Comments on: Mr. Smith Goes to Court: Ethics Rules Prevented Attorney From Revealing Alleged Prosecutorial Abuse

By: MJJohnston

MJJohnston — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:01:12 +0000

Nice article, I came upon yours on accident. I just thought I would let you know that you can make money now for your articles. At SayItAloud you can post your articles like you already do, but you can get better exposure and make some decent money in the process when companies sponsor your article. I bookmarked your page and I look forward to your future articles.%d%a%d%aYou can check out our site by clicking on my name.

By: Lawyer Faces Charges After Revealing Confidential Statement of Late Client to Exonerate Inmate « JONATHAN TURLEY

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:41:15 +0000

[...] Recently, the bar dealt with a similar case involving Virginia attorney Leslie P. Smith who was counsel a decade ago for a cooperating witness, William Jones, who wanted to avoid the death penalty for a murder by fingering his co-defendant, Daryl R. Atkins. Atkins got tagged for the murder and the death penalty. However, Smith remained silent about a major problem: he allegedly watched prosecutors coach and conform Jones’ testimony, which was fatally flawed. Smith’s disclosures prompted a commutation of Atkins sentence to life, click here. [...]

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:02:23 +0000

In no area of the law is governmental discretion more immune from oversight than that of the prosecutor’s decision to prosecute. The Commonwealth Attorney (CA) is typically beyond judicial control as they have the Grand Jury to get around the determination of the Judge in a preliminary hearing. And as we know, the GJ will indict a ham sandwich if asked to do so. The defense bar is usually handicapped by overwork, almost menial public reimbursement, and the desire to keep the prosecutor on his good side so as to get concessions in the future. This is especially true in rural Virginia. The prosecutor also has willing apparachicks in the form of the police or sheriffs deputies who have, at most, a rudimentary grasp of due process, and to further compound the problem both the Sheriff and the CA are political animals unwilling to risk unpopularity by making tough decisions, especially in high profile cases. The Courts could do more, but usually don’t, and it appears as here the Virginia Bar is unwilling to venture out on a limb to protect the whistle-blower. A strange system indeed.

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:37:28 +0000

I have to wonder how far prosecutorial misconduct has to go before the public will wake up and realize that even prosecutors are NOT above the law. When they bend and even break the rules of law and criminal procedure in their zeal to “win” a case, everybody loses. We (the public) have seen the innocent be wrongfully convicted for crimes they never committed, and it has happened far too often than any citizen should be comfortable with.

Maybe a large number of the public don’t blame police, prosecutors and judges for being “too aggressive” or “overzealous.” Well, I do, especially when their “overzealousness” includes such misconduct includes unconstitutional interrogations by police, withholding of evidence by prosecutors, and on occasion, judicial misconduct by some judges who were former prosecutors themselves.

One can only hope that the public will wake up and realize that if they don’t hold law enforcement officials accountable when they break the rules of law, one day it could be THEM or one of their family members who is falsely or mistakenly accused of a crime and wrongfully convicted. After that, it will be too late. Personally, I would NOT vote for a district attorney or an attorney general who thinks it’s okay for prosecutors to disregard the rules of law whenever it suits them to do so. A prosecutor with an unchecked lust for power will almost inevitably become unbalanced.