband is mistaken when he calls the shirt blue, but even if he's mistaken he's not lying. The OP is assuming that anyone who sees a different truth must categorically be lying; that they know the truth is one thing and deliberately saying it's something else. He is not taking into consideration the possibility of error, as opposed to falsehood.

[jk]

Regarding the role of the prosecutor, it is not to present the truth. A prosecutor presents evidence to a jury. It is up to the jury to determine what the truth is based on the facts proven by that evidence and whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

if you mean to say the prosecutors job isn’t to present the truth; if that is to suggest they can lie, well, no, they can’t.

their job is to ensure justice is upheld and guilty people are punished. While they can be creative when they present their case, they aren’t allowed to lie to make this case. Here is a bit from Indiana that makes the point

https://www.in.gov/ipac/files/5._Lie...ical_Rules.pdf


they also have to provide any exculpatory evicidence they have to the defense.

[Brian57]

Not so. Your distain of prosecutors (and I’ll guess the justice system as a whole) is apparent and you are entitled to your opinion.

There are certainly pockets of corruption in this country. I once lived in such an area so I would certainly not say such things cannot occur.

It is interesting how you characterize JAN's views...that he has a "distain for prosecutors and the justice system as a whole."

If you personally knew parents that abused their child and it affected you deeply, would it be fair to assume that you had a distain for all parents and the family system as a whole? If your doctor gave you poor care and permanently harmed you, would it be fair for me to assume you have a distain for all doctors and the medical system as a whole?

I can speak for myself that I have sat through a court case where I watched a set of police detectives and a prosecutor corruptly prosecute a friend and a good man of murder and falsely put him behind bars for life. I sat there helplessly and could do nothing short of throwing tens of thousands of dollars at the situation in an effort to stop it. I recently got in a bicycle accident and received poor medical care for which I have to undergo surgery in two weeks to fix what the first doctor did to me. Yet I do not have a distain for all prosecutors, doctors or the systems they work within.

I assume you have never had a loved one be the victim of corrupt police or prosecutors, therefore you downplay it. Until then, I'd say your opinion is too detached from the harm they cause.