Search-Draftingschools   essay writing secrets

Courtroom Participants Professional Standards

What did the prosecutor do wrong? How does immunity protect the prosecutor from the consequences of his or her misconduct?

In this case, the prosecutor failed to demonstrate that Rose Burch Stabler had any kind of controlled substances on her possession. This is in spite of the fact that she was questioned extensively by the police and searched her for them. To make matters worse, Stabler submitted to a drug test and passed. This is indicating how there is no evidence to prove that she was doing drugs or engaged in any kind of questionable behavior. Instead, they found her guilty of disturbing the peace, by having the police called to the public restroom on the night in question. This is problematic, as the actions taken by the prosecutor were clearly overstepping the bounds of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable.

Moreover, the fact that the initial and subsequent searches did not turn up any kind of drugs or paraphernalia, is indicating a lack of evidence. The fact that the prosecution decided to pursue the case is illustrating how they are over stepping their boundaries. This occurs with the prosecutor failing to follow due process of law.

It focuses on the defendant’s right to have a fair trial by prohibiting the government from depriving them of their life, liberty and property. Evidence of this can be seen with the Firth Amendment. The fact that no clear evidence was presented, is demonstrating how prosecutors have no evidence to go after Stabler.

What did the criminal defense attorney do wrong?

The defense attorney did not represent Stabler's interests effectively at trial. The biggest issue is surrounding the judge who heard the case. From 2002 to 2009, he presided over her divorce trial from her husband. This is problematic, as the divorce case influenced the judge and the conclusions he reached during the 2011 trial. The defense counsel acted with incompetence, by failing to bring these issues up and demand that Judge Partin recuse himself.

Furthermore, they failed to have the case dismissed based upon the fact that the police had no evidence. Instead, they were trying to prosecute her on a misdemeanor. That is questionable, given the circumstances surrounding her arrest. The fact that that Deen failed to bring this up, is indicating how he did not fulfill his Sixth Amendment duty of providing effective legal representation.

According to Strickland v. Washington, defendants can seek out a new trial or removal of legal counsel when two conditions exist. The most notable include: 1) counsel's performance is below that of reasonable standards for the defense and 2) if they had acted differently, the outcome of the case would have a much different conclusion. In this situation, Stabler can argue that her lawyer failed to raise issues surrounding the lack of evidence and the conflicts of interest of the trial judge. This occurred with these standards showing how the trial was prejudiced against the defendant. These developments took place, with their attorney failing to raise issues about the judge's conflict of interest and burden of proof.

When did the judge go wrong?

The judge failed to recuse himself from the case. This is because no one raised any objections and allowed these legal proceedings to occur. In this case, the best avenues to reduce these challenges, is to have judges select based upon merit. This will require them to demonstrate that they are following the rule of law and maintaining objectivity throughout the process.

Ineffectiveness and misconduct

The misconduct in this case, thwarts the crime control model by demonstrating that the criminal justice system is ineffective. This is occurring with the judge having a conflict of interest, the prosecution failing to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and defense counsel not raising critical objectives during the proceedings. These issues make the entire system appear to be corrupt and bias against Stabler.

The misconduct under the due process model, is occurring through causing everyone to have a lack of faith in the system. Under the law, everyone is treated equally whenever they are accused of committing a crime. This means that they have the right to question the evidence against them and demand that prosecutors demonstrate their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that no drugs turned up and Stabler passed a urine test, is proving her innocence. Instead of throwing the case out, the judge allowed the trial to resume and found her guilty on a questionable misdemeanor.