Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Yin and Yang

First there's this story:

The Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, had a problem. The murder convictions of two men in one of his office's big cases -- the 1990 shooting of a bouncer outside the Palladium nightclub -- had been called into question by a stream of new evidence.

So the office decided on a re-examination, led by a 21-year veteran assistant, Daniel L. Bibb.

Mr. Bibb spent nearly two years reinvestigating the killing and reported back: He believed that the two imprisoned men were not guilty, and that their convictions should be dropped. Yet top officials told him, he said, to go into a court hearing and defend the case anyway. He did, and in 2005 he lost.

But in a recent interview, Mr. Bibb made a startling admission: He threw the case. Unwilling to do what his bosses ordered, he said, he deliberately helped the other side win.

He tracked down hard-to-find or reluctant witnesses who pointed to other suspects and prepared them to testify for the defense. He talked strategy with defense lawyers. And when they veered from his coaching, he cornered them in the hallway and corrected them.

"I did the best I could," he said. "To lose."

Now, I might surprise some people here, but I think what the prosecutor did was wrong, both morally and ethically.  If he felt that the defendants were innocent, he should have refused to take the case, resigning if necessary, making a public issue of it if he felt like it.  But to intentionally throw the case, to say nothing of secretly working with the other side, was wrong, and was an act of moral cowardice.

But then again, there's this story:

It's been just about a year since Caribou County Prosecutor Criss James was charged with dismissing charges in exchange for money. Thursday, James pled guilty to an agreement made between the State and Defense.

The State reduced the charged from seven felony counts to one misdemeanor of violation of public office for personal gain.

The State said there was indisputable evidence against him.

"Checks went from Criss James' office to his hands to his personal account," said Justin Whatcott, Deputy Attorney General.

Judge Bush sentenced James to 90 days in county jail, a sentence which will be suspended and two years probation unsupervised along with 150 hours of community service.

Criss James will continue serving as Prosecuting Attorney until his term finishes in January.

And the guy gets to keep his job!

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 23, 2017
    Crime and the First Amendment
    Facebook and sex offenders, and encouraging someone to kill himself
  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.
  • May 30, 2017
    Case Update
    One searches SCOTUSblog in vain for decisions which would be of interest to the uncounted hordes of this blog's regular readers; one of the Court's opinions last week deals with the Hague Service Convention's rules on international service by mail,...
  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes