Bad Prosecutors

How to Go to Jail Without Even Trying

http://www.tuliatexasfilm.com/

On July 23, 1999, undercover narcotics officer Thomas Coleman executed one of the biggest drug stings in Texas history. By the end of the blazing summer day, Coleman and his drug task force had rounded up and arrested dozens of residents of the small farming town of Tulia. Thirty-nine of the 46 people accused of selling drugs to Coleman were African American. It was a bold move by the later-named Texas Lawman of the Year.  But it was exactly what many of Tulia's white citizens had hoped for when Coleman came to town.   

The sign off Highway 27 to Tulia welcomes visitors to "the Richest Land and the Finest People." But entering Tulia, the closed businesses and abandoned gas stations are stark reminders of a dying economy. The few available jobs in Tulia, as cashiers, gas attendants or farm hands, are low paying, and Tulia's small African-American community has suffered most from the town's decline.   

Like many other struggling rural towns in America, cheap drugs like methamphetamines and crack have become more readily available in Tulia. But when Coleman went to work in Tulia, he zeroed in on a high-priced drug he claimed was plaguing the town: cocaine.   

It all started in the spring of 1998 when a drifter named T.J. Dawson turned up in Tulia looking for work. "T.J." was the undercover alias of Coleman. Transformed into a longhaired rocker, Coleman sped through town in his pickup truck and worked a string of odd jobs in Tulia until he claimed he made enough contacts to begin buying drugs.  

Eighteen months later, dozens of Tulia residents were woken from their sleep by law enforcement and taken to the local jail in front of television crews tipped off to the sting. Among those charged with selling cocaine were childhood friends and family members. Many were arrested on multiple counts and accused of selling cocaine near parks and schools, "drug-free" zones that carry higher penalties. More than 10 percent of Tulia's adult black population was locked up. 

The arrest of 22-year-old Freddie Brookins Jr. came as a shock to his family. The Brookins have deep roots in the community with two generations of the family laboring in Tulia's cotton fields. Freddie, a celebrated high school athlete, had recently graduated from a Job Corp. training program. He had no prior criminal record and insists he never knew Coleman until the day of his arrest. 

Coleman, the son of a legendary Texas Ranger, worked the Tulia operation alone and never used surveillance equipment. The Panhandle Regional Narcotics Task Force and Swisher County Sheriff Larry Stewart together hired and supervised Coleman with funding from a federal grant program conceived at the height of the drug wars in the late eighties. The program was designed to help local law enforcement in small rural towns combat drug dealing and often resulted in undercover operations netting large numbers of arrests.    

Tulia newspapers applauded the drug sting, christening Coleman the "lone ranger" and reporting on the accused using headlines such as "Tulia Streets Cleared of Garbage."  When the first defendants stood trial, Tulia juries handed down guilty verdicts with stiff sentences ranging from 20 to 90 years in prison. Many defendants fearful of a similar fate accepted plea-bargains for probation or reduced prison time.   Freddie Brookins Jr. steadfastly denied ever selling Coleman drugs. His family supported Freddie in fighting the charges at trial. The jury delivered a guilty verdict and took just one hour to determine his sentence: 20 years, the maximum time punishable for the offense.   

Jeff Blackburn, a criminal defense attorney in Amarillo, Texas, says Freddie Brookins Jr. never had a fighting chance.  Like many defendants, he was represented by a court-appointed attorney who Blackburn says did little, if any, investigation for Freddie's case.   

Blackburn represented several of the Tulia defendants after a group of concerned Tulia residents, "Friends of Justice", The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, and the New York-based William Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice, began publicly speaking out against the drug sting, raising questions about Coleman's motives and methods   

Joining forces with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Blackburn began to gather evidence on Coleman, uncovering striking inconsistencies in his investigatory work from misidentifications of defendants to contradicting dates on his reports and time sheets. Then, Blackburn learned that in the middle of the undercover operation in Tulia, Coleman was wanted for arrest for theft in another county he had worked before. But the sheriff and drug task force supervisors continued with the undercover operation anyway, relying on Coleman to finish the job.   

After three years of mounting public pressure, and help from powerful Washington D.C. law firm Hogan and Hartson, the attorneys finally won a hearing before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In March 2003, the legal team presented days of testimony, calling nearly a dozen witnesses to the stand, including Coleman, and entering volumes of evidence that had never been presented to jurors in the original Tulia trials. At the end of the proceedings, in the same courthouse where the Tulia defendants had been tried and convicted years before, presiding Judge Ron Chapman concluded Coleman "was the most devious, non-responsive law enforcement witness this court witnesses in 25 years on the bench in Texas." Prosecutors immediately pursued felony perjury charges against Coleman.   

On June 16, 2003, the Tulia defendants were released from prison. With his wife Terri clinging to his arm, Freddie Brookins Jr. hugged his parents as a free man for the first time in nearly four years. Twelve other men and women were also reunited with their families that day.   

Two months later, Texas Governor Rick Perry pardoned all the convicted Tulia defendants. A civil lawsuit resulted in a multi-county $6 million settlement and was shared among the defendants and their attorneys. Swisher County paid out $250,000 with the agreement that the pardoned defendants couldn't sue the county. The Panhandle Regional Narcotics Task Force was eventually disbanded, and Coleman was found guilty of aggravated perjury, receiving ten years probation and a felony charge that bars him from ever working in law enforcement again.   

Freddie Brookins Jr. returned to Tulia to live near his family and raise his own children there. Even though his felony conviction was overturned in 2003, he has struggled to put what happened behind him and believes that many Tulians still think he is guilty.  

"Tulia, Texas" is the story of a small town's search for justice and the price Americans pay for the war on drugs.

TOP 10 WORST PROSECUTORS IN THE UNITED STATES - 2008

http://bennettlawfirm.wordpress.com/

 

The ten worst prosecuting attorneys in the United States for the year 2008 are finally here! After several nominations and recommendations from interested readers around the country, combined with ample amounts of time used to examine each prosecutor, the list has finally been narrowed down to the ten most deserving nominees. This year’s list includes several new nominees along with a few old ones. Added to this list are two prosecutors not quite worthy of the top ten but will be receiving honorable mention.

Unfortunately, over the past year not much has changed in the Department of Justice. Even with Alberto Gonzales no longer in the picture as the United States Attorney General, his effect is still there to be seen and felt. It seems as though the worst of his political manipulations and illegal activities are just beginning to unravel. Even after cleaning house in the Justice Department by bringing in new leadership that has expressed their commitment to heal the wounds left behind by some, little has been done to make sure that the Department will get headed in the right direction.

Prosecutors from around the country with extreme political affiliations connected to their communities, the Justice Department, and perhaps all the way to the White House have damaged the image of justice in America. The dedication of conservative power houses such as George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, and Alberto Gonzales asserting their will and influence upon the judicial system has become extremely disturbing when taken into consideration the ways in which those tasks have been implemented with the undoing of the Constitution. It is the hope of this firm that justice is done for all Americans who have become victims of the acts committed by these troublesome prosecutors. It is further hoped that President-elect Obama and his new nominated U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, will set a new tone at the Department of Justice. So without further adieu, the Ten Worst Prosecutors of 2008 are:

Alberto Gonzales/ Former U.S. Attorney General

The former Attorney General now refers to himself as a “Dillusioned Republican” because of his testy relationship with George W. Bush, which he would like to distance himself from as much as possible. At the time of our second year, Alberto Gonzales has failed to interest any law firms in hiring him anywhere in the United States. Gonzales has had no full time job since his resignation. This is very abnormal as ex-U.S. Attorney Generals are typically highly sought after. He claims that his current “occupation” is an advisor to homeland security and border issues for a global consulting firm. Speaking engagements at major organizations and Universities is what he currently involves himself in the most. He is receiving as much money doing public speaking as he did when he was Attorney General of the U.S., which totaled around $191,000. He averages $30,000 per visit at Universities when asked to speak on campus, but he certainly earns that with the hecklers and protestors that show up.

Michael Mukasey, Gonzales’ replacement, is allegedly dedicated to keeping politics out of the Justice Department which is something Gonzales obviously was never able to do. Mukasey has also gone out of his way to help specific departments such as the Civil Rights Department. But Mukasey still lands on the back end of much negative criticism that has carried over from the Gonzales era. We hope that no more damage will be done in the next month.

Former Justice Department officials working under Alberto Gonzales have been accused of breaking the law by letting the Bush Administration’s politics dictate the hiring of prosecutors, immigration judges, and other career government lawyers. The official in charge of the interviews for hires was Monica Goodling who was Gonzales’ Chief Counselor and White House Liaison. Goodling would question applicants on views about abortion, gay marriage, and convict sentencing. Goodling made habits of avoiding any hire that seemed to lean to the liberal left of the Democratic Party. One man in particular was noted for attending a very Republican school but scored badly on God, gays, guns, and convicts. Screening such as this created massive backlog for immigration courts since so many judgeships were empty from the delayed interview process. One man was even disqualified because of his wife’s politics. None of the accused participants who worked under Gonzales currently work for the Justice Department anymore; therefore they avoid any departmental penalties. Senior Republicans have stated that there is no offense in this case that would warrant criminal charges. There is even some disagreement amongst Democrats as to whether or not a perjury charge would be warranted, though there is a large outcry for those charges coming from progressives. This type of interview screening is banned under the Civil Service Law and the Justice Department’s internal policies. Also, sworn testimonies of the accused have extremely contradicted one another. New Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s response was disgracefully lukewarm to this problem within the Department of Justice. Legislation is currently in the works to make sure that politicizing of the hiring of government officials does not happen again in the future thanks to several Democratic Congressmen. In summary, still bad news for Gonzales and the specter of a Texas Disbarment proceeding is also a possibility. Congratulations to the former A.G. for being a repeat nominee.

Charles Sebesta/ Former Burleson County, Texas DA

Sebesta stands Accused of orchestrating transcript changes during the trial of Thomas Torlincasi whose company donated the logs for the Aggie Bonfire that collapsed in 1998. Apparently, he would sit down with the court reporter after the trials, which happened to be a woman he knew personally, and re-wrote what they thought was relevant from the trial hearings. He also used ample amounts of evidence in the Bonfire case that was never submitted as evidence before trial. However, all of this evidence happened to have tagged and labeled as being submitted into evidence which proves that Sebesta was forging documents for his arguments. Sebesta became known for “doing business” with witnesses and victims that provided testimony in the Bonfire case that gave evidence in favor of Sebesta’s arguments.

Law enforcement officer testimonies in the case did not match. These officers all personally knew Charles Sebesta. The initial trial was declared a mistrial since certain jurors didn’t show up for court. Sebesta had two particular jurors not show up by having them pretend to be sick.

Sebesta charged Thomas Torlincasi with criminal negligence even though Torlincasi never committed an act worthy of a charge. Torlincasi had already spent time in jail before Sebesta decided to go after him in the first place. Sebesta allegedly blackmailed Ben Flencher who was testifying in favor of Torlincasi. Sebesta allegedly found out Flencher was having an affair and threatened his reputation and said he would give him up to his wife if he testified against his case. He first made the top ten with his role in the Anthony Graves Case and it now seems he has a track record going.

Charles C. Foti Jr./ Former Attorney General of Louisiana

Charles Foti finished last in Louisiana’s three-way primary in October 2007 and was replaced by James “Buddy” Caldwell Jr. in Louisiana. Foti now works at the law firm Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC. He handles KGS’s securities and consumer fraud practice.

Foti is still the target of much criticism for his part in the prosecutions pursued surrounding Hurricane Katrina. Many families are taking advantage of Foti’s blunders by filing frivolous civil lawsuits against the doctors that Foti had accused during Hurricane Katrina and the doctors are still preparing for all of those civil cases; most of them are costing the doctors ample amounts of money.

The State of Louisiana has passed two bills in the senate to protect people from lawyers with habits similar to Foti’s which provide immunity from civil liability for in-state doctors and volunteers from out of state practicing in disaster zones. Protection from criminal liability is currently under House debate in Louisiana.

Alice Martin/ U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Alabama

If former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman had found a way to get out of the grasp of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, he still didn’t have much of a chance to get away from the other mass of Republicans foaming at the mouth for the opportunity to take over the Alabama State Legislature. Alice Martin, an Alabama prosecutor who has been serving since September 2001, was another conspirator and attacker that aided in the successful attempt to takedown the Governor. Make no mistake; Alice Martin is involved in several scams besides the Siegelman trial as a prosecutor out of Birmingham, Alabama. Two of the most prominent cases involve Alex Latifi, a firm supporter of the ex-governor and active liberal Democrat, and Martin’s despicable prosecution directed at the Axion Corporation.

Martin’s destruction of Alex Latifi came out of political tensions considering Latifi is an adamant liberal Democrat. Latifi was known for making donations and contributions to the Democratic Party in the state of Alabama which helped keep many of their politicians afloat in a dominant Republican State. In order to take him down, Martin hired a team of political “hack” assistants. The Latifi case was also a prosecution created out of extreme racial tension directed at Latifi since he happened to be an Iranian-American.

This Alabama prosecutor’s heavy involvement in the Siegelman trial was one to raise eyebrows. Martin was the first person to prosecute Siegelman, which was strategically timed around an election in order to affect politics in Alabama. The first trial judge, without second thoughts or signs of hesitation, threw the case out because of the lack of evidence and the obvious motivation behind the timing of the prosecution.

Alice Martin’s history with the law is dotted with numerous accounts of misconduct and political manipulation. Martin once denied being involved in the prosecution of Dickie Scruggs, who was the former Senate GOP leader Trent Lott’s brother-in-law. She has made a habit of coordinating closely with senior GOP figures that are close to current Alabama Republican Governor, Bob Riley, which explains her agenda of prosecuting those of liberal ideologies. Interestingly enough, Martin was appointed by current President George W. Bush and craves an appointment as a Federal Judge in Alabama and is willing do anything to receive that appointment, even if achieving that goal means misusing the law for her own benefit.

She is also guilty of making false and inflammatory secret submissions to judges throughout the State. An example of disgraceful tactics outside of the courtroom is her waiting to serve subpoenas on law makers on the floor of the legislature that would be carefully timed to make the news. Martin is apparently a prosecutor that is willing to give false testimony in order to employ litigation in her favor. This was clear in her prosecution of The Axion Corporation trial in which she was the main prosecutor. Her main goal in the case was to put the company out of business by ruining their reputation whether or not the CEO’s were even convicted. In the end, Axion was acquitted of violating the Arms Export Control Act which was the most serious prosecutorial charge. The case against Axion was so outrageous that not only did the judge throw it out, but the judge in turn made Martin pay all of the court charges and all charges the defendants had to pay in order to prepare their defense.

Unfortunately, it has not been easy to criticize Martin for her antics considering she brings charges upon those who do criticize her, most notably, an individual employed at the University of Alabama. Martin is just another example of Republicans trying to take control of the legislature in Alabama, the only branch of the Alabama State Government that the Republicans do not control.

For prosecutorial actions, Alice Martin is being investigated by several Government organizations on many levels. She is facing multiple ethics investigations by the Office of Professional Responsibility for the cases of Siegelman and The Axion Corporation. She was also investigated by the Department of Justice for charges made against her for perjury. The Justice Department, headed by Alberto Gonzales, somehow conveniently found that she has never committed professional misconduct or poor judgment in office. The stranglehold of corruption in the Justice Department continues to let bad prosecutors like Alice Martin off the hook. If Alberto Gonzales were a straight shooting Attorney General who conducted his office legally and ethically, Alice Martin probably would have been disbarred and perhaps punished severely a very long time ago. Maybe this will change with a change of administration.

Leura Canary/ U.S. Attorney, Middle District of Alabama

The systematic destruction of Don Siegelman’s Governorship of Alabama is a prime example of corruption in our legal system and the Republican Party’s policy of muscling those in their way out of office, even if illegality is the only means of doing so. A list of big-time Republican lawyers, lead by Leura Canary, with the help of Republican stalwart Karl Rove, are accountable for destroying this politician’s office and together played a huge hand in the despicable sentence handed to the former Governor.

Democrat Don Siegelman was Alabama’s Governor from 1999-2003. He was the only Governor in Alabama’s history to hold all four major offices which included Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Lieutenant Governor. Admittedly, Siegelman as Governor, did not have the cleanest slate. In 2006, he was found guilty of corruption, obstruction of justice, bribery, and mail fraud. These charges were a connection between him and Richard M. Scrushy, founder and former CEO of HealthSouth. Details of the charges involved an exchange of $500,000 for a government job that would be given to Scrushy once Siegelman retained his office in 2006. Siegelman was also guilty of exchanging many other government favors for campaign donations.

Republican prosecutors jumped at the opportunity to wreak havoc upon Siegelman’s office. Canary immediately took action by having the first case against Siegelman dismissed in order to have the trial in front of a judge whom she knew had a personal grudge against Siegelman. During his trial for misconduct, he lost the gubernatorial elections which were taking place at the same time as the trial and would not be able to run against current Republican Governor Bob Riley. Siegelman was sentenced to seven years in prison by the Republican judge for his actions which seemed extremely atypical. This sentence was unusual when you consider previous corruption charges against other politicians which did not result in imprisonment. Siegelman pointed out the case of Republican politician Guy Hunt who was found guilty of pocketing government money in Alabama but was only given probation in comparison. Also, Siegelman was denied the usual forty five days before having to report to serve jail time. This type of mistreatment was harsh, especially for a former Governor. Severe punishments like the one given to Siegelman usually reflect a unanimous jury decision, but not so in Siegelman’s trial. If anything, the sentencing reflected nothing more than a personal attack by a judge with conservative ideologies. Siegelman argues that his unordinary and immediate sentencing along with the implosion of his office was manipulated by Republican “powerhouses.” Defense lawyers representing Siegelman claim that the sentencing was politically motivated and not lawfully made and that this was a systematic, timely attack on the ex-Governor.

Leura Canary became the main weapon used to attack Siegelman and ultimately became the focus of criticism from Democrats when information relating to her prosecution began to surface. None of the prosecutors involved have yet to responded to a Congressional request for a presentation of documents relating to this case. The Justice Department, still feeling the influence of Alberto Gonzales, was required to produce documents related to the Siegelman investigation. Records produced by Gonzales were not made available until the day of his retirement, which also happened to be the day after the date that the documents could be authorized as evidence for presentation before Congress.

It is no secret that the Siegelman prosecution, coordinated by Canary, was a five year campaign to ruin the ex-Governor. Canary’s investigation of Siegelman forced the end of a well respected Governor for nothing more than political party dedication. Leura Canary continued to involve herself in the case nationally making a mockery of her recusal after being accused of political corruption by Siegelman’s lawyers. Manipulation to this magnitude is never unnoticed and the investigation Canary lead is completely unjustifiable. This case is a great example of political corruption in the legal system and shows the agenda Republican politicians and lawyers have when given powerful positions. Canary’s willingness to participate in such actions and her political involvement in this case should lead to her disbarment, as well as an investigation of her actions and behavior during the Siegelman trial. This nomination shows that Top Worst Prosecutors has no gender bias.

Mark Burnette/ Former West Virginia Prosecutor

Prosecutors should never be allowed to use a court case as a springboard for an election. This is especially true when they prosecute an innocent defendant that was wrongfully tried and found guilty. Unfortunately, a woman named Marybeth Davis from West Virginia has fallen victim to the likes of Mark Burnette who uses similar techniques in order to further his career. Marybeth Davis is currently serving life in prison for the murder of her daughter and 18 years in prison for the poisoning of her son thanks to Mark Burnette’s failure to be favored in the courtroom.

Marybeth was found guilty of giving her daughter, Tegan, an overdose of caffeine in 1982 which lead to her tragic death. She was also found guilty of poisoning her son with insulin. This case wasn’t tried until 1996 because of mismanagement by the original prosecutor and the police officer in charge by the name of Michael Spradlin. Investigators of the case later found that natural causes, not poisoning, lead to each child’s death. Seth happened to have Human Growth Hormone Deficiency and Tegan was a victim of Reye’s syndrome.

As the case was brought to the attention of Burnette by Trooper Spradlin, immediate misconduct and mismanagement of the law were seen from Burnette’s office. Burnette originally withheld autopsy slides in the original trial that showed Tegan died of Reye’s syndrome which would have proved Marybeth’s innocence. Burnette to this day denies that the evidence from the slides would have had any effect on the case. If this is so, then why is he so afraid to release them? Burnette is also guilty of having the toxicologist, a woman by the name of Dr. Scharman, lie about the amount of caffeine in Tegan’s blood system. During the trial, Dr. Scharman somehow managed to mix up milligrams and milliliters when reporting information to the jury. Not only is this a large disservice to everyone in the courtroom but also to the country, considering she has recently been given an award for helping protect the nation from biological terrorism. It’s not very comforting to know people defending us from biological attacks don’t know how to tell the difference between these two measurements that are taught to youngsters in middle school. The truth of the matter is that the caffeine amount in Tegan’s system was nowhere near a lethal amount and a majority of it came from the last ditch effort made by ER surgeons to resuscitate Tegan in the emergency room. Interestingly enough, the emergency room and ambulance records remain missing to this day.

Burnette is also the type of prosecutor who uses unfair tactics in the courtroom to his advantage. For example, when Marybeth admitted to giving Tegan coca-cola syrup to relieve the child of headaches when she originally thought Tegan had the flu, Burnette spent the rest of the case referring to the syrup as “coke” in order to make what Marybeth did seem much worse than it actually was in order to sway the jury in favor of the prosecution. Burnette made another terrible offense in this case by withholding the c-peptide test results which determine where insulin in the body comes from. More specifically, this test would be able to provide information of the possibility of insulin coming from an outside source or if it were just generated from natural causes. Therefore, Marybeth’s defense was entirely unfair since this evidence was not released in considering the accusations brought against her in Seth’s case.

Mark Burnette has recently admitted that several tests should have been done such as checking for dietary pills that could have been the cause of death which was not ever performed. Burnette, feeling the heat of much criticism, has said that during the upcoming appeal if Marybeth pleas guilty to two counts of poisoning, then the prosecution will tell the judge that she has served her time and should be allowed to go home. Of course, there is no guarantee that the judge will feel the same. Other disturbing factors of this case include the fact that Trooper Spradlin, who received an honorary “Top Trooper” award from Bill Clinton, is best friends with Mark Burnette. He even stood in as Mark’s best man at his wedding. Not only have both men been accused of conspiracy for falsifying information in partnership with one another, but both are guilty of threatening witnesses and issuing threats to sue those who criticize them. Both men appear to only want to advance their careers and Burnette should not be surprised to find himself facing a bar proceeding for withholding evidence and manipulating witnesses’ testimonies which have sent an innocent woman to prison for the rest of her life.

Mary Lacy/ Boulder County, Colorado DA

The name Mary Lacy falls into the category of one of the worst prosecutors placed in office over the last decade. The Boulder County District Attorney was the lead prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case which has been ongoing for the last twelve years. JonBenet was a child beauty pageant contestant who was found murdered in the basement of her parent’s house in Boulder, Colorado during the Christmas holiday in 1996. She was noticed missing when a note was found on the staircase of her house demanding an $118,000 ransom for her release. The amount was the sum of her father’s Christmas bonus of that year.

Several problems arose instantly from Mary Lacy’s investigation of the murder. Immediate problems included the original crime scene was not properly sealed off due to inexperienced detectives at the murder scene. Lacy’s investigators only determined that the child died – nothing more. JonBenet had a skull fracture and was strangled; however, there was never any evidence uncovered that showed signs of conventional rape. Interestingly enough in 2006, a man by the name of John Mark Karr openly admitted being with JonBenet on the day of her death. During his arrest in Bangkok, Thailand, he openly confessed that he beat JonBenet savagely and then proceeded to rape her. Mary Lacy’s investigators failed to find DNA evidence that placed Karr at the murder scene and Lacy pursued no further prosecution of the man who had pleaded guilty to the killing which has allowed him to live his life normally in Beijing, China. Since then, Lacy has focused solely on pursuing JonBenet’s parents and her brother.

The two remaining suspects have recently been proven innocent with newly discovered evidence found in early July, 2008. The evidence was found by way of new DNA tests that focus on skin cells left behind from a mere touch which were found on JonBenet’s long underwear. The evidence proves the presence of a third party at the time of the murder, providing proof of innocence to the parents, relieving them of any further turmoil of Lacy’s investigation. Therefore, the killer has yet to be determined since the new DNA tests recently conducted showed a negative match to Karr being the murderer.

The investigation severely damaged the Ramsey’s reputation. Constant tabloid smearing of the couple and JonBenet’s brother was a common occurrence across the country. T.V. Crime shows based off of the murder were even created to damage the image of the two parents since society was never provided with alternative suspects because of District Attorney Lacy’s despicable investigative tactics. Several defamation lawsuits arose in which the parents had to defend themselves because of their reputation as presented by Lacy.

Since this new evidence has been released, the only recourse Lacy has offered was a letter of apology to the family, which hardly justifies the suffering she has caused the Ramsey’s over the last several years. Unfortunately, JonBenet’s mother will never be able to receive that apology since she died of cancer in 2006.

District Attorney Mary Lacy was accused of a cover up due to the poor investigation that was carried out. Lacy, who will be stepping down in January 2009 due to her reaching the maximum term limits served in office, has tried explaining that she had doubts that the Ramsey parents ever took part in the murder. To justify that statement may prove difficult since her investigation clearly showed intent to blame the parents of an entanglement in a murder which was based on very circumstantial evidence and absolutely no real proof of who committed the crime. District Attorney Lacy needs to be investigated for her unwillingness to take time to consider hard evidence before prosecuting suspects and a policy of being quick to lay blame and promote unjust accusations in order to boost self reputation.

Michael McDougal/ Former Montgomery County, Texas DA

When you’ve held an office for twenty years, political elections and campaigns tend to come and go without too much worry of retaining your office. They do however become more difficult when rights you are entitled to in office are misused and abused. Michael McDougal, the Montgomery County, Texas District Attorney, is very familiar with this type of situation considering he was in the thick of a heated political race for the November elections.

The long standing District Attorney was in a dead heat with a “new kid on the block” named Brett Ligon. McDougal couldn’t manage to win the Republican primary and therefore has chosen to run as an Independent when he only received 37% of the vote to Ligon’s 44%. The reason for McDougal’s troubles had to do with his involvement in the misappropriation of funds in his department’s office. McDougal managed to use money from the drug forfeiture accounts in his department to purchase alcohol and other miscellaneous items for staff parties. He also provided the funds to employees for bonuses and sent some of the seized money to charitable organizations. McDougal stead fastly disputed these accusations until receipts from the liquor stores he purchased alcohol began to surface. McDougal tried to make the case that he was not aware that those confiscated criminal funds were to be used for police purposes only. Even then, he insists that he can use the government regulated money as he pleases. This is an example of a prosecutor in power with complete disregard of jurisdictional responsibilities and a lack of knowledge of the conduct required by his office.

Brett Ligon defeated McDougal in the primaries by pointing to other flaws along with the money schemes that the District Attorney committed during his tenure in office. The most common accusation is that he is extremely lax towards DWI cases and that criminal cases aren’t disposed of quickly enough in his department. McDougal has made a habit of taking several months to file charges against criminals that commit a DWI and several other types of criminal acts which has angered law enforcement officials in Montgomery County. McDougal’s handling of DWI offenders has been inexplicable considering he does not seize vehicles of repeat offenders and he also does not require mandatory blood testing of suspected DWI criminals.

McDougal’s actions, or lack thereof, have attracted attention across the State of Texas and the nation. He is currently being investigated by the State Senate Criminal Justice Committee led by Chairman Whitmire. He is also facing several ethics complaints by the Texas Bar Association and is under investigation by the Texas Attorney General’s Office for his carelessness.

Bonnie Dumanis/ San Diego, California DA

Evidently, for certain prosecutors, evidence is not required anymore in order to send people to jail. These particular tactics tend to backfire when that person is innocent. Apparently San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis did not get the memo. Bonnie Dumanis receives a nomination for one of the ten worst prosecutors in America for her career boosting lawless tactics in California.

Dumanis’ wrongful prosecution of Cynthia Sommer with the accusation of poisoning her husband with arsenic was a pitiful manipulation of the court system. Recent testing provided samples of new tissue which had no trace of any poison in Mr. Sommer’s body at the time of his death. Unfortunately for Mrs. Sommer, she spent two years in a California State Prison for the crime she was accused of committing by District Attorney Dumanis. A San Diego judge released Sommer immediately after a recent retrial which provided this new evidence proving Sommer’s innocence.

Government experts provided testimony at the retrial that original evidence used by DA Dumanis to prosecute Sommer was extremely contaminated and should have been thrown out. Bonnie Dumanis’ accusations relied heavily on very circumstantial evidence including Mr. and Mrs. Sommers’ debt as a motive for Mrs. Sommer’s suspected killing of her husband. Sommer was also falsely accused of wanting to kill her husband for the sake of obtaining money for breast implants and also wanting to live a more exciting lifestyle as a motive for the murder.

Dumanis defends her prosecution with the argument that the prosecution was based on sufficient “available” evidence. Dumanis’ prosecutorial procedures in this case definitely need to be investigated to compensate Mrs. Sommer for two years she spent in prison. Dumanis is likely to be responsible for a punitive damage award received by Sommer. One would also expect several lawsuits to arise out of the current developments of this case.

Chuck Rosenthal/ Former Harris County, Texas DA

Experienced District Attorneys that don’t play by the rules are unfortunately becoming common. The former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal is an example of a prosecutor that fits that description. Therefore, he is nominated for being one of the worst prosecutors in the country for his misconduct in office.

Rosenthal has been involved with drug abuse problems, sex scandals, and is accused of manipulating the political process. He doesn’t deny that on several occasions, he had abused his pharmaceutical prescriptions which had major effects on his judgment during his tenure in office. The worst accusations came when he was caught using government computers for networking sources of income and promotions for his campaign for reelection in Harris County. Emails containing racist and sexist jokes found on his government computer proved his misconduct in office. Not only should a racist District Attorney be booted from his/her position, but the fact that he resides over the district office that hands out more death penalty sentences a year makes his history of racism a major issue. Numerous adult video clips were also found on his computer along with several letters to his mistress to whom he gave a $10,000 raise.

Added offenses include him being found in contempt of court by tampering with federal evidence. The evidence included 2,500 emails subpoenaed in which he completely threw out or destroyed. In his contempt of court hearing, he contradicted himself many times and may have committed perjury. Harris County tax payers are paying for his contempt of court charges. His other mistakes include thirty two indictments that have been thrown out because of paperwork entanglement in his office.

Many prominent Republicans and Democrats have spoken out against Rosenthal for his corruption and have even campaigned against him. After the scandals he was involved in, he was prosecuted on the grounds of official misconduct, incompetency, and intoxication. The GOP local party was fed up and in February 2008, he resigned. Chuck Rosenthal may still face investigations – Harris County Government Chief Ed Emmett has called for an intense examination of his activities.

Honorable Mentions

David Ceballes III/ Otero County, New Mexico DA

Civilized courts typically will take action against prosecutors who practice intimidation tactics in the court room. By holding prosecutors responsible for such actions, lawyers will usually be disbarred from practicing when found guilty of doing so in America. The 12th District Court of New Mexico and its judges don’t make habits of exercising this preventative method, and Republican David Ceballes III has been allowed to take advantage of the lack of enforcement by using intimidation in the courtroom.

The judges of the 12th District are under much scrutiny for allowing Ceballes to not only use these measures, but for allowing him to go above and beyond these procedures. This was ever so evident when Ceballes recently threatened the warden of the county jail with conspiracy. Shouldn’t a red flag be raised when a Warden is threatened for wanting to testify in court truthfully? Ceballes made these allegations when the warden was going to testify in favor of an inmate Ceballes was prosecuting. Usually this sort of action would get prosecutors sent to prison in the United States. The case involved an inmate who was in possession of a razor blade that he claimed was used for cutting hair, which Ceballes argued could have been used to cause great harm and should be considered possession of a deadly weapon. All of the officers at the prison where the prisoner was being held, including Warden Jeffers, disagreed with Ceballes. This prosecutor has also been known to botch cases, most notably a rape case in which he was unable to bring to court within the time limits allowed by the State. Ceballes should be investigated for inappropriate strategies used in the courtroom.

Michael Mukasey/ U.S. Attorney General

Michael Mukasey was brought into the Justice Department to fix all the mishaps of Alberto Gonzales. As far as we at The Bennett Law Firm are concerned, he has done nothing to repair any of the problems he has been faced with. He has yet to place Monica Goodling and others at the forefront of any investigation but instead has down-played the political hiring process in the Department. He has openly spoken out about issues he has been faced with, but has taken no action whatsoever to help the national legal crisis created by Gonzales. If anything, he has defended Gonzales and his aides rather than doing his job of holding those responsible for allowing the Department to become a political hiring office. He has supported claims of executive privilege and immunity in order to counter accusations brought upon the accused, even though the law itself doesn’t support those claims. Just as with Alberto Gonzales, it is already blatantly obvious that Mukasey supports politics over justice.

Updates concerning last year’s winners

Michael Nifong/ North Carolina DA

The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Committee unanimously stripped Nifong of his law license in response to his ethics violations. He was found guilty on 27 of 32 charges, sentenced to one day in jail, and fined $500 for criminal contempt of court during his trial. In January 2008, Nifong filed for bankruptcy in hopes of getting the numerous civil suits filed against him thrown out. The residing bankruptcy judge threw out the bankruptcy claim in May of 2008, allowing the plaintiffs their pursuit of all lawsuits directed at Nifong.

Jeffrey Auerhahn/ Assistant U.S. Attorney

Auerhahn has not received any discipline for his misconduct in office. The Justice Department, lead by Michael Mukasey, is regularly receiving open criticism from
all over the country for not pursuing any form of punishment directed at Auerhahn. Auerhahn is still currently employed at the U.S. Attorneys Office where he is assigned to the Antiterrorism Unit. This is another great example of Republicans protecting members of their party with complete disregard for legal justice.

David McDade/ Douglas County, Georgia DA

In late 2007, Genarlow Wilson, whose sentence was widely denounced in the State of Georgia after being prosecuted unfairly by McDade, was released from prison when the Georgia Supreme Court found that his sentence was cruel and unusual. The Court found that trying David as an adult was extremely harsh and undeserving. For some reason, McDade has refused to let the prosecution go away. He has continued to harass Wilson even though he has been acquitted of all charges.

The Civil Suit Arising Out of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case: How It Illustrates the Limits of Civil Rights Litigation Even When Serious Wrongs Have Been Done

By HOWARD WASSERMAN

The Duke Lacrosse Case is a multi-phase tale of the good, the bad, and the ugly of the American criminal and civil justice system.

The first phase of the case began in March 2006, when prosecutors charged that several white members of Duke University nationally ranked lacrosse team had sexually assaulted upon an African-American exotic dancer from Durham at an off-campus house party. From the start, the case was loaded with racial, gender, and socio-economic overtones.

In the second phase, the case shifted its focus to the overzealous prosecutors and police who pursued the case, obtaining indictments even as evidence of the players' innocence mounted.

The third phase of the case began when the North Carolina Attorney General took control of the case and, following an independent investigation, pronounced the three players actually innocent of any wrongdoing.

The fourth phase involved a story of prosecutorial ethics, as the district attorney was disbarred and convicted of criminal contempt for his handling of the case.

Earlier this month, the case entered a fifth phase, which is the subject of this column. The three former players who were charged and then vindicated --David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann--filed a federal civil rights action against sixteen defendants, including the City of Durham, the district attorney, and numerous Durham police officers. (A key federal civil rights statute allows the recovery of damages and injunctive relief for injuries caused by violations of constitutional rights.) In 155 pages, 559 paragraphs, and 22 counts, the plaintiffs detail the saga of the case and request compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and far-reaching injunctive relief.

The complaint describes a troubling story of government misconduct. Unfortunately, the story, though compelling, will not necessarily translate into success on the merits of many of the claims alleged in the complaint.

Overview of the Complaint

The primary targets of the complaint are the City of Durham; former Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong; two Durham police investigators, Mark Gottlieb and Benjamin Himan; and the department spokesperson, David Addison. Other defendants include numerous supervisory police officers and members of a private DNA testing company that allegedly released incomplete results to the defense, apparently at D.A. Nifong's instructions. The primary claims are brought under the federal civil rights statute mentioned above, alleging violations of unspecified Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with federal conspiracy claims and numerous state tort claims.

The facts alleged can be grouped into several categories. First, the complaint charges that various defendants fabricated DNA evidence by manipulating otherwise-exculpatory test results and reports.

Second, it alleges that Nifong and police officials made false statements to the press and the public about the case, misrepresenting the state of the evidence, the results of scientific testing, and the strength of the government's case, all for the purpose of tainting the jury pool and damaging the players in the court of public opinion.

Third, it alleges that Nifong and investigators willfully disregarded exculpatory evidence -- particularly inconsistencies in the alleged victim's statements, questions about her credibility, and the weight of physical evidence and testimony. Instead, they moved ahead with the investigation, brought the case before a grand jury, and obtained indictments by utilizing manipulated evidence and presenting a one-sided case.

Fourth, it alleges that investigators manipulated evidence. Specifically, it claims they utilized unconstitutionally suggestive procedures for witness photo identifications: Witnesses were shown photos of only white Duke lacrosse players, with no "filler" photos; as a result, if anyone identified, even randomly, it automatically would have been a white Duke lacrosse player. In addition, the complaint allege that police arrested several witnesses on old, unrelated warrants in order to intimidate them into changing their stories.

Fifth, it alleges that Nifong and police failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, despite repeated requests from counsel and orders from the court. It adds that, even when they did disclose evidence, they did it in a "document dump" of 2000 pages of unfiltered scientific data, without providing the exculpatory scientific conclusions.

Sixth, and finally, it alleges that Nifong made misrepresentations to the court as to the state of the evidence and his overall conduct of the case; these misrepresentations ultimately cost Nifong his law license and landed him in jail for one day.

Overarching all of these separate allegations, moreover, are claims that supervisory and policymaking police officials knew about, encouraged, or enabled this misconduct, permitting liability up the chain of command and to the City of Durham itself.

The Weaknesses in the Complaint: A Compelling Story, But Not a Slam-Dunk Lawsuit

The facts, as the plaintiffs describe them, certainly sound egregious. But it is a very different, and more difficult, question whether these facts establish civil liability. Difficult legal questions follow, such as which defendants may be liable for what conduct and what remedy will be available. Several of the claims as to several parties present immediate and obvious difficulties for the plaintiffs.

First, the court must separate Nifong's prosecutorial functions from his non-prosecutorial conduct, with Nifong likely enjoying absolute prosecutorial immunity -protection against any liability - for the former. The phrase "prosecutorial functions" refers to conduct prosecutors perform as advocates for the state. This means those acts "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." The judicial phase begins, at the latest, at the point that a prosecutor has enough (or believes he has enough) to go to the grand jury for indictment. Thus, Nifong almost certainly will be immune from civil liability for much of his most serious alleged misconduct in prosecuting the players: deciding to bring charges, even when faced with contradictory evidence and evidence that the alleged victim was not credible; presenting the case to the grand jury and obtaining indictments; appearing and making arguments (and even misrepresentations) to the grand jury and to the court; and disclosing (or not disclosing) evidence to the defendants during the pre-trial discovery process.

Importantly, even improper motive, bad faith, or intent to do constitutional harm does not abrogate prosecutorial immunity. Thus, it does not matter, for purposes of immunity, whether, as plaintiffs allege, Nifong pursued the prosecution despite knowing how weak the case was or whether evidence pointed strongly against the players' guilt even before Nifong went to the grand jury. It does not matter whether he pursued the case to win a close primary election for DA by currying favor with the county's African-American population. It does not matter whether Nifong's misrepresentations to the court were clearly inappropriate or that they formed the basis for his later disbarment and contempt conviction. Civil liability for individual prosecutors cannot be grounded on plainly prosecutorial functions. Prosecutorial immunity is intended to leave prosecutors free to wield their discretion without fear of reprisal. It also may mean that a "bad apple" prosecutor can avoid civil liability despite causing substantial harm.

Second, as to the claims against the police detectives and as the claims not relating to Nifong's prosecutorial functions--namely the allegations of fabricating evidence, intimidating witnesses, and making false public statements--there may be a defense of qualified, as opposed to absolute, immunity. Qualified immunity means that, even if the officers did violate the plaintiffs' rights, they can be held liable only if the right at issue was "clearly established," such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct, defined in the factual context and circumstances at hand, violated that right.

Consider, for example, the suggestive photo identification procedures. Assume a procedure that does not use "filler" photos is unconstitutional. Even so, the officers can be liable for damages only if a reasonable officer would have known that this particular procedure was unconstitutional. Similarly, a reasonable officer would have to know that making public statements about the state of the evidence, particularly false ones, amounts to a constitutional violation (as opposed to simple defamation), in order to be held liable for a civil rights violation. For a right to be "clearly established" requires either case law holding that procedures or actions, considered in factual context, violate the federal constitution, or specific departmental or state guidelines declaring particular acts constitutionally inappropriate.

Third, the plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to obstruct the due course of justice and to deprive them of the equal protection of the laws. But the conspiracy counts are brought under provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, an enactment designed to counter the new social and political power of the KKK in the post-bellum South; those claims require that the conspiracy be motivated by some racial or other class-based animus.

Here, it is not clear what class the plaintiffs belong to--White males? Duke students? Student-athletes? Lacrosse players? Nor is it clear if, and why, the defendants held animus against that class. There is an allegation that Detective Gottlieb disliked Duke students, an animus that allegedly affected his police work in the past. But the complaint gives no explanation why any of his alleged co-conspirators shared that animus or acted on it.

Why the Broad Injunctive Relief Sought in the Complaint Will Likely Prove Unavailable

The complaint's weaknesses also extend to the remedies sought. The plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory damages, particularly to recover legal costs the three incurred in defending themselves against the criminal charges, as well as with value of harm to their reputations, their privacy, and their educational and professional opportunities, along with punitive damages. These harms seem real and substantial. Thus, if the underlying allegations prove true, and the relevant immunities do not cover all defendants for all the bad acts alleged, the plaintiffs likely will be able to recover significant damages..

However, the plaintiffs also seek broad injunctive relief, which they are unlikely to obtain. In particular, they ask for a judicial order establishing oversight and restructuring of the Durham Police Department, the appointment of a monitor to control the department, and the establishment of a host of policies relating to (among other things) press releases and public statements, disclosure of exculpatory evidence, the issuance of arrest warrants, and witness identification procedures. The plaintiffs' goal is "to protect all persons and to prevent such misconduct from ever happening again."

These plaintiffs, however, almost certainly lack standing to seek this injunctive relief and they are unlikely to obtain any type of injunction. Federal courts only can impose remedies that benefit the parties before the court; they cannot reach out to impose injunctive relief, absent an appropriate plaintiff or in an action by the federal government. Suffering past constitutional harm entitles injured plaintiffs to a retrospective remedy--damages for past injuries. It does not entitle them to a prospective - that is, forward-looking relief to prevent injury in the future - remedy, such as judicial decrees compelling the department to alter its policies. Plaintiffs can obtain an injunction only when there is some evidence of a genuine risk that these plaintiffs will be subject to the same misconduct by these defendants in the future, such that these plaintiffs will benefit from any departmental changes. Moreover, in cases in which the unconstitutional conduct involves the criminal justice system, courts generally are reluctant to presume that individual plaintiffs again will be accused of crimes, or otherwise come into contact with police or prosecutors in a way that likely risks a repeat of the unconstitutional conduct. This is especially true here, since none of the plaintiffs still attends Duke University, resides in Durham, or spends any time in Durham.

The plaintiffs bring this case as "private attorneys general," seeking to enforce the Constitution and to fundamentally alter the functioning of the Durham Police Department, in order to ensure that no one will be subject to similar unlawful treatment in the future. But they can fulfill that role even without broad injunctive relief. The purpose of a civil rights action for damages is both to compensate the plaintiff and to deter the defendant; the theory is that, after being hit with a substantial damages judgment, the government will take it upon itself to restructure its rules and policies to avoid similar future misconduct and future damage awards. Whether that presumption proves accurate in this case turns on what, if anything, the City of Durham, if ordered to pay a substantial judgment, actually does to remedy its problems.

Why Settlement Is Likely and May Well Include Some Departmental Changes

My prediction is that the case settles, as do most large-scale civil rights claims with strong facts. The defendants, particularly the city, may view settlement as a best option in light of the dramatic and disturbing allegations in the complaint, many of which already have been substantiated by the ethics investigation into Nifong's misconduct.

A settlement may include, in addition to substantial damages, some of the departmental restructuring that the plaintiffs request: Even if they could not achieve that result from the court, nothing bars the city from voluntarily restructuring or changing its policies as part of a settlement.

Given the realities of constitutional and civil rights litigation, particularly individual immunities, the case is not entirely a slam-dunk for the plaintiffs and many of their factual allegations, as egregious as they sound, will not form the basis for a legal remedy. Settlement is likely, but it may not accurately reflect the full damages the plaintiffs suffered, because it may be reduced by the expectation of many litigation hurdles down the road.

That reality reflects not just the situation in this case, but also the limits on civil rights litigation as a corrective for government's constitutional misconduct, particularly misconduct within the criminal justice system.

Ex-Duke lacrosse players sue Nifong, city

Video Links:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=49750&cl=4382824&ch=68276&src=news

http://www.wjz.com/video/[email protected]

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — Three former Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape filed a sweeping federal lawsuit Friday that could return the sensational case to a courtroom, suing disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong, the city of Durham and the police detectives who handled the investigation.

The lawsuit calls the criminal case against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans "one of the most chilling episodes of premeditated police, prosecutorial and scientific misconduct in modern American history."

It seeks unspecified damages and numerous reforms to the way the Durham Police Department handles criminal investigations — including the appointment of a monitor who would have the power to hire, fire and promote department employees, including the chief, for 10 years.

The suit was filed about a month after city officials met with lawyers for the families seeking a $30 million settlement and several legal reforms, two people close to the case have told The Associated Press.

Apparently unable, or unwilling, to reach a deal with the families, the city pledged Friday to defend itself and its employees, but not Nifong — who held a state office — or the private DNA testing lab he hired.

City spokeswoman Beverly B. Thompson said the players' complaint "asserts claims against the city and its employees that appear to be based on untested and unproven legal theories."

Should the case go to trial, it would extend a legal debacle that began in March 2006, when a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a lacrosse team party told police she had been raped.

The criminal side of the case largely ended in April, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declared the three players innocent victims of Nifong's "tragic rush to accuse." In dropping the charges, Cooper said the state's investigation found nothing to corroborate the accuser's story, leading his staff to "the conclusion that no attack occurred."

In the months that followed, the state bar stripped Nifong of his law license, concluding he relentlessly pursued a flawed case for political gain. He resigned as Durham County's district attorney and spent a night in jail last month after a judge held him in criminal contempt of court for lying about DNA evidence. He did not immediately return a message Friday seeking comment.

Along with Nifong, the lawsuit names 13 other individual defendants, including former Police Chief Steven Chalmers, police investigators Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb, and Brian Meehan, the director of DNA Security Inc., the private lab that conducted the DNA testing that helped unravel the case. Nifong withheld that evidence from defense attorneys for months.

The lawsuit also names Meehan's lab as a defendant, but it does not name the accuser.

Paul Dickinson Jr., a Charlotte attorney who represents the lab, Meehan and company President Richard Clark, who is also a defendant, said the allegations were false.

The case seeks damages to punish the defendants "for outrageous conduct pursued out of actual malice" that violated the players' civil rights. It also seeks the creation of an independent committee to publicly review complaints of police misconduct, the improvement of police training procedures and an injunction prohibiting Meehan and his laboratory from providing reports or expert testimony in court for 10 years.

"They really do feel like they need to be vindicated and money won't do it," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "They had to spend a year vindicating themselves. I can understand how they would want to have full relief, especially reforming the system if possible."

In June, the players reached an undisclosed financial settlement with Duke University. Richard D. Emery, a New York-based civil rights attorney representing Seligmann, said the players were "committed to making this case about stopping Durham and any other city from falsely accusing and convicting innocent people."

"This is not about money for the boys, though obviously they deserve compensation," Emery said. "This is about sending a message to public officials who only get the message when they have to pay the money."

Top 10 Moments with Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The 10 WORST U.S. Prosecutors 2007

     The Bennett Law Firm and the “Bad Prosecutor Blog” website have carefully chosen to recognize the Ten Worst Prosecutors in the United States in 2007 to highlight the abuses in our criminal justice system and to start a discussion on what can be done about rogue prosecutors. When a crime is committed and it goes unpunished, justice is not done. But justice is also subverted when those who are called upon to enforce the laws of the justice system on either the state or federal level are corrupt or even very inept. In talking about the role of the federal prosecutor or the United States Attorney, Supreme Court Justice Sutherland wrote: “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor – indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not a liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”

     While the Attorney General of the United States is not a field prosecutor, he sits on top of the federal law enforcement pyramid and as such affects, either directly or indirectly, every law enforcement decision and is certainly in charge of all federal law enforcement actions. He is “the” lawyer for the United States; he has the last say.

     It is not an easy choice to determine who is the worst prosecutor in the country –given the choices in front of us this year. Of course, the easy selection would be Michael Nifong, the former District Attorney for Durham, North Carolina who was motivated by his own re-election and engaged in unethical, and probably criminal, conduct in the prosecution of three Duke University Lacrosse players.

      But then how not to chose Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti, Jr. who decided to prosecute a medical “Good Samaritan,” Dr. Anna M. Pou, who had stayed behind as Hurricane Katrina was destroying New Orleans. The former District Attorney of Dallas was allegedly proud of saying that any prosecutor could convict a guilty man, but that it took a real pro to convict an innocent man. Foti moved prosecution to a new level by having a doctor arrested who was trying to save lives. The rest of our top ten could easily be in the number one position but while seven of the nominees affected single digit numbers, Alberto Gonzales has almost destroyed an entire governmental department with thousands of employees and attorneys.

     Out of a desire for fairness, each prosecutor on our list was contacted to solicit rejoinder to being named on the “Ten Worst” list. Most did not respond or provide any information that should change their listing. Attorney General Foti tried to hide behind the ruse that he was not really a “prosecutor.” This is like Attorney General Gonzales trying to say that he really does not know who runs the Department of Justice.

     Each nominee will receive a certificate from the “Bad Prosecutor Blog” website commemorating their selection as one of the worst prosecutors in the nation in 2007. The certificate will probably not be hung in their office. Let’s then start with the worst and work our way down.

NUMBER ONE WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES

     Alberto Gonzales – The Attorney General (AG) of the United States, in Washington D.C., Alberto Gonzales, earns the first place on our list of ten worst prosecutors in the United States for being what many have called the worst AG in our nation's history. His involvement in the firings of nine United States Attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department form the basis for which he was selected as the worst prosecutor in the United States in 2007. When he testified in front of the U.S. Congress, he allegedly committed perjury by his false statements, inconsistent statements, and all of his “I don't knows.” Members of his own Department of Justice and the Head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, have contradicted his testimony. Even Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee considers Gonzales to be a liar. The United States Department of Justice has recently appointed a grand jury to investigate criminal accusations that have arisen out of the dismissal of the nine U.S. Attorneys and Gonzales may be the target of a major investigation by a Special Prosecutor; he continues to be the subject of Congressional investigations, and should be investigated by the State Bar of Texas Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for his unethical actions while White House Counsel and Attorney General. Maybe Gonzales also earns this top spot by how United States Senator Charles Schumer sums up listening to the testimony of Gonzales under oath: "He tells the half-truth, the partial truth and anything but the truth." Other than that, he has been a model government lawyer.

NUMBER TWO WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS FORMER TEXAS PROSECUTOR TERRY D. MCEACHERN
    
     Terry D. McEachern – Gonzales has set a course of deception to destroy an entire Government Department. McEachern engaged in destroying an entire town. This ex-prosecutor is best known for seeking unlawful, cocaine possession charges against the African American community of Tulia, Texas; he now resides in Plainview, Texas. In Tulia, Texas, in July of 1999, 46 people (40 were African American), were jailed during a drug sting. This case was built on shabby evidence which was given by an undercover officer who was later indicted and now jailed. After several years in prison, 38 of the 46 people jailed were eventually freed after prosecution’s conduct came to light. The prosecution engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and obstruction of justice. As reported in the September 25, 2005 Texas Bar Journal, the 242nd Texas District Court found that McEachern made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.

     McEachern engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and engaged in conduct constituting obstruction of justice. He failed to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure was necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act. McEachern offered or used false evidence that he knew to be false and falsified evidence or counseled or assisted a witness to testify falsely. He failed to refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that he knew was not supported by probable cause or make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to him that tended to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense. In connection with sentencing, he failed to disclose to the tribunal all unprivileged, mitigating information known to him. McEachern’s misconduct violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.03(a) (1), (a) (2), and (a) (5) and (d) and 8.04 (a) (3) and (a) (4). He also had to pay $6,225 in attorneys’ fees to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas.

     Gonzales and McEachern are both members of the State Bar of Texas. For all the pain and destruction McEachern caused, the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (that is supposed to discipline attorneys who do wrong) negotiated a two-year fully probated sentence that meant that McEachern could continue to practice law without missing a beat. His website boasts: “23 Years as Prosecuting Attorney. Experienced in all areas of Criminal & Family Law. Our Goal is to provide the highest quality services to you and your business in a timely fashion.” There is nothing on his website about the Tulia cases or his numerous violations of the Professional Conduct Rules. If one goes to the State Bar website on attorneys, McEachern is listed as having a “Fully Probated Suspension,” but no information is given about what he did. On the attorney rating website, AVVO, it does provide a “strong caution” warning about McEachern, and gives him a low rating of 2.0.

NUMBER THREE WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS FORMER N.C. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL NIFONG

     Michael Nifong – It was a hard choice between a Chief Law Enforcement Office of the Federal Government who has paralyzed the Department of Justice and maybe committed perjury and a Texas ex-prosecutor who, with very questionable evidence, targeted the black population in an entire town in comparison to Michael Nifong, the former Durham, North Carolina District Attorney for the Duke Lacrosse case, who has now been disbarred and faces criminal contempt charges. Gonzales earns the award since he had nearly destroyed an entire department of government and Nifong comes in third place because he only destroyed the lives of three college students and their families and made an entire university look bad. After withholding key exculpatory evidence in a highly publicized case, Nifong continued to prosecute the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

     It has now been shown that Nifong engaged in dishonesty, fraud, and withheld exculpatory information which he was duty-bound to disclose. Nifong also acknowledged that DNA evidence connecting the defendants to his plaintiff did not exist when he first accused defendants on charges of rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping. Nothing stinks like a prosecutor jumping the gun in order to ruin someone’s life except going forward with a case when you know you don’t have the evidence. Nifong had his law license taken away unlike McEachern who is still practicing law showing that North Carolina certainly cares a bit more about holding bad prosecutors responsible for being lawlessness. Lastly, we can thank Michael Nifong for the addition of another word to the American pop culture lexicon: to “Nifong,” meaning to blunder on a grand scale and lie your pants off in an effort to justify it or cover it up. For this accomplishment alone, he is deserving of a spot in the top 3 of our list of worst prosecutors in the United States in 2007.

NUMBER FOUR WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLES C. FOTI

     Charles C. Foti, Jr. – It may be unfair as some have said that AG Foti as a representative of the Louisiana State Government should have been indicted for the neglect and dereliction of duty by the state government that followed Hurricane Katrina. But AG Foti surely cemented-in a position as one of the ten worst prosecutors in the country by announcing on July 18, 2006, that Dr. Anna M. Pou and nurses Lori Budo and Cheri Landry had been arrested and charged with four counts of second degree murder. Not only were the arrests made in grand stand fashion by AG Foti, but he also felt the need to issues a press release in which he stated (as if he were the judge and jury of the case) that intentional killings had taken place and that the medical professionals were: “guilty of murder; its not euthanasia (malpractice).” He continued to make extrajudicial statements about the allegations in the press and on the CBS show “60 Minutes” in a Nifong-manner. Even after a New Orleans grand jury recently refused to indict Dr. Pou (the cases against the nurses had been dropped), Foti Nifong-ed again by going public with his criticism of District Attorney Eddie Jordan for not calling the right witnesses and blaming the media for creating sympathy for Dr. Pou.

     Of course, AG Foti has never addressed the basic issue as to why a highly regarded physician with a spotless record and faced with the horrific conditions of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina at Memorial Medical Center (MMC) in New Orleans, Louisiana would suddenly decide to start killing patients. Foti’s state government had abandoned the patients as well as most other nurses and doctors, but Dr. Pou had remained at the hospital with temperatures soaring over 100 degrees, the lower floors inundated with five feet of water with no electricity or support. At least 34 deaths were cause by the horrible conditions. Now, a New Orleans grand jury has concluded that Dr. Pou was not responsible for any of the deaths. No action was taken against Dr. Pou by the Louisiana Medical Association, the New Orleans Coroner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that a crime had been committed, the American Medical Association has praised Dr. Pou, and one of the AG Foti’s expert witnesses has himself been indicted. However, many families of the victims in the hospital have filed several civil lawsuits against Dr. Pou, all of which have cost her ample amounts of money.

     Foti first announced that it was his “duty” to seek indictment of Dr. Pou and the two nurses for the murder of the patients at MMC. He touted the case as his get-tough-on-elder-abuse political stance, but now his office is disavowing any connection with the case due to the backlash of community support in favor of the medical personnel and their actions under such horrific conditions. The Louisiana voters' disfavor of him was evident when he placed dead last in the three way primary in October 2007, losing his office to James "Buddy" Caldwell Jr. Foti is now facing a civil suit file by Dr. Pou who has accused him of using her arrest to fuel his re-election campaign. In addition to the civil lawsuit Dr. Pou filed, one has to wonder if she has also filed a complaint with The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. What Michael Nifong did in the Duke Lacrosse rape case in making inappropriate statements that cost him in part his law license appears to be identical to what AG Foti has done to Dr. Pou. Interestingly enough, there is no indication that Foti has had a complaint filed against him or has suffered any threat of professional discipline for his misconduct.

     Arising from this case has been two bills proposed from the Louisiana State Senate. The two bills propose immunity for civil iability for in-state doctors and out of state volunteers practicing in disaster areas. Protection from criminal liability is still under House debate in the State of Louisiana.

NUMBER FIVE WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY AUERHAHN

     Jeffrey Auerhahn – best known for putting New England mobster Vincent “Animal” Ferrara behind bars in the early 1990s. Ferrara was prosecuted for ordering the killing of Vincent James Limoli, in 1985, in the city of Boston, Massachusetts. The infamous case arose out of the Department of Justice's investigation and successful prosecutions of numerous individuals accused of being co-conspirators in the alleged Patriarca Family of La Cosa Nostra in the mid-1980s. Ferrara pleaded guilty to the murder pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government in connection with the Limoli murder; he was sentenced to 22 years in prison and served 13 years before being released in 2005 due to prosecutorial misconduct by U.S. Attorney Jeffery Auherhahn. Prior to Ferrara’s guilty plea, Auerhahn had learned that Walter Jordan (the government’s only source of direct evidence in the case) had been told by Ferrara’s co-defendant, Pasquale Barone, that Ferrara had not ordered the Limoli murder. Jordan’s statement had been presented, on at least two occasions, to the Government and had been reduced to writing but Auerhahn improperly and illegally failed to disclose it to defense lawyers. Instead, Auerhahn only informed Ferrara that Jordan would testify that Ferrara had directed Barone to murder Limoli and did so in an effort to encourage Ferrara to plead guilty, which he eventually did. Auerhahn’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to Ferrara constituted both a breach his affirmative duty and a blatant infringement on Ferrara’s constitutional due process rights.

     The Justice Department's internal Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Jordan’s statement was exculpatory and that Auerhahn had a duty to disclose it. However, the Justice Department only gave Auerhahn a slap on the wrist for his misconduct and argued in a 2006 brief that the withheld evidence was not material and that Auerhahn was not required to disclose it. The presiding judge in the Ferrara case, Chief District Judge Mark L. Wolf wrote a letter to Alberto Gonzales complaining that the Justice Department's private reprimand of Auerhahn was an unduly lenient response to Auerhahn's decision to withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense. Judge Wolf, dissatisfied with the Justice Department’s reprimand, requested that the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers launch disciplinary proceedings against Auerhahn. However, there is no indication that Auerhahn has been disciplined by the Board of Bar Overseers and their website lists him as “active” and that he “has no record of public discipline.” It is obvious, for the facts stated above, that Auerhahn should be reserved a spot on our list of the ten worst prosecutors because, in the words of Judge Wolf, his prosecutorial misconduct “required the release from prison of a Capo in the Patriarca family of La Cosa Nostra,” yet he has not been professionally disciplined and there is no indication that he will ever be held accountable for his indiscretions.

NUMBER SIX WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS GEORGIA PROSECUTOR DAVID MCDADE

     David McDade – Best known for Prosecuting Genarlow Wilson. At the age of 17, Genarlow Wilson was a rising football star at Douglasville high school, in Georgia, with scholarship offers to attend some of the top universities in the nation. Shortly after his senior football season had ended, Wilson attended a New Year’s party at a hotel room where he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year old girl. Wilson did not know it at the time, but this party would be one of his last moments of freedom. A week later, on the first day of the second semester of his senior year, Georgia police went to the school and escorted Wilson from the building in handcuffs. Wilson was charged with four felony offenses of rape and child molestation. Weeks before, Wilson had been in the newspaper for being all-conference in football and now, he was on the front page, branded as a rapist and child molester.

     Genarlow Wilson refused to plead guilty and take the prosecution’s plea deal which had already been accepted by other defendants involved in the incident in exchange for a 5-year sentence. In February of 2005, Wilson walked into a Douglas County courtroom to face the charges and District Attorney David McDade’s team of prosecutors. Two charges had already been dropped, and it was evident from the first witness that the rape charge wouldn't stick either. However, the alleged child molestation was on videotape and shown to the jury. The jury acquitted Wilson on the rape charge but convicted him of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with another teenager; he was 17 and she was 15. Because the age of valid consent is 16 in Georgia and due to an archaic loop hole in Georgia law regarding oral sex, Wilson received a minimum mandatory 10-year sentence beginning in 2005, along with one year of probation, and is required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
The harsh sentence Wilson received was widely denounced and Georgia changed its law so that no other teenager could be similarly sentenced under this loop hole in the law. After the change, if applied retroactively, Wilson would now be charged with a misdemeanor, up to one year in prison, and no sex offender registration. A Monroe County Superior Court judge then ordered that Wilson’s felony conviction be reduced to a misdemeanor and that he be immediately released from prison. Georgia's Attorney General, Thurbert Baker, and DA David McDade appealed that judge's ruling and have fought vigorously to keep Wilson behind bars.

     McDade was also found to have distributed the videotape of the sex act between the two minors, and now may face legal troubles for violating federal child pornography laws. He released the video after receiving an open records request under state law from the Associated Press and said he has given it to about three dozen people in all, including reporters, lawmakers and several members of the public who requested it. Georgia’s Chief Federal Prosecutor, U.S. Attorney David Nahmias, said in a statement that federal law prohibits the distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography in most circumstances and, thus, prohibits the distribution of the Wilson’s videotape because it depicts minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. McDade exclaimed that the release of the videotape was made pursuant to state law and was not illegal as it was evidence in the widely-publicized case. Nahmias' office refused to say whether they would bring criminal charges against McDade but reassures the inept prosecutor that federal child pornography laws supersede state disclosure laws.

     It should be obvious from the facts presented above why we have selected Mr. McDade. His persistence in having Genarlow Wilson punished for a crime that no longer exists under Georgia law – because of its harsh effect on defendants such as Wilson – and for arguing that the change in the law cannot retroactively exonerate him, has secured McDade a spot on our list. Furthermore, violating federal child pornography laws and attempting to hide behind a petty state disclosure law should also provide sufficient grounds to have McDade removed from office, disbarred, and possibly prosecuted for his actions. The combined effect of all the events culminating from the Wilson case and McDade’s handling of it, has earned McDade a spot as our number six worst prosecutor in the nation in 2007.

NUMBER SEVEN WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS TEXAS PROSECUTOR CHARLES SEBESTA
    
     Charles Sebesta – Best known for prosecuting Anthony Graves who was convicted of capital murder in 1994 and has served on death row for about thirteen years now. In 1992, in the small town of Somerville, Texas (about ninety miles outside of Houston), there was a brutal murder of a family of six and officials had always suspected that Graves was somehow responsible. Robert Earl Carter (a key prosecution witness and Graves’ co-defendant) met with Prosecutor Sebesta before the trial commenced and he immediately claimed full responsibility for the murders. Sebesta never made any mention of Carter’s inculpatory statement to Graves’ attorneys Calvin Garvie and Lydia Clay-Jackson. Carter testified against Graves implicating him as an accomplice and was eventually executed for the murders but, before he was put to death, recanted his testimony. Charles Sebesta’s prosecution and overall handling of the Graves’ case has raised many eyebrows and questions regarding violations of the rules governing the professional conduct of prosecutors in Texas.

     The obligation of a prosecutor to disclose evidence of innocence has been expressed in every model code of ethics promulgated by the American Bar Association (ABA) since 1908. Likewise, the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (TRDP) provides in Rule 3.09 (d), that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence is violated if he or she fails to disclose “all information that may support a claim of innocence, mitigate the offense, or reduce the punishment.” In other words, Sebesta violated Rule 3.09 (d) by failing to disclose Carter’s statement which could have been helpful in formulation Grave’s defense to the murders or, at the very least, could have been used to impeach Carter’s testimony at trial as a prior inconsistent statement. In addition, TRDP Rule 3.03 (a) (5), states that a “lawyer shall not knowingly… offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” At trial, Sebesta violated Rule 3.03 (a) (5) by offering Carter’s testimony which implicated Graves as an accomplice and he did so with knowledge of a previous statement, in which Carter took full responsibility for the murders.

     Sebesta prosecuted the Graves-Carter murder case “at all costs” and with no regard for the rule of law or rules of professional conduct. He presented false, misleading evidence at trial in an effort to secure the conviction of an innocent man who now sits on death row because of it. Does this attorney get a satisfaction from knowing he has put an innocent man on death row? How many more innocent people has he convicted and sent to jail? Has he been disciplined for his actions? Because Sebesta’s prosecutorial misconduct has given rise to these questions, there are adequate grounds to have him placed on our list of ten worst prosecutors in the United States in 2007. By the way, according to the State Bar of Texas website, Sebesta has not been disciplined (without any indication that an investigation has been launched) and he is listed as “eligible to practice in Texas.” Congratulations, Mr. Sebesta! You’re our (un)lucky number seven.

NUMBER EIGHT WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS WARD CO. DISTRICT ATTORNEY RANDALL REYNOLDS

     Randall Reynolds – Best known for his lack of leadership in response to allegations of sexual abuse at the West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas. Dating back to early 2005, a Texas Rangers investigation and 229-page report prepared by Sgt. Brian Burzynski alleged that at least two adult prison guards (John Paul Hernandez and Ray E. Brookins) sexually molested at least 10 incarcerated teen-aged boys for several months, while top Texas Youth Commission (TYC) officials did little to investigate or stop the activity. DA Randall Reynolds (who has a private practice on the side) was emailed a copy of the report in April of 2005 by Sgt. Burzynski, yet he delayed filing charges until January of 2007.

     Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, by virtue of his office, can also prosecute such cases but can only do so after the local D.A.’s office notify his office and asks for assistance. The Texas A.G. and Governor are furious with Reynolds because he did not request intervention by the A.G.’s office until mid-January 2007 (nearly two years after allegations of the sexual abuse surfaced). Meanwhile, the prison guards suspected of molesting the young boys both had left town and at least one of them had secured employment working with school-aged children elsewhere. The local D.A.’s office in Ward County, Texas, is criticized for dragging their feet on the prosecution of the TYC prison guards but Reynolds feels that the criticism is harsh and unfair because he was unable to pursue the case until he did because he lacked “adequate staff” to do so.

     By April of 2007, the Texas A.G.’s office was forced to take over the case due to Reynolds’ severe mishandling and it announced 13 indictments after the grand jury adjourned. A three-page petition for removal was filed in Ward County, Texas, against the so-called “do nothing D.A.” Randall Reynolds in connection with his failure to act diligently in response to the reports of sexual abuse at TYC. The petition alleged that Reynolds should be removed from office pursuant to Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code for “incompetency” and “official misconduct,” citing his inaction on the TYC case. Reynolds, in response, filed his own removal petition on the same day claiming that Ward County Attorney Kevin Acker exceeded his legal authority by asking Reynolds to resign and/or seeking his removal. The county attorney – in this case, Mr. Acker – must represent the state in the case to remove Reynolds and that may be a source of animosity giving Reynolds an incentive to seek removal of Acker from office. At any rate, Reynolds may only be removed from office after a jury trial but we are certain that his misconduct and/or inaction is this case coupled with the age and relationship of the offenders to the victims, a jury will have no qualms about removing such an inept prosecutor from office.
While his blunder only ruined the lives of minor children and their families, and allowed pedophiles to continue their sexual acts with impunity for almost two years, one can only wonder whether McDade’s inattention to the allegations was only because the victims in this case were “bad seeds.” That is, would have Mr. Reynolds been more attentive of the allegations of sexual misconduct if they had involved “good seeds” or even his own children? We think his response would have been drastically different.

     The State Bar of Texas website lists Reynolds as “eligible to practice in Texas” and there is no indication that an investigation has been launched to seek his disbarment in connection with his malfeasance in the TYC case. We, however, have selected Mr. Reynolds as eighth worst prosecutor in the United States in 2007 because of his lackadaisical approach to reliable accusations of sexual abuse of minors by the very individuals that are charged with caring for and setting an example for these misguided youths. It takes a really callous prosecutor to turn a blind eye in the face of these allegations, and for this reason, we have selected Reynolds as our number eight. We can say with confidence that Mr. Reynolds has truly earned his placement on our list of the Ten Worst Prosecutors in 2007.

NUMBER NINE WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS PONTOTOC CO. DISTRICT ATTORNEY BILL PETERSON

     Bill Peterson - Best known for the (botched) murder prosecution of Ronald Williamson, a former minor league baseball player from Ada, Oklahoma. In 1982, a 21-year old cocktail waitress in Ada named Debra Sue Carter was raped and murdered, and for five years the local police could not solve the crime. For some unknown reason, police had suspected that Williamson and his friend Dennis Fritz were the culprits and, in 1987, both were arrested and charged with capital murder. Apparently, while Williamson was in jail for writing a bad check, a jailhouse snitch told prosecutors that Williamson had confessed to killing Carter, giving the police “probable cause” for an arrest. At trial, McDade presented testimonial evidence from Glen Gore, their main witness, that Carter had complained to a friend that Williamson "made her nervous," and also presented a microscopic hair analysis conducted on 17 hairs recovered from the crime scene which state experts insisted matched Fritz, Williamson, and Carter (the victim). In 1988, both men were convicted of first degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sentenced to death.

     Bill Peterson was quick to arrest and prosecute Williamson with weak evidence which eventually led to Williamson’s release from prison in 1999. After serving eleven years on death row, Williamson was finally freed after DNA evidence showed his innocence. The DNA results proved that the state experts had misidentified every single hair taken from the crime scene; none of them belonged to either of the two men. The DNA profile obtained from the crime scene, however, matched Glen Gore, the state's main witness at trial. At the time, Gore was serving three 40-year sentences for unrelated charges of first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and shooting with intent to injure. Both Williamson and Fritz filed a civil lawsuit accusing Bill Peterson and other defendants – including the city of Ada, the state of Oklahoma, Gore, and county police officers – of engineering “a false case that consisted of faulty forensic evidence, fictitious confessions reported by jailhouse snitches with overwhelming motives to lie, in addition to the self-serving lies of the actual murderer.” Williamson and Fritz settled the suit and both men received an undisclosed sum of money.

     The rogue acts of prosecutor Peterson sparked best selling author, John Grisham to write his first non-fiction book about how poorly Peterson has handled the Williamson case titled “The Innocent Man, Murder and Injustice in a Small Town” (visit: www.randomhouse.com/features/grisham/main.php). Peterson is still the Pontotoc District Attorney and there is no evidence that he has ever been disciplined for his conduct in relation to the Williamson case. In our search for information we did, however, find a website set up by Peterson which catalogues the events of the Williamson trial and makes an attempt to point out follies in Grisham’s perspective and sources for the non-fiction novel (visit: www.billpetersondistrictattorney.com). For the accomplishment of having a well-known author capture your colossal screw-up in a best selling novel and for vigorously prosecuting a capital murder case on weak physical evidence and jailhouse informants, we have selected Prosecutor Bill Peterson as the ninth worst prosecutor in 2007.

NUMBER TEN WORST PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY:
THE WINNER IS LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY ROCKY DELGADILLO

     Rocky Delgadillo – The recently re-elected Harvard educated Los Angeles City Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, is known best for prosecuting famed Paris Hilton and his hard stance against what he claims is a two-tiered judicial system where, “the rich and powerful receive special treatment.” In 2005, during the Fleishman-Hillard PR billing fraud scandal Delgadillo prosecuted Doug Dowie, a PR Executive, for allegedly padding billings to the city by a jaw-dropping $4.2 million. The Fleishman-Hillard case received national coverage and Delgadillo was applauded by the media for his tough stance on political corruption in City Hall. During this time, Rocky Delgadillo was portrayed as championing for the rights of all Angelinos and he appeared to be infalliable, but this time would be short-lived. Recently, investigators from the Los Angeles Ethics Commission and the State Bar of California have launched an inquiry into Delgadillo's misuse of city resources for personal benefit but his status is currently listed as “active” on the State Bar’s website.

     The investigation comes after Delgadillo publicly admitted that he had allowed his wife, Michelle, to use a city-owned vehicle to drive to a doctor’s appointment which subsequently resulted in over $1,200 of damage while in her possession and which the city paid for. Only after government accountability advocates accused Delgadillo of misusing public funds did Rocky decide to reimburse the city for the expense. To make matters worst, Michelle was operating the vehicle on a suspended license and with a warrant out for her arrest for failing to appear in court nearly nine years earlier on charges of driving without insurance, with a suspended license, and in an unregistered car. Delgadillo also admitted that (unbeknownst to him) he had driven without auto insurance for about a year and that his wife had done so for about 2 years. Nevertheless, the misuse of pulic resources does not end here; Delgadillo is also under suspicion of having used public employees for his personal benefit on many occasions (e.g. baby sitting, running errands, handyman services, etc.). While citizens felt that Delgadillo’s role as City Attorney gave him a unique insight into the “two-tiered” judicial system he so preached about, many were surprised to find out that Rocky and his family were also receiving special treatment under this system.

     Much like the Hollywood Rocky sagas, this Rocky wins in the end; however, in this instance, he’s won a spot on our infamous list of worst prosecutors in the United States in 2007. Delgadillo was selected as number 10 because his blunders pale in comparison to those of the other selections. Not to say that his actions are of lesser importance but Delgadillo only ruined his family’s and a City’s reputation, only lost the confidence of his constituents, and only ruined his own political career. In relation to the blunders of Gonzales, McEachern, and Nifong, Delgadillo’s mere misuse of public resources for his own personal gain appears as if his only reason for appearing on the list is for being dumb enough to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar (and then publicly confessing to it). But then again, we think that if Delgadillo were only given the opportunity to make a mistake on a grander scale he would be up for the challenge, and maybe then he could move himself up a couple of spots on the list. Hey, there’s always 2008…

     The Bennett Law Firm’s (BLF) Attorneys have served in the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. They consider themselves to be "good" prosecutors with experience in both state district attorneys offices and federal prosecutors with the United States Attorney's Office. The BLF holds the office of prosecutor in high regard and is intolerant of those individuals who engage in conduct which place all prosecutors (both federal and state) in public rebuke. Furthermore, the firm holds steadfast to the principle that prosecutors who are responsible for causing a miscarriage of justice should be held accountable through notoriety, recusal, and even disbarment. Attorney Robert S. “Bob” Bennett has been qualified as an expert on prosecutorial abuse and prosecutorial recusal, he has also published numerous articles and has been invited to give several speeches on the topic.
The BLF and the “Bad Prosecutor Blog” website are dedicated to maintaining high standards of professionalism in the practice of law and they chose to recognize the ten worst prosecutors in the United States in 2007 to bring about an open discussion of prevalent prosecutorial misconduct, and most importantly, to stress the importance of holding bad prosecutors accountable for their unlawful indiscretions. Prosecutorial misconduct ranges from hiding, destroying, or tampering with evidence, case files or court records; failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; using false or misleading evidence during trial; to improper behavior during grand jury proceedings. The BLF’s aim for “Ten Worst” list is to expose the harsh reality that bad prosecutors are not always disciplined for such misconduct and, in most cases, continue practicing law without ever facing repercussions for their unlawful misconduct. The BLF and the website strongly believe that the list will heighten public awareness and, in turn, help curb unjust prosecutions and deter future prosecutorial misconduct.

The “Bad Prosecutor Blog” website is currently researching and preparing next year’s list for the Ten Worst Prosecutor in the United States in 2008.

The 10 WORST U.S. Prosecutors Named: Texas Leads List with Four

United States Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was selected as the worst prosecutor out of 10 in the nation in 2007 for his involvement in the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department. At a close second, Texas ex-prosecutor Terry D. McEachern, who is best known for seeking unlawful cocaine possession charges against the African-American community of Tulia, Texas, and withholding exculpatory evidence. Next selected, former North Carolina D.A. Michael Nifong, for the widely-publicized debacle in the rape prosecution of Duke Lacrosse players causing his disbarment for having engaged in dishonesty, fraud, and withholding exculpatory information.

While a prosecutor’s job is to seek justice, there have been numerous instances in U.S history where federal and state prosecutors have engaged in unethical conduct simply to secure a conviction where otherwise not possible if they had played “by the rules.” The “Ten Worst Prosecutors” list carefully researched and produced by the Bennett Law Firm (BLF) in Houston, Texas, features a handful of recent occurrences where federal and state prosecutors did not play “by the rules” with respect to evidence in criminal trials and ruined the lives of innocent people to further their own professional careers.

The BLF and the “Bad Prosecutor Blog” website (visit: http://bennettlawfirm. typepad.com/badprosecutors) chose to recognize the ten worst prosecutors in the United States in 2007 to bring about an open discussion of prevalent prosecutorial misconduct, and most importantly, to stress the importance of holding bad prosecutors accountable for their unlawful indiscretions. For over thirty years, the BLF has been involved in criminal, civil, and administrative investigation. BLF Attorney Robert S. “Bob” Bennett, a former federal prosecutor, has been qualified as an expert on prosecutorial abuse and prosecutorial recusal. Mr. Bennett has also published numerous articles and has given countless speeches on these topics.

Prosecutorial misconduct ranges from hiding, destroying, or tampering with evidence, case files or court records; failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; using false or misleading evidence during trial; to improper behavior during grand jury proceedings. The BLF’s “Ten Worst” list exposes the harsh reality that bad prosecutors are not always disciplined for such misconduct and, in most cases, continue practicing law without missing a beat. The BLF and the website strongly believe that the list will heighten public awareness and, in turn, help curb unjust prosecutions and deter future prosecutorial misconduct.

Other bad prosecutors selected for the BLF “Ten Worst” list include the likes of Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti, Jr., Massachusetts Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn, Georgia Prosecutor David McDade, Oklahoma D.A. Bill Peterson, L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, and Texas licensed attorneys: Charles Sebesta and Randall W. Reynolds.

Foti’s persistence in attempting to prosecute a doctor and two nurses after hurricane Katrina and making extrajudicial statements surrounding their guilt have secured him a spot on the BLF’s “Ten Worst” list. Auerhahn’s blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of an innocent man which resulted in a 22 year sentence and 13 years behind bars before it was ever discovered has earned him a listing as well. McDade was selected for overzealously prosecuting a 17-year-old over oral sex with a consenting 15-year-old girl under an archaic loophole in Georgia law (which has now been abolished) and for distributing a video of the sexual encounter in violation of federal child pornography laws.

Texas prosecutor, Charles Sebesta, makes an appearance on the list for presenting false, misleading evidence and not disclosing an exculpatory confession during the murder prosecution of Anthony Graves which resulted in his conviction and being sent to death row for capital murder in 1994. Ward County D.A, Randall W. Reynolds, was selected for dragging his feet in response to reliable allegations of sexual abuse of inmates at the West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas, and delaying the prosecution of two accused prison guards for more than 2 years.

Also selected was prosecutor Bill Peterson for inspiring John Grisham to write a novel about his vigorous yet erroneous prosecution and conviction of Ron Williamson for capital murder in 1988 on weak physical evidence and jailhouse informants. Last, but certainly not least, the list includes the Harvard-educated L.A. City Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, who is best known for prosecuting famed Paris Hilton and publicly admitting that he misused public resources by negligently allowing his accident-prone wife to use a city vehicle for personal errands resulting $1,200 of damage and then letting taxpayers foot the bill, all the while complaining about a two-tiered judicial system that gives “special treatment” to the privileged.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the BLF’s “Ten Worst Prosecutors” Article, please visit http://bennettlawfirm.typepad.com/badprosecutors or contact Scott Chauveaux at 713-225-6000; e-mail [email protected]. To contact BLF Attorney Bob Bennett, visit: www.bennettlawfirm.com or email [email protected].

DAs Influence in Child Death Cases

Interesting article about a recent child death case in Houston and how local prosecutors reacted.

Download policy_varies_in_child_death_cases.pdf

Genarlow Wilson Case Update

Genarlow Wilson was released and then ordered back to jail on the same day a few weeks ago.  Now the Georgia Supreme Court is working to expedite another ruling.  Please see the attached NY Times article for further details.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10715FB3C5B0C718DDDAF0894DF404482

Timeline of Events Leading to Disbarment of Mike Nifong

Download timeline_of_events_leading_to_disbarment_of_mike_nifong.doc