Tag Archives: Lawyer prosecutorial misconduct

California Bar files disciplinary charges against former Los Angeles City Attorney alleging prosecutorial misconduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recently filed disciplinary charges filed by the California Bar against former a Los Angeles City Attorney alleging prosecutorial misconduct during a death penalty case that he handled when he was a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney more than 30 years ago.  The case is State Bar of California v. Carmen Anthony Trutanich, Case No. 16-O-12803 (filed February 9, 2017) and is here:  http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/16-O-12803.pdf

The lawyer served as the elected Los Angeles City Attorney from 2009-2013.  He was a deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County prior to that time and, while he was a deputy district attorney, he is alleged to have failed to provide exculpatory information in responding to discovery by withholding the true name and address of a witness from the defendant in the People v. Barry Glenn Williams.  He is also alleged to have failed to correct a police detective’s false testimony regarding the detective’s investigation in 1985 and a murder witness’ false testimony regarding the name a person who was driving a vehicle during a crime in 1986.

A federal judge cited prosecutorial misconduct in overturning the defendant’s murder conviction and death sentence in 2016, which resulted in a review by the California State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel.  The California Bar is notified when a criminal conviction is reversed because of alleged attorney misconduct.

The lawyer will have an opportunity to respond to the charges, which must be proven by the California Bar and approved by the California Supreme Court before any discipline can be imposed.

Bottom line: This lawyer will be defending very serious allegations that allegedly occurred over 3 decades ago.   As you may already know, criminal prosecutors are held to higher ethics standards and have special responsibilities to seek justice and disclose exculpatory information.  If these allegations are true, this prosecutor not only failed to provide exculpatory information, but also actively participated in providing false information and testimony in the case.  Stay tuned…

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Prosecutor misconduct discipline, Prosecutorial misconduct ethics

Maine Supreme Judicial Court imposes stayed 30 day suspension on criminal prosecutor for multiple acts of misconduct both before and during trial

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent disciplinary opinion of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court imposing a stayed 30 day suspension on a criminal prosecutor who engaged in multiple acts of misconduct in a criminal prosecution both before and during trial, including failing to provide exculpatory evidence in discovery and improper comments during rebuttal closing argument.  The case isMaine Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Kellett, Docket No. BAR-13-10  (Maine. Supreme Judicial Court,July 16, 2013)The opinion is online here: http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/bar_decisions/2013/bar-13-10_kellett_judgment.pdf

According to the opinion, “(t)his case is the first disciplinary proceeding ever filed with the Court by the Overseers of the Bar against a member of Maine’s prosecutorial bar that is based upon the prosecutor’s representation of the State.  In reviewing the actions of (the lawyer), the Court has considered the special duty that a prosecutor owes to the bench, to opposing counsel, to criminal defendants, and to the people of Maine.  A prosecutor must always act in an effort to do justice rather than simply to convict.  That is because prosecutors do not represent individual victims, nor should they work towards any particular outcome other than one that involves the creation of a fair trial process and outcome.

“Over seventy-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court described a prosecutor as: the representative…of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.  As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.  He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor–indeed, he should do so.  But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.  It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.  Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

“The Law Court has endorsed this vision of a prosecutor’s role, see, e.g., State v. Young, 2000 ME 144, ¶ 6, 755 A.2d  547, 548 (“As we have noted previously, prosecutors are held to a higher standard regarding their conduct during trial because they represent the State…and because they have an obligation to ensure that justice is done, as opposed to merely ensuring that a conviction is secured.”), and it is because (the lawyer) failed to meet this standard that she must be sanctioned.”

“However, the Court is also mindful  that the purpose of bar disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but rather the protection of the public from attorneys who, by their conduct, have demonstrated that they are unable to, or otherwise have failed to, properly discharge their professional duties.  See M. Bar. R. 2(a).  In this proceeding, (the lawyer) has admitted that she did, in fact, violate  the Bar Rules in effect at the time of her actions, she has apologized, and she has expressed her remorse for her actions.  She has no history of other misconduct, and the Court is satisfied that through these proceedings and through the actions and study she has undertaken since the Filler case, (the lawyer) has a much more robust understanding of the grave obligations and responsibilities attached to the prosecutorial role, and that she is not likely to commit misconduct in the future.”

Bottom line:  This is another opinion this year which imposes discipline on a criminal prosecutor for violations of state Bar Rules because of misconduct during a criminal prosecution.  This opinion states that this is the first disciplinary proceeding against a criminal prosecutor in Maine.  Considering the evidence of multiple acts of misconduct cited in the opinion, the 30 day stayed suspension misconduct appears to be relatively minimal.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Prosecutor criminal conduct, Prosecutorial misconduct ethics