Can Prosecutor continue if he knows accused is innocent?

[VJA]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

What rules of law or professional conduct require a Prosecutor to drop the charges if the accused is innocent?

In the legal ethics class I teach, this question came up yesterday and we could not agree upon an answer, so I'm curious what the Criminal Law community here thinks.

CRPC Rule 5-110 requires that a govt. employee disclose to the court if he does not have "probable cause" to proceed with an action, but which standard of probable cause does that mean? Is it the definition of probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime," or the Illinois v. Gates threshold of probable cause that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause, but better-than-even chance is not required.

We all want to believe that as soon as the DA knows a person is innocent, he or she will drop the charges, but we also know that the DA's office is highly politicized, and often the public is demanding a conviction of someone -- anyone, so the circumstances exist for DAs to have motivation to prosecute someone who is not guilty.

Yes, they have to turn over exculpatory evidence, but if defense counsel is not competent, or if inculpatory evidence is sufficient to convince a jury, is there anywhere in the law or rules of conduct that says that when a prosecutor KNOWS someone didn't do it, but can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did (without presenting false evidence to the court), that the prosecutor must drop the charges?

Or are we left to assume (hope?) the morals of the person will win out and/or the defense will do its job sufficiently and the system will work?

I posted this on another legal forum and am getting a lot of bad answers. Yes, I know prosecutors SHOULD drop the charges, and I am familiar with all the bases for victory on appeal that would result from this scenario, but is there anything in the California Rules or the Model Rules that require a prosecutor to NOT prosecute someone simply because that person didn't commit the crime?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[JETX]

http://tinyurl.com/y86fpw7

 

[CdwJava]

How do you determine that a person is truly and factually innocent and did NOT commit the crime?

Unless there is absolute and irrefutable proof of innocence, the issue if guilt or innocence is likely to remain a subjective one until trial. Most the time, such proof is for a jury to weigh as arguments can be made both ways.

Check the link that JetX provided and you can find more information.

 

[JETX]

How do you determine that a person is truly and factually innocent and did NOT commit the crime?

There have been numerous cases where an individual was charged with a crime, only to latter find out that he was 'truly and factually' innocent (this can be done by lab testing, irrefutable alibi, etc.). In those cases, the prosecutor is obligated to drop the charges.

 

[VJA]

JETX, Obligated by what? His moral conscience? Yes. But where in the law or code of ethics does it say that he has to drop the charges?

He has to provide all of the evidence to the defense. But what if they don't use it properly? Or he has more convincing evidence that could sway a jury (even though he, personally, knows the evidence he's turned over should exonerate the accused)?

Under what rule of law, if any, is he obligated to drop the charges?

 

[Just Blue]

JETX, Obligated by what? His moral conscience? Yes. But where in the law or code of ethics does it say that he has to drop the charges?

He has to provide all of the evidence to the defense. But what if they don't use it properly? Or he has more convincing evidence that could sway a jury (even though he, personally, knows the evidence he's turned over should exonerate the accused)?

Under what rule of law, if any, is he obligated to drop the charges?

If you can't ascertain the answers of this issue without posting in a free advice site...Perhaps you should not be "teaching" a class.

 

[garrula lingua]

It's within the mission statement of each District Attorney's Office (certainly, L.A. County's).
Do Justice.

I can tell you that the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, CA. (Steve Cooley), is an honorable man, and takes that mandate seriously. He runs his department with Justice and Honesty as a requirement of his employees.

In L.A., if a Deputy District Attorney believed that the defendant was innocent, the DDA was listened to - there was discretion in dismissing or reducing charges to the appropriate offense (not just the offense which could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).

Likewise, regarding exculpatory evidence - all evidence was turned over to defense counsel, pronto (exculpatory required under Brady, but ALL evidence was shared, per the D.A.'s mandate).

Your inquiry appears to be more along moralistic lines: how honest is the District Attorney ? or can there be a dishonorable D.D.A. who keeps exculpatory evidence to him/her self ?

Nifong (Duke/Lacrosse) was an anomaly, in my opinion. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct require ethical behavior, and the disbarment of Nifong is the answer to your question.
A Prosecutor who prosecutes a known (by evidence) innocent person, should be permanently disbarred.

 

[justalayman]

either OP has failed to visit the link provided by JETX or simply does not understand the implication.