is it conflict ofinterest if DA accepts a case where her husband is arresting officer

[her1984]

My husband is incarcerated at a local county jail. He was arrested for criminal impersonation and for a warrant he had for a probabtion violation. His brother who was with him was arrested for possesion of a firearm by a felon. The officers that were first on the scene asked the 3 witnesses (on his car camera) who the gun belonged to and they all said it was his brothers. Days after the arrest they went to court and his brother was released and charges dropped. An officer who was on the arrest scene later and was not there when the witnesses were initially questioned on camera told the courts that the witnesses said the gun belonged to my husband so he is now being charged with possesion by a felon. This officer is listed on the arrest record as the arresting officer. His wife who is the DA accepted the case and referred it over to the feds. She later handed the case over to another DA. My husbands brother is remorseful and says that he will tell them the truth that the gun belonged to him. I called my husbands lawyer to tell him this and he stated that it wouldnt help because the DA would not believe it. This police officer on the arrest record has since been in the jail many times harrassing my husband. My husband has had about 3 court dates and each have been delayed becuase they state they are waiting to hear from the feds. He has been at this jail waiting for over 6 months! First of all it seems to me that by the officers wife accepting the case this should be a conflict of interest is that right? One of the other officers that was first on scene told my husband he would testify in court that the witnesses said the gun was the brothers. He told him that he was unaware that my husband was even charged with the gun and he also appoligized and told him that he was being used because of his criminal background. This is in a county that has gotten much publisity on corupt police and government in Newport TN. What should be our next step? Thank you.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

there is no conflict of interest. The arresting officer and the DA both have the same interest: to convict the defendant.

A conflict would come if the public defender was related to the arresting officer.

 

[justalayman]

regardless of whether it was a conflict of interest or not, this really makes it a moot point:

His wife who is the DA accepted the case and referred it over to the feds. She later handed the case over to another DA.

If there is another DA on the case, that DA can continue the charges or drop them as they see fit. If the feds get involved with this, there too, it would be a different DA dealing with the case. That makes any actions taken by the DA you are claiming has a conflict of interest a non-issue.

 

[latigo]

My husband is incarcerated at a local county jail. He was arrested for criminal impersonation and for a warrant he had for a probabtion violation. His brother who was with him was arrested for possesion of a firearm by a felon. The officers that were first on the scene asked the 3 witnesses (on his car camera) who the gun belonged to and they all said it was his brothers. Days after the arrest they went to court and his brother was released and charges dropped. An officer who was on the arrest scene later and was not there when the witnesses were initially questioned on camera told the courts that the witnesses said the gun belonged to my husband so he is now being charged with possesion by a felon. This officer is listed on the arrest record as the arresting officer.

His wife who is the DA accepted the case and referred it over to the feds. She later handed the case over to another DA. My husbands brother is remorseful and says that he will tell them the truth that the gun belonged to him.

I called my husbands lawyer to tell him this and he stated that it wouldn’t help because the DA would not believe it. This police officer on the arrest record has since been in the jail many times harassing my husband.

My husband has had about 3 court dates and each have been delayed because they state they are waiting to hear from the feds. He has been at this jail waiting for over 6 months! First of all it seems to me that by the officers wife accepting the case this should be a conflict of interest is that right?

One of the other officers that was first on scene told my husband he would testify in court that the witnesses said the gun was the brothers. He told him that he was unaware that my husband was even charged with the gun and he also appoligized and told him that he was being used because of his criminal background.

This is in a county that has gotten much publisity on corupt police and government in Newport TN. What should be our next step? Thank you.

Although criminal impersonation in Tennessee is a Class Misdemeanor (Tennessee Code Section39-16-301) –

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 922(g)(i)

So it would seem that your husband is in the soup up to his eyeballs. And I truly feel for you.

However, blaming everyone else in sight, but your husband and looking for mythical loopholes is not going to rescue him.

Next time you visit him ask if he has volunteered to hook up to a truth machine. And if not, why not.

 

[her1984]

Although criminal impersonation in Tennessee is a Class Misdemeanor (Tennessee Code Section39-16-301) –

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 922(g)(i)

So it would seem that your husband is in the soup up to his eyeballs. And I truly feel for you.

However, blaming everyone else in sight, but your husband and looking for mythical loopholes is not going to rescue him.

Next time you visit him ask if he has volunteered to hook up to a truth machine. And if not, why not.

As I stated before the officer that was first on site questioned everyone and they all told him the gun belonged to his brother. My husband got into his brothers car his brother was in the pasenger seat and the gun was found under that seat. As far as trying to look for "mythical loopholes" I ask because one of the local police officers who was there that night told him this.
I am aware of the federal sentencing guidlines however.

 

[justalayman]

As I stated before the officer that was first on site questioned everyone and they all told him the gun belonged to his brother. My husband got into his brothers car his brother was in the pasenger seat and the gun was found under that seat. As far as trying to look for "mythical loopholes" I ask because one of the local police officers who was there that night told him this.
I am aware of the federal sentencing guidlines however.

under your husbands seat or under his brothers seat?




how can the cop determine who the gun belonged to? In the end, it actually doesn't make any difference. It does not require ownership to be guilty of possession.

 

[las365]

The arresting officer and the DA both have the same interest: to convict the defendant.

Their interest and responsibilities are actually finding the truth and convicting the guilty. Terrible miscarriages of justice can and have occurred when prosecuters get fixated on convicting a particular defendant, sometimes even despite exculpatory evidence. This example happened in my area: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/michael-morton/about/

I am not saying that's what is happening with OP's husband, just picking a nit with the way this was worded.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Their interest and responsibilities are actually finding the truth and convicting the guilty.

I disagree. You've described the interest and responsibilities of the judge and jury.

Terrible miscarriages of justice can and have occurred when prosecuters get fixated on convicting a particular defendant, sometimes even despite exculpatory evidence. This example happened in my area: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/michael-morton/about/

Sure, there are some bad prosecutors, just as there are some bad cops and bad defense attorneys and bad judges. That still doesn't change the prosecutors job to convict the defendant using all legal means. On the other hand, the defense attorney is charged with defending the defendant using all legal means.

 

[las365]

I beg to differ. From the American Bar Association website:

Standard 3- 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor

(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.

(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.

(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

(d) It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to the prosecutor's attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action.

(e) It is the duty of the prosecutor to know and be guided by the standards of professional conduct as defined by applicable professional traditions, ethical codes, and law in the prosecutor's jurisdiction. The prosecutor should make use of the guidance afforded by an advisory council of the kind described in standard 4-1.5.

The prosecutor is an employee of and is responsible to the community. Focusing on convicting a Defendant with disregard for his or her guilt is an ethical violation, potentially a violation of the law, a disservice to the community and a dereliction of duty, in my opinion.

Again, I am not saying that there is any problem with the prosecutor in OP's husband's case. There is far too little information available to evaluate that particular situation here.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I beg to differ. From the American Bar Association website:

(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

As OP's husband was on probation, the peripheral circumstances surrounding the entire issue appear to logically have been a violation of his probation. Thus, he belongs in jail on that basis alone. The fact that they are holding him, while they figure out what laws he did break, is somewhat superfluous. I suggest hubby stop being a criminal and hanging with criminals. He would likely find his jail time to decrease.

 

[ecmst12]

Similarly, it is the duty of the police to investigate and gather evidence, not necessarily to interpret that evidence to determine guilt.

 

[her1984]

I appreciate the advice and posted articles listed. So thank you to those of you however please refrain from posting useless things . And it is very obvious that peple should be following the rules of the law and should be punished for the things they do when they break the law but this doesn't give anyone the right to add more than they deserve. In the end god decides everything.

 

[Antigone*]

I appreciate the advice and posted articles listed. So thank you to those of you however please refrain from posting useless things And it is very obvious that peple should be following the rules of the law and should be punished for the things they do when they break the law but this doesn't give anyone the right to add more than they deserve. In the end god decides everything.

God didn't make your husband a criminal - he did that all on his own. God does not decide, he gave us free will and we decide; that is why we are held to account for our actions. If you are going to toss God in the center of things, make sure you know what you are taking about.

 

[ecmst12]

The judge will be making decisions about his fate most likely long before god has a chance. You should be more concerned about that.