Mass. Prosecutors Go Unpunished Despite Track Record Of Violations Causing Wrongful Convictions

A report released by the New England Center For Investigative Reporting (NECIR) suggests the Massachusetts legal system has a serious systematic problem with its judicial branch that it isn’t dealing with: prosecutorial malpractice.

The study, reported by The Eye, reviewed over 1,000 rulings where defendants had accused the prosecution of misconduct.  The study showed that at least 120 criminal convictions since 1985 had been reversed due in part, or completely, to prosecutorial misconduct.  On top of that number, another 250 cases involved criticism of the prosecutions behavior by judges, though determined to be “not serious enough to affect the jury’s decision”, therefore retaining the convictions.

The definition of “misconduct” varied from case to case, often involving prosecutors who failed to turn over vital evidence to the defense, misrepresented evidence in statements, or failed to disclose information that could discredit their witnesses.

The number of convictions that were ultimately reversed may be just around 10% of the convictions reviewed, but the real problem lies in the failure of the Massachusetts judicial system to monitor and discipline prosecutors that botch their job:

“NECIR found no case in Massachusetts where a prosecutor was disbarred for professional misconduct since 1974, when the state Board of Bar Overseers was created to hear complaints against attorneys.  Only two public reprimands for professional misconduct were found in that 42-year span, and they came without fines or other punishment.” (The Eye)

That means courts are not naming names, or even providing a system to correct any kind of structural professional malpractice.  Many are calling this out as a huge issue, especially considering how often prosecutorial misconduct leads to undeserved sentencing.  The NECIR study alone showed 11 cases in which the defendants were exonerated from their charges entirely.  Together, they served a total of more than 100 years of prison time.  The other 109 cases saw defendants convicted again or pleading guilty, though often with lesser charges.

Critics of the practice of shielding the prosecution point out how difficult it is to track down and hold Massachusetts prosecutors who have a history of misconduct accountable.  In all but seven of the 120 cases in which decisions were reversed, the prosecutors’ names were omitted.

The study also found that at least seven prosecutors whose professional misconduct led to conviction reversals had been promoted to higher posts, including judges and district attorneys.  Even worse, they also identified four prosecutors whose actions had led to conviction reversals multiple times.  Out of those, only one person was ever disciplined and now is practicing privately.

A professor at the William & Mary Law School in Virginia, Adam Gershowitz, who argues for naming names, explained that judges have worked as prosecutors, and can therefore often sympathize with the struggle of a heavy workload, or may simply retain a cultural rule against snitching.

Massachusetts’ failure to track and punish prosecutorial misconduct is an issue that clearly puts the public at risk, Daniel Medwed, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law argues:

“Prosecutors have more power than anyone, in many respects, over the lives of the average person.  But there is almost no accountability, no transparency, and the public isn’t paying attention—that is a very, very combustible concoction.”