• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Law student question! Ethics question.

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Neosutra

Junior Member
I have a question for the community.

I'm a law student researching an ethical question of when a prosecutor decides to base an investigation solely on the testimony of witnesses granted immunity (obvious credibility/bias problems there).

I'm in Arizona and have found relevant ABA rules and Arizona Ethics rules, but have found no case law on the subject (specifically looking for a case where the Defendant appealed his conviction because the prosecution based the investigation solely on these witnesses' testimony, or a case where a prosecutor was held to have violated the rules of ethics for doing that).

This is not for a graded assignment (I'm not asking others to do my homework), this is merely for class discussion. I've done a lot of research but I'm just missing some case law I think!
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I have a question for the community.

I'm a law student researching an ethical question of when a prosecutor decides to base an investigation solely on the testimony of witnesses granted immunity (obvious credibility/bias problems there).

I'm in Arizona and have found relevant ABA rules and Arizona Ethics rules, but have found no case law on the subject (specifically looking for a case where the Defendant appealed his conviction because the prosecution based the investigation solely on these witnesses' testimony, or a case where a prosecutor was held to have violated the rules of ethics for doing that).

This is not for a graded assignment (I'm not asking others to do my homework), this is merely for class discussion. I've done a lot of research but I'm just missing some case law I think!
I'm sure your prof can assist you with your homework (because we don't)
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
I think many of the organized crime trials are based on testimony of witnesses who were granted immunity. Go rent "Casino" and "Goodfellas".
 
The reliability of evidence is generally left to the jury, not the attorneys. Despite raising concerns, I don't believe the situation you're describing would lead to an actual ethical violation unless the prosecutor was aware that the evidence was unreliable and moved forward with the case anyway.

There's a section of the model ethics code that speaks directly to prosecutors moving forward with cases when there's little or no evidence to suggest guilt. I would pull it for you, but you can probably find it faster than I could using westlaw.

Just do a search under your state for "ethics code" and "prosecutor." You should find the specific statute for your state, and the case notes will hopefully have some cases that deal closely with your situation. Even if there's not something directly about witness testimony and immunity, I'm sure there will be something about bringing a case on unreliable evidence.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
While knowing use of perjured testimony can be a denial of due process rights, generally, "ethics" violations are not going to give rise to an appeal. In addition, for a Brady violation, it requires the evidence withheld must be favorable to the accused either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently and prejudice must have ensued.
 

latigo

Senior Member
I have a question for the community.

I'm a law student researching an ethical question of when a prosecutor decides to base an investigation solely on the testimony of witnesses granted immunity (obvious credibility/bias problems there).

I'm in Arizona and have found relevant ABA rules and Arizona Ethics rules, but have found no case law on the subject (specifically looking for a case where the Defendant appealed his conviction because the prosecution based the investigation solely on these witnesses' testimony, or a case where a prosecutor was held to have violated the rules of ethics for doing that).

This is not for a graded assignment (I'm not asking others to do my homework), this is merely for class discussion. I've done a lot of research but I'm just missing some case law I think!
Hopefully it is “not for a graded assignment”, because you would be entitled to fat “F” for frivolity in attempting to research such a contrived issue!

Are you so naïve as to believe that the state cannot sustain a successful prosecution based upon the testimony of witnesses who have been granted immunity?

Do think the fed’s could have convicted and sent John Gotti up for life without the testimony of the Don’s accomplice, Sammy the Bull Gravano? A witness who admitted under oath as having committed numerous acts of homicide. Including the murder of Gambino boss, Paul Costellano, a count in the indictment upon which Gotti himself was found guilty.

If you were truly enrolled in a law school, which I seriously question, you might be expected to know that the matter of a witness having been granted “prosecutorial immunity” goes to the WEIGHT to be accorded such a witnesses’ testimony AND NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH TESTIMONY!

And if you understood that principle you would know very well that criminal convictions are not overturned merely because such testimony was presented or because the criminal investigation leading to the indictment was influenced by interrogating individuals that were granted immunity?

And to suggest that it is unethical for the prosecution to rely on such testimony is abject foolishness. Totally unbecoming a law student!
 
Hopefully it is “not for a graded assignment”, because you would be entitled to fat “F” for frivolity in attempting to research such a contrived issue!

Are you so naïve as to believe that the state cannot sustain a successful prosecution based upon the testimony of witnesses who have been granted immunity?

Do think the fed’s could have convicted and sent John Gotti up for life without the testimony of the Don’s accomplice, Sammy the Bull Gravano? A witness who admitted under oath as having committed numerous acts of homicide. Including the murder of Gambino boss, Paul Costellano, a count in the indictment upon which Gotti himself was found guilty.

If you were truly enrolled in a law school, which I seriously question, you might be expected to know that the matter of a witness having been granted “prosecutorial immunity” goes to the WEIGHT to be accorded such a witnesses’ testimony AND NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH TESTIMONY!

And if you understood that principle you would know very well that criminal convictions are not overturned merely because such testimony was presented or because the criminal investigation leading to the indictment was influenced by interrogating individuals that were granted immunity?

And to suggest that it is unethical for the prosecution to rely on such testimony is abject foolishness. Totally unbecoming a law student!
It's actually a fairly interesting topic and one that a law student would be likely to research for class or for a law review article. The fact that a witness will be offered immunity for his own crimes if he testifies against the defendant would seem to encourage false testimony and raises a dilemma. I, for one, would be interested to know how this issue has been treated by the legal system.

Another issue you may want to look at is whether or not the prosecution is even required to inform the jury that the witness has been granted immunity.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
It's actually a fairly interesting topic and one that a law student would be likely to research for class or for a law review article. The fact that a witness will be offered immunity for his own crimes if he testifies against the defendant would seem to encourage false testimony and raises a dilemma. I, for one, would be interested to know how this issue has been treated by the legal system.

Another issue you may want to look at is whether or not the prosecution is even required to inform the jury that the witness has been granted immunity.
Just as latigo pointed out, it happens all the time. The only restriction(s) I know I posted except that some states will not allow the testimony of a co-conspirator/accessory as the SOLE evidence to convict someone. There is no ethical issue here.
 
Just as latigo pointed out, it happens all the time. The only restriction(s) I know I posted except that some states will not allow the testimony of a co-conspirator/accessory as the SOLE evidence to convict someone. There is no ethical issue here.
The fact that it is common and legal does not mean it is ethical. Besides, it's just for class discussion. He's not litigating a case (hopefully).
 

tranquility

Senior Member
The fact that it is common and legal does not mean it is ethical. Besides, it's just for class discussion. He's not litigating a case (hopefully).
Um, sure it does. Unless you want to make up new stuff that has not been considered. The most interesting thing about the law is how it is greatly considered. If you want to change the basics, you should come up with something thoughtful other than some vague feeling.
 
Um, sure it does.
Really? There's a lot of acts that we consider immoral today that used to be common and supported by law.

Anyway, it's quite common for law students to be taught to question the morality or value of laws. There's nothing unusual about this assignment.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Really? There's a lot of acts that we consider immoral today that used to be common and supported by law.

Anyway, it's quite common for law students to be taught to question the morality or value of laws. There's nothing unusual about this assignment.
Not as to the way witness testimony is handled. It is, was, and always shall be weighed by the fact finder aware of the witnesses possible bias.
 
Not as to the way witness testimony is handled. It is, was, and always shall be weighed by the fact finder aware of the witnesses possible bias.
That's not really accurate. Some unreliable testimony will be filtered out by the evidence code without ever reaching the jury. While testimony given with grant of immunity is considered reliable now, it may not always be so. In fact, I stumbled across a law review article for the OP that may suggest the ball is already rolling on the issue.

The article is Leniency in Exchange for Testimony: Bribery or Effective Prosecution? 33 Indiana Law Review 957.

I could only read a preview of the article, but it looks like it's about a case that was overturned because of immunity offered in exchange for testimony. It should be accessible through one of the research tools offered by the law school.

While not exactly on point, it's at least in the ballpark. Hopefully it will lead to other sources.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top