Source: Extrajudicial Prosecutorial displays of contraband barred – NJ Ethics Committee
Extrajudicial Statements Featuring Displays of Seized Contraband Are Prohibited by Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 and 3.8 according to the recently issued Opinion 731 of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics.
The Committee rejected a prosecution request to relax New Jersey’s long-standing stricture on prosecutorial display of contraband. The ACPE adhered to the plain language of RPC 3.6 (Trial Publicity):
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
The Inquiring prosecutor argued that the display of seized drugs and paraphernalia would be an educational deterrent to drug abuse – particularly in light of the opioid use crisis which is a current focus of the administration of Governor Chris Christie. The Governor has appeared in a series of television advertisements urging users to seek treatment.
The Inquirer found support in RPC 3.6 (d) which provides:
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
The ACPE rejected the Inquirer’s argument. It relied on RPC 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor) which provides, in part:
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under RPC 3.6 or this Rule.
According to an article in the New Jersey Law Journal the Inquirer’s request found little support – even among prosecutors. The Supreme Court Committee’s rulings are binding on the entire bar subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court itself. It is expected that the Inquirer will seek such review.
Source: New York City Bar: Prosecutors’ Duty to Disclose Held Broader Than Brady Standard | Legal Ethics in Motion
According to a recent opinion from the New York City Bar’s Ethics Committee, a prosecutor’s ethical obligation to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant is broader than the constitutional minimums imposed by the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland.
Under the holding in Brady, prosecutors are only required to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence that is “material either to guilt or to punishment.” The materiality standard in Brady has been the subject of great criticism, prompting a divide on the issue of whether the lawyer conduct rule governing prosecutors’ disclosure contradicts federal constitutional standards.
New York City Bar’s Ethics Committee concluded that New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(b)requires a prosecutor to turn over to the defense any exculpatory evidence regardless of whether the prosecutor believes it is “material.” Opinion 2016-3 reaffirms the position taken by the ABA in 2009, which advised that the ethical obligations imposed by Rule 3.8 are more demanding than the standard in Brady, because Rule 3.8 requires disclosure of any evidence or information favorable to the defense regardless of the prosecutor’s assessment of the impact on a trial’s outcome. The New York opinion also notes that under Rule 3.8 favorable information must be provided to the defense “as soon as reasonably practicable,”regardless of the timing requirements of other substantive law.
The New York City opinion can be read here.
A new 10-minute video is available from the ABA exploring implicit bias and criminal defense.
h/t to Tigran Eldred @ Behavioral Legal Ethics Blog.
Source: Judiciary Court Files Charges Against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary on May 7 filed a complaint against Chief Justice Roy Moore for obstruction of the duty of Probate Judges to comply with the order of a federal court. Moore has been suspended with pay. Moore was previously removed for defiance of an order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse. He was reelected.
The Court of the Judiciary complaint relates to a January 6, 2016 Administrative Order by Moore which – after Obergefell v. Hodges – declared “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act [which]remain[s] in force and effect.”
The Court asserts six counts of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Canon 2A for failure to respect and comply with the law”.
Moore’s Liberty Counsel defenders filed a federal action to enjoin the suspension. See complaint.
California’s Second Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct continues its work to update California’s ethics rules (and switch to the ABA Model Rules format). The Commission’s website includes a page where it regularly posts its draft rules for comment. For example, in April 2016 the Commission posted its proposed drafts of Rules 1.2, 1.7, and 7.1-7.5, among other rules. In May 2016 the Commission posted drafts of Rules 3.3-3.6 and a proposed rule dealing with prosecutorial responsibilities. The June 2016 column by State Bar of California President David Pasternak urged California lawyers to submit their comments to the Commission. Given California’s size and influence, this work deserves careful consideration by all lawyers.
Source: It’s Been 40 Years Since the Supreme Court Tried to Fix the Death Penalty — Here’s How It Failed | The Marshall Project
Unguided prosecutors – county by county prosecutorial discretion – is at the heart of the arbitrariness of capital punishment in America, as well as state and local cultures which make coherence in our criminal justice system an impossibility.
Who lives and who dies – among those who have committed horrible acts? Historically – men die, and Black men die much more often. But even if – as in New Jersey – that factor was squeezed out (by Black urban political power) – the results are arbitrary. At a symposium I organized at Seton Hall eight years about the state’s repeal – former Chief Justice Deborah Poritz acknowledgedthat despite rigorous “propotionality review” they had failed to eliminate the arbitrariness of who was sentenced to death who to life in prison. – gwc
From NPR News:
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments [today] testing whether a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice violated the U.S. Constitution when he ruled in a death penalty case that he had been involved with as a prosecutor.
At issue is whether then-Chief Justice Ronald Castille, by refusing to recuse himself, denied the defendant, Terrance Williams, a fair hearing.
Full story and link to the audio clip here.