Prosecutors' Responsibilities and Discretion

Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors

This topic is crucial for those interested in criminal law, whether as defense attorneys or prosecutors. It's also important for understanding the broader legal system and related social and political issues.

The Prosecutor's Triple Role

Prosecutors have three distinct roles:

  1. Member of the Law Enforcement Team: Collaborating with police to capture and arrest suspects.
  2. Litigating Attorney: Functioning as the state's lawyer, which includes negotiating, arguing, and trying cases in court.
  3. Minister of Justice: Ensuring the protection of the rights of the accused, even while advancing the state's interests.
Model Rule 3.8(B)

Prosecutors must advise defendants of their right to counsel and provide a reasonable opportunity to obtain it.

Goal Beyond Conviction

The primary aim isn't solely to secure convictions but to uphold due process and ensure the legitimacy of the criminal justice process.

Case Example: In the Matter of Butler from Colorado
  • Illustrates conflict between roles.
  • The prosecutor's conduct as a member of law enforcement was evaluated under ethical principles.
  • The prosecutor's deceit was deemed intolerable, even in the context of securing an arrest.

Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutors possess significant authority to decide various aspects of their job:

  • Who to investigate.
  • Whether to file charges and for what crime.
  • Whether to negotiate plea bargains.
  • Whether to offer or grant immunity.
  • Whether to dismiss charges.
Judicial Non-Interference

Courts generally avoid interfering with prosecutorial discretion to allow prosecutors to make decisions without undue second-guessing.

Risk of Abuse

Discretion inherently carries the risk of abuse.

Model Rule 3.8 as a Limit

Model Rule 3.8 outlines duties that limit a prosecutor's discretionary authority, including:

  • How to investigate crimes.
  • How to pursue charges.
  • How to litigate.
  • How to conduct discovery.
  • How to present evidence.
  • How to communicate with the press.

Case Study: State of Nevada vs. Michelle Lynn Taylor

A sentencing hearing for lewdness with a child under 14, a felony sex abuse crime.

Facts of the Case

The defendant, while drunk, either allowed or encouraged a 13-year-old boy to touch her breasts over her clothes.

Arguments Presented
  • Prosecutor: Argued for the mandatory life sentence with the possibility of parole after ten years and a $10,000 fine, as dictated by Nevada law.
  • Defense Lawyer: Highlighted mitigating factors, including Taylor's low risk of reoffending, intoxication at the time of the offense, history of abuse, and the lack of a plea deal.
Sentencing

The judge imposed the mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility after ten years, expressing frustration with the inflexibility of the sentencing and the prosecutor's charging decisions.

Judge's Opinion

The judge questioned the rationale behind charging decisions and the inconsistency in offering plea bargains, suggesting irrationality or unfairness in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Key Questions
  • Does the punishment fit the crime?
  • Was the lack of a plea deal a justified exercise of discretion?
  • Should there be further regulation or control over prosecutorial discretion?