Analysis Of The Khalief Browder Case

Throughout the United States the prisons are overcrowded with juvenile and adult prisoners. This is a direct effect stemming from backlogging issues; overly compiled cases waiting processing through the criminal courts. The legal system of Bronx criminal courts are “among the most backlogged in the in the county “(Gonnerman, 4). Consequently, the prisoners suffer greatly while waiting to exercise their right to a speedy trial. In case of Khalief Browder the right to a speedy trial followed three years after his incarceration. The major question in this case is “Why did it take so long?” In examining the case facts; prosecutorial misconduct is the central issue in the mishandling of the Browder case. The overzealous prosecutor continues to

In context of prosecutorial misconduct,: the ABA ethical standards are inadequate in ensuring the ethical duty of a prosecutor”. (Banks,142). Due to the fact the prosecutor had no written guidelines on how to defend the case ethically to ensure justice and not their own desires. In this case the prosecutor has very little evidence which consisted of the victim’s statement. The prosecutor over used the “Ready Rule” in attempt to build a stronger a case. The prosecutor had numerous opportunities to dismiss the case based on lack of evidence to substantiate the guilty verdict. Brief facts on the underlying issue: Browder was arrested based on the victim’s statement, no physical evidence obtained, and no eye witnesses to account for the robbery. Considering the case was very weak front eh beginning; charges were still brought against Browder. Rule 3.8 of ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility contend , “a violation of that rule can generally be found only in instances in which prosecutors must have known that they lack probable cause” (Banks,138) . Throughout this case the only mitigating fact presented was the victim’s statement. The prosecutor did not carefully assess the facts in the case; which directly effected

The officer questioned the teenagers and they denied ever robbing the victim. However the victim told the officer that both teenagers robbed him of a backpack weeks ago. The officer conducted a search and found no evidence of the stolen items. Regardless, Browder and his friend were arrested and taken into custody. Browder had already entered the criminal justice system for a prior offence of grand larceny. When the case was presented to a judge, he set a $3000 bail for Browder and released his friend upon trial. Due to his families socio-economic status they were unable to post bail or afford an attorney. Browder was sent to Rikers and confined in the Robert N Davoren Center for male adolescents. Eventually, Browder was given a court appointed attorney to defend his case. While waiting for trial he attempted to adapt to the transition from a normal teenager to an incarcerated juvenile delinquent. Browder concluded, “the best strategy was to keep himself and to work out” (Gonnerman,5) . However this strategic plan for survival made him a target. Browder became frequent in fights with inmates and correctional officers; which led to multiple placements in solitary confinement. When Browder began to attend his court appearances, the District Attorney contested “People not ready “; this would continue for the next three years. During this