By R. Michael Cassidy

Disciplining individual prosecutors will never be enough to overcome the multifarious incentives prosecutors have to cut corners to secure convictions. Although bar discipline against prosecutors is increasing in frequency, professional regulators tend to focus on individual actors rather than paying attention to systemic failures.

No single instance of prosecutorial misconduct—revealed perhaps by the reversal of a criminal case or the exoneration of an innocent defendant—can ever be fully explained by the deeds of a lone actor without looking at who establishes enforcement priorities, who sets office policies, and who does the training. Leaders in the office are usually involved, either by omission (failing to catch an error) or commission (creating an office culture where ethical lapses are tolerated or even encouraged).

The predominance of collective action and shared responsibility in business organizations often makes it difficult to pinpoint criminal liability. That challenge is addressed through the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine in criminal law, which holds executive-level individuals accountable for the wrongdoing to which they contributed, whether through commission or omission. Prosecutor’s offices are organizations with structures and incentives not dissimilar to that of a corporation. Because existing frameworks for addressing prosecutorial misconduct in the criminal justice system are ineffective, bar regulators should borrow from the responsible corporate officer doctrine by more aggressively enforcing Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The notion that supervisory attorneys must be more actively involved in their colleagues’ ethical decisions and conduct has been recognized by the bar since the adoption of ABA Model Rule 5.1 in 1983, but the rule remains undertheorized by scholars and underutilized by disciplinary authorities. This article draws on important parallels between the responsible corporate officer doctrine and Rule 5.1 to explain why enforcement of professional discipline against leaders in a prosecutor’s office is necessary to incentivize more rigorous supervision and training. The author scrutinizes two recent cases in Colorado and Massachusetts where bar regulators have successfully utilized Rule 5.1 to discipline leaders in a prosecutor’s office for failing adequately to supervise the conduct of junior associates. The author then advocates for an even more expansive use of Rule 5.1 to force head prosecutors to adopt written, transparent, and publicly available policies and procedures. Finally, the author discusses three recurring and highly intractable problems of prosecutorial discretion that could benefit from comprehensive office policy manuals: grand jury practice, disclosure of exculpatory evidence; and use of cooperating witnesses.

Oregon Law Review, Vol. 102, 2024, Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 614, 37 p

By Akhi Johnson and Stephen Roberts 

Prosecutors wield tremendous power. They decide whom to charge— and with what offense—whether to ask for bail, when to provide evidence to the defense, and what plea offer to make. For decades, prosecutors have used their discretion in ways that contributed to mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.1 Yet, despite their immense power, prosecutors had largely not been the focus of criminal legal system reform efforts until relatively recently.2 Starting around 2015, with the help of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Color of Change, communities across the nation have begun to demand that their elected prosecutors adopt a new approach that reflects the communities’ priorities.3 As a result, a wave of reform prosecutors has won elections, and reelections, throughout the country.4 In 2017, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched the Reshaping Prosecution program to help reform prosecutors transform their campaign promises into data-informed policies and practices.5 The program has three goals: (1) to end mass incarceration, (2) to reduce racial disparities in the system, and (3) to help offices be more accountable and transparent to their communities. The program aims to achieve these goals primarily through strategic site engagements during which Vera researchers, former prosecutors, and other programmatic staff assist offices with data analysis, new policy creation, and training on the reforms for line prosecutors. Vera’s review relies primarily on data from the office’s case management system and focuses on key decision points in the life of a case so that prosecutors can gain insights into how their decisions are contributing to mass incarceration and racial disparities. This report provides an overview of Vera’s pilot engagement with the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney’s Office (CAO). It begins by discussing why Vera partnered with CAO and then details the stages of the engagement, initial lessons from the data, and some policy recommendations. The report concludes with some successes and an important lesson learned about the persistence of racial disparities that will inform the program’s future work to reshape how prosecutors do justice.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 26p.

By Bugmy Bar Book Committee

Launched in 2019, the Bugmy Bar Book is a free, evidence-based resource hosted on the website of the NSW Public Defenders.

The project publishes accessible summaries of key research on the impacts of the experience of disadvantage and strengths-based rehabilitation. It provides objective research across several areas of disadvantage, to support both the application and decision-making processes, when subjective information is unable to be obtained.

The project is directed by a Committee comprised of representatives of key stakeholders in the criminal justice system (including the NSW Public Defenders, NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited and Legal Aid NSW), the judiciary (including the Supreme Court of NSW, District Court of NSW, Local Court of NSW, ACT Magistrates Court and NSW Judicial Commission), legal academics (including senior academics from UNSW, ANU and UTS) and members of the private legal profession. Although the project originated and is based in NSW, the resources are designed for use across all Australian jurisdictions and the committee engages with stakeholders Australia-wide.

Who is the Bugmy Bar Book For?

It aims to promote greater understanding of the impacts within the legal profession and judiciary, with the key function being to assist in the preparation and presentation of evidence to establish the application of the sentencing principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

The application of the materials in the Bugmy Bar Book can also be used in other contexts, including bail and mental health diversionary applications, various civil practice areas, coronial inquests and other inquisitorial jurisdictions.

By Stina Bergman Blix and Åsa Wettergren

Professional Emotions in Court examines the paramount role of emotions in the legal professions and in the functioning of the democratic judicial system. Based on extensive interview and observation data in Sweden, the authors highlight the silenced background emotions and the tacitly habituated emotion management in the daily work at courts and prosecution offices. Following participants ‘backstage’ – whether at the office or at lunch – in order to observe preparations for and reflections on the performance in court itself, this book sheds light on the emotionality of courtroom interactions, such as professional collaboration, negotiations, and challenges, with the analysis of micro-interactions being situated in the broader structural regime of the legal system – the emotive-cognitive judicial frame – throughout. A demonstration of the false dichotomy between emotion and reason that lies behind the assumption of a judicial system that operates rationally and without emotion, Professional Emotions in Court reveals how this assumption shapes professionals’ perceptions and performance of their work, but hampers emotional reflexivity, and questions whether the judicial system might gain in legitimacy if the role of emotional processes were recognized and reflected upon.

London; New York: Routledge, 2018. 209p.

By Jennifer A. Tallon, Olivia Dana, and Elise Jensen 

 Scholars have long contended that crimes involving violence are often ambiguously defined1 and overlooked as a critical driver of mass incarceration. 2 Currently, individuals charged with violent crimes make up nearly a third of pretrial jail populations across the country, and people convicted of violent crimes represent more than half the number of people in state prisons. 3 Policymakers have long grappled with how to enact criminal legal system reforms that reduce incarceration for such charges while also ensuring public safety. Decisions about cases involving violence can be fraught for criminal legal system stakeholders. Both the media and policymakers give them outsized attention—in particular, decisions related to pretrial release and the use of bail—a phenomenon witnessed most recently with the spike in pandemic-era violence in many parts of the country.  Elected officials have the difficult task of balancing public perceptions of the most effective way to address crime with the reality that those strategies might make things worse, while navigating the impact both might have on their electability. 5 Although there is promising evidence that treatment has the potential to reduce recidivism of individuals who commit certain types of violent offenses, policymakers and practitioners must contend with public outcry associated with being “too lenient” in highly publicized cases, the resulting fear-driven and knee-jerk demands for more punitiveness, and perceptions that “nothing works.”6 In contrast, research has demonstrated that status quo approaches emphasizing incarceration may exacerbate defendants’ underlying risk factors and be counterproductive to public safety in the long term. …. Recent sentencing reforms and legislative enactments will now enable prosecutors in some jurisdictions to initiate or support early release for individuals previously convicted of violent crimes who have served lengthy terms of imprisonment.11 But not enough is known about how prosecutors arrive at their decisions or the prevalence of specific practices across different prosecutors’ offices.  The results of our survey clearly show an appetite for new approaches among prosecutors. But they also suggest that how prosecutors think about violence and the goals of prosecution can be rife with paradoxes. ….

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2022. 16p.