Prosecutorial Discretion Case Study

Prosecutors have the very important job of representing the people in a court of law on both state and federal levels. Prosecutors are under obligation to execute the law on both federal and state levels. However, the discretion that they are afforded under United States law gives them nearly absolute and unreviewable powers to choose whether or not to bring forth criminal charges, and also what charges to bring for cases when the evidence is enough to those justify charges. Plea bargaining is another area in which falls under a prosecutor’s vast discretionary powers, they can choose to bring full charges against the defendant or they can choose to show leniency by reducing the charges or dismissing the charges altogether. The incredible amount of discretion that prosecutors have in the criminal justice system places them

Prosecutorial misconduct is defined as “The act of breaking the law, court rules, or code of ethics of law practice, while working as a prosecuting attorney” (Legal Dictionary, n.d.). In the case of Brady v. Maryland (1963), Brady was convicted on a murder charged and sentenced to death after the prosecution withheld a statement by Boblit who confessed to the homicide (Justia (2017), Brady v. Maryland). The court in this case held that suppression of this statement by the prosecution was unconstitutional, Supreme Court affirmed stating that due process required the prosecution, when requested, to turn over evidence that would relate to the guilt or innocence of the defense, even if the evidence was in favor of the defense (Justia (2017), Brady v. Maryland). Withholding exculpatory evidence, which has become known as “Brady material” after Brady v. Maryland decision, is just one type of prosecutorial misconduct. Others include, improper argument, improper use of the media, introducing false evidence, discriminating when picking a