question a lawyer may be able to answer

[cab67]

4. Such cases fail most of the time even when misconduct is obvious.

People in these lines of work should be held immune from unintentional error. I agree with you completely on this. But not for intentional misconduct, and way too often, there's no accountability - especially for prosecutors.

I was referring to the case of John Richards, who was prosecuted by Harry Connick Sr. in Louisiana of armed robbery and murder. He was tried for the armed robbery first so they could go for the death penalty on the murder charge without having Jackson testify during the second trial. He was convicted both times. But Connick withheld the fact - known to him at the time - that the blood allegedly left by Jackson at the armed robbery scene was the wrong blood type. Jackson was innocent of that crime. And further evidence was withheld in the murder trial. A court held Connick liable for several million dollars for his professional misconduct, only to have the Supreme Court reverse that on the grounds that Connick had absolute immunity.

Jackson died penniless. Connick lived well.

To me, this is an abomination. Jackson spent two decades in prison, part of it on death row, for crimes he didn't commit - and his conviction didn't follow from mistakes. It followed from deliberate efforts to slant the evidence in front of the jury.

I agree that sorting mistake from misconduct can be difficult. But even cases where the misconduct is glaringly obvious (and egregious), accountability is very hard to obtain.