TX: In Harris County Capital Cases, Prosecutors Get to Be the Judges

"While it is not unusual for judges to ask parties to submit proposed findings before they make a ruling, it should be unusual for them to simply adopt one party’s document without reading it, without editing it, without considering it. The fact-finding process is meant to be adversarial, even more so in high-stakes capital cases. When courts just adopt the State’s documents verbatim, due process is rendered meaningless; judges have ceded whatever authority they have, handing it over to the State."

Prosecutorial Accountability Project

June 19, 2018

Read More
New York Gang Prosecutions Use Conspiracy Charges to Criminalize Whole Communities

"Defendants in these kinds of cases, often from New York City’s poorest neighborhoods, can’t afford to hire attorneys. The conspiracy charges they face...are broad and hard to fight, because proving individuals “conspired” with others accused of crimes is easier for prosecutors than proving they committed that crime. Threatened with draconian sentences, almost all defendants in these situations agree to plea deals — usually getting years rather decades in prison, and scoring prosecutors dozens of easy convictions."

The Intercept

June 7, 2018

Read More
Missouri Supreme Court Reprimands Platte County Prosecutor For Ethical Violations

"The complaint alleged that Zahnd had committed multiple ethical violations when he sought to pressure community members to withdraw letters they had written in support of a convicted child molester prior to his sentencing in October 2015. The OCDC recommended harsher punishment, namely a three-month suspension of Zahnd’s law license. Although the disciplinary panel opted to recommend the more lenient punishment, the Supreme Court’s adoption of its recommendation represents a rare rebuke of a sitting prosecuting attorney."

KCUR Missouri

May 22, 2018

Read More
Victory for Defendant Autonomy and the Criminal Jury Trial in McCoy v. Louisiana

"Robert McCoy was charged with the murder of three of his family members in Bossier City, Louisiana. The state brought capital charges against him, but McCoy maintained his innocence......But in light of the evidence against him, McCoy’s lawyer thought the best trial strategy would be to admit guilt...McCoy adamantly opposed this plan, but his lawyer pursued it anyway and told the jury that McCoy was guilty. The jury returned three murder convictions and sentenced McCoy to death. Today, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Sixth Amendment for McCoy’s lawyer to admit his guilt over his express objection, and it ordered the state of Louisiana to grant McCoy a new trial."

Cato Institute

May 14, 2018

Read More
Oregon eyes own changes to split-verdict law: 'Do we really want to be like Louisiana?'

"Oregon for 84 years has shared a constitutional quirk with Louisiana that allows criminal trials to be decided by non-unanimous juries. In every other state — and the federal court system — juries must reach unanimous verdicts in felony cases, whether convicting a serial arsonist or acquitting a low-level drug dealer...That is not the case here, to the shock and chagrin of many locals."

The Advocate

May 12, 2018

Read More
Texas Cracks Down on the Market for Jailhouse Snitches

"The new law requires prosecutors to keep thorough records of all jailhouse informants they use — the nature of their testimony, the benefits they received and their criminal history. This information must be disclosed to defense lawyers, who may use it in court to challenge the informant’s reliability or honesty, particularly if the informant has testified in other cases."

New York Times

July 15, 2017

Read More