Reference no: EM131081291

Discussion Board 1

Collapse

As a prosecutor it would not be acceptable to destroy evidence in a court case simply because it is their job as a prosecutor to convict the defendant that is guilty, so it would not make sense for them to destroy evidence they have on a defendants guilt. According to Celeste Bacchi, "The attorneys prosecuting the case have the obvious duty to preserve evidence, as do people acting under prosecutorial authority for example (investigators or experts retained by the prosecutor's office)"(n.page). The only way it would make sense that a prosecutor to tamper with evidence of a defendants guilt is if that prosecutor was bribed or there is a specific connection with the defendant. It still would not be acceptable. It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to protect evidence and use it accordingly. Tampering with evidence also is a compromise within the vertical and horizontal component with God and society. Proverbs 28:13 Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy. According to Rich Deem, "We are instructed not to lie, and lying is strongly condemned"(n.page). Destroying evidence to prove guilt is lying and that is unacceptable and prosecutors and defense attorneys should follow the proper vertical and horizontal components that are set before them.

In a legal and moral standpoint there are some situations where it should be acceptable for a defense attorney to allow his or her client to be found guilty. According to Michael Asimow and Richard Weisburg, "What should a criminal defense lawyer do when the lawyer is certain when the client is factually guilty (usually because the client has confessed to the lawyer), but the client never the less insists on a strong defense"(p.1) It would not be legally or morally proper for a defense attorney to try to preserve innocence that does not exist. In any situation where the defense attorney knows guilt would give the attorney proper legal and moral right to allow his or her client to be guilty. They would know guilt or innocent based on the clients confession. Proverbs 12:19 says Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment. Why would a defense attorney lie while knowing guilt because it would not last long because the truth always comes out.

In both cases if a prosecutor tries to destroy evidence proving guilt or a defense attorney preserving an innocence that does not exist would hurt the reputation or the criminal justice system. The public would see that the system is twisted in a lie and could not be trusted. If both make the right vertical and horizontal choices with God and society it will preserve the system, and the public would be able to trust the system and it would ultimately prosper. Zechariah 8:16 says These are things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace.

References

Bacchi, C. (2016). Preservation of Evidence in Criminal Cases. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/preservation-evidence-criminal-cases.html

Deem, R. (2007, November 12). Why Do Christians Lie So Much: Truth and Christianity. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from https://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/truth_and_christianity.html

Asimow, M., & Weisburg, R. (2009). When the Lawyer Knows The Client is Guilty: Client Confessions In Legal Ethics Popular Culture and Literature. 18(229), 230-258. doi:https://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/18-2/18-2 Asimow.pdf

Respones #2
Heather Sampson
DB Forum 1
Collapse

Prosecutorial misconduct is a highly illegal act. Constitutional error becomes a result from the destruction of evidence. Proving bad faith is tough. Prosecutors who were negligent with the evidence allows for the defendant to prove willful malicious intent. Prosecutors who fail to follow standard procedures when evidence is destroyed can support an inference of bad faith. The prosecutor does however have a right to preserve various types of evidence from collections during criminal investigations and prosecutions. This only exists to protect a defendant's rights to due process and a fair trial under the 6th and 14th Amendment constitutional rights. Preservation allows them disclose evidence it will use against the defendant at trial, as well as any evidence that is favorable to the defendant. The duty to preserve evidence begins once any state agency or actor has gathered and taken possession of evidence as part of a criminal investigation.

The duty to preserve extends only to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense: "material" and "exculpatory" evidence. Material evidence is important evidence that's directly relevant to an issue in the defendant's case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in that it clears or tends to clear him of guilt. Philippians 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of destruction, but to you of salvation, and that of God.

Defense attorneys are ethically bound to represent all clients, both guilty as well as the innocent. Most defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of the crime he or she has been charged with. Some defense lawyers will not ask whether or not their client committed the crime. They basically leave the question of guilt up to the judge or jury.

According to the Denver Bar Association, Lenny Frieling believes that their goal is to reach a fair result for clients. Either way they must do the foot work which includes factual research to lead them in the right direction for the best possible result. The also state that the way to defend someone is with zeal and the goal is just. Their heart is the work.

Reference
(n.d.). Retrieved June 03, 2016, from https://www.denbar.org/docket/doc_articles.cfm?ArticleID=4598

Lee, C. H. (1984). The Prosecution's Duty to Preserve Evidence Before Trial. California Law Review, 72(5), 1019-1043.

Banakas, E. K. (1993). Method of Comparative Law and the Question of Legal Culture Today, The. Tilburg Foreign L. Rev., 3, 113.

King James Bible 2000