Ethical Misconduct Essay

Dear author! Please eliminate or correctly cite all sources not listed in your bibliography. cite scholarly references. Be prepared in case the work is sent back for editing. Upload the corrected work in the interim. The updated references must be in APA format. The appropriate ones have already been APA-ed. Finally, if you could include a section at the conclusion. (highlighted in red).

This essay discusses prosecuting unethical behavior in legal settings. It starts by looking at a murder case in which two men were accused of rape, followed by the 1981 murder of a woman in California. To give the defendants separate trials, the case was divided. The case was characterized by procedural misunderstanding and inconsistent factual theories that led to the execution of one man and a sentence of fifteen years to the other.

The paper is structured into various parts. It begins with an introduction that highlights the content of the paper. Then the body follows. The body starts by describing a court case that demonstrates how prosecutorial ethical misconduct is perpetuated in courts of law. Afterward, the paper gives outline and elaboration of the allegation and the discussion on implication and outcomes of cases characterized by prosecutorial ethical misconduct. Finally, the summary of the paper is given in conclusion paragraph and the final most page gives the works cited.

Court Trial: The Case of Thomas Thompson

Thomas Thompson and David Leitch were arrested in 1981 for the murder of Ginger Fleischli in California State (Haney, 2006). The two accused guys were roommates. The murdered lady was alleged to be Letch’s girlfriend. The accused men before the law court answered on rape and murder of Ginger Fleischli. Before the kicking off of the case trial, Leitch sought for to sever the case. He was successful. Thomas Thompson was to be tried first as per the prosecutors’ choice.

The prosecution side in Thompson’s trial argued that he raped Fleischli alone in the apartment of incident occurrence and later killed her to prevent her from reporting the case (Haney, 2006). The prosecutor argued that when he committed the crime his friend, Leitch, was out and returned later in the night and found the lady dead. The prosecution supported their claim by presenting two jailhouse informants; Edward Fink and John Del Frate, who gave testified to implicate Thompson. Fink through direct examination testified that Thompson confessed to him that he raped and killed Fleischli. He went on to say that Leitch returned home and found the Thompson having killed her. Letch only assisted his friend Thompson in disposing of her body. Del Frate asserted that Thompson stabbed Fleischli to death. The jury relied on those only two direct evidence from jailhouse informants to give death sentence to Thompson. If the two theories were not given Thompson could not face the death sentence. The jury after examining the evidence provided by the prosecution, it voted to sentence Thompson to Death for guilty of rape and murder.

Leitch trial started months later after Thompson trial. At Leitch’s trial, an entirely different theory of the crime was presented (Grace-Kobas, 2003). The prosecution argued that it is Leitch who had the motive to kill Fleischli. It was established that Leitch and Fleischli had a love affair and that their love relationship was affecting reconciliation attempts between Leitch and his ex-wife. He (Leitch) therefore wanted Fleischli dead to have space to reconcile with his ex-wife. The prosecution went to argue that Leitch hired Thompson to assist in killing Fleischli. However, it was not established who actually stabbed the lady to death.

The witnesses presented by the Prosecution to testify against Leitch were three jailhouse informants who were defense witnesses during the trial of Thompson (Bailey, 1998,). Del Frate and Fink, who testified against Thompson during his trial, were not subpoenaed in Leitch trial. The prosecution relied on the three witnesses to establish that Leitch’s threats to Fleischli, his violent disposition, and motive to kill Fleischli. The jury relied on that evidence to sentence Leitch to fifteen years to life.

The California Supreme Court in 1988 affirmed the Thompson’s conviction and sentence (Minsker, 2009). Surprisingly, the court failed to address the prosecution’s use of inconsistent factual theories a form of misconduct. Thompson considered an application for habeas relief in federal court. He was granted relief on a rape conviction and on the rape special circumstances thus invalidating the death sentence. The relief was granted by the U.S District Court for the Central District of California. The district court responded to the Thompson’s claim that he had been prejudiced by the prosecution’s inconsistent theories in his trial and trial of Letch. The court responded that the trials differed in emphasis only and any error did not need a reversal. Later on, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court’s ruling on ineffective counsel assistance, reinstating the rape conviction and death sentence. The panel also declined Thompson’s petitioned for rehearing. The panel on the issue of prosecution misconduct claimed that the prosecution consistent theories with the only difference in emphasis. In June 1997, the Supreme Court declined Thompson’s certiorari petitions. The Ninth circuit also issued a mandate denying all habeas relief. Afterward, the state of California set a date for execution of Thompson on August 5th, 1997.

However, the execution did not take place at the scheduled date. The Ninth Circuit panel acting en banc recalled its previous mandate denying any habeas relief. It also went on to reverse Thompson’s rape conviction and special rape circumstances and death sentence. The court cited procedural misunderstanding within the court that did not call for voting or make en banc before issuing the mandate. It was realized that a majority of the en banc court felt that the prosecution’s reliance on two inconsistence theories on the trials of Thompson and Letch were violating Thompson’s process rights and the death sentence should not be based such grounds.

The state of California issued a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court and the petition was granted. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit (Minsker, 2009). The Supreme ruled that the Ninth Circuit did not have the jurisdiction to recall its clerical error. The Supreme Court’s decision precluded the Ninth Circuit from considering the underlying prosecutorial misconduct and the ineffective of the counsel. Consequently, Thompson was executed on July 14th, 1998.

Allegations

The prosecution is alleged to have used baseless, inconsistent theories to make sure he wins a death penalty on the accused. In the above court trial case of Thompson and Letch, it is evident that the prosecution was more interested in death sentence rather than conviction. The prosecution used the same witnesses to testify “against testimony” in the same case. It is utterly surprising on how the jury in the trials of Thompson and Letch allowed the prosecution to choose the witnesses. For instance, Fink and Del Frate did not ‘intentionally’ preclude from testifying in Letch’s trial while the defense jailhouse informants witnessing for Thompson were relied on to give the convincing evidence to sentence Letch. This resulted to what the Ninth Circuit panel considered as a violation of the process right of Thompson and it could not be used to apply the death penalty to him. The prosecutor is believed to have manipulated the evidence to utterly distort the fact-finding process (Ganga, 1999,). Therefore, as a result of the prosecutor’s intentional manipulation of the evidence, it is likely the State of California executed the wrong person who did not deserve the death sentence.

Implications and Outcome

As stated earlier on the intention of the prosecutor in the Thompson case was geared to attaining death penalty rather conviction. The court processes and the lengthened court trial can clearly affirm that. The testimony of a jailhouse informant Fink that Thompson himself confessed to him on how he raped and murdered Fleischli has to be doubted. The prosecutor may have most likely coached the jailhouse informants to help him achieve his goal of winning a death penalty.

The desire of the prosecution to secure a predestined result may lead to prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution presented an intentional evident that pointed to Thompson as the killer of the lady rather evident that sought to convict him. The evident was cunningly manipulated to mislead the jury to vote for a death sentence. The death sentence cases may in particular present a unique pressure that may lead to the prosecution misconduct to manipulate the evidence to increase chances of a death sentence.

Conclusion

The above court trial case is a typical case that demonstrates how ethical misconduct is perpetuated in law courts. The prosecution acting under certain pressures may be led to ethical misconduct. These ethical misconduct practices may include manipulation of the evidence to mislead the jury or interference with the court processes. The prosecution’s misconduct may be supported by the failure to address the vice. In the above case, it has evident that the courts were earlier on subtle on prosecutorial misconduct and that led to the application of death sentence on Thompson. However, the Ninth Circuit panel could later see the sense in accused petition for rehearing due to prejudice of the prosecutor. Most of the prosecutors do away with an intentional manipulation of the court evident to attain their desired results. The jury may dismiss any petition against prosecution’s misconduct as simply ”harmless error”. Therefore, for justice to be fully administered in law courts the prosecutors have to be made responsible and accountable for their actions in court proceedings. In my opinion, I find prosecutorial misconduct………………………….and recommend……………………… (120 words)

Works Cited

Bailey, E. (1998,, July 15). California and the West: Inmate Said Goodbyes, then Died. L.A. TIMES.

Ganga, M. L. (1999,, May 4). Babbitt is Executed After Appeals Fail. L.A. TIMES.

Grace-Kobas, L. (2003, Mar 30). Death Penalty Offers Families No Closure, Law School Speakers Say. Cornell Chronicle.

Haney, C. (2006). Exoneration and Wrongful Condemnation: Expanding the Zone of Perceived Injustice in Death Penalty Cases,. 37 Golden Gate: GGU Law Digital Common.

Minsker, N. (2009). Prosecutorial Misconduct in Death Penalty Cases. California Western Law Review, Vol. 45, 373-404.