In a relatively rare move, Porter County Deputy Prosecutor Trista Hudson has been fired for her blatantly unethical conduct in the withholding of exculpatory evidence in the prosecution of Eric Knowles (left), 39, for child molestation. Recently, evidence was discovered that one of two purported victims made up at least part of the accusations in a child molestation case. Hudson also serves on the Valparaiso City Council.
To his credit, Porter County Prosecutor Brian Gensel made the decision. Porter Superior Court Judge Bill Alexa then ordered Knowles released immediately from jail on his own recognizance.
Hudson’s problems however are not over. Alexa is referring the case to the Indiana Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission for an ethical review.
Defense counsel have long complained over the withholding of evidence and the failure of judges to hold prosecutors accountable in such cases. This is one such case where both the chief prosecutor and the court took due process very seriously and acted in accordance with those core legal values.
If you have even a passing concern for prosecutorial misconduct and a love of liberty, please read LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. It’s true, it names names, and it’s rated 5-stars on Amazon. The prosecutors who committed misconduct in Arthur Andersen and Merrill Lynch/Enron cases became White House Counsel, Deputy Director/General Counsel of the FBI, head of the Criminal Division of the DOJ, the President’s Counter-Terrorism Advisor, etc. It’s a book DOJ does NOT want anyone to read.
Carolyn Mosby and Mike Nifong could not be reached for comment.
MCF – you really study the poor man’s face- you see he is miserable. Look at his eyes- he looks like he is about to cry. He is not menacing- he is abysmally depressed. I’d probably look similar if I were locked up with this horrendous accusation while the prosecutor WITHHOLDS EVIDENCE?!
News stories ran, and his reputation is tarnished. The accusation and lie probably branded him and now he has been cleared- people will STILL look at him cautiously. They may have missed this exonerating story.
“Why lead this story with a mugshot of the alleged perpetrator”
Prof. Turley’s initial title was “Can You Guess What Charge This Man Was Wrongfully Convicted Of.”
The greatest danger to the general public when oath-sworn officials violate constitutional due process is non-confrontational “Blacklisting”. These are federal “color of law” crimes by some (not all) police, prosecutors and other officials.
What’s so dangerous about this unconstitutional practice is it’s nearly invisible to judges and voters but the targets usually suffer premature death due to this life-sentence of torture – dished out without charge, without judge or jury and without a guilty verdict.
For example: In Virginia they have blacklisted citizens since at least the 1980’s and some government officials even fabricate probable cause to legitimize their harassment. These innocent blacklistees were then uploaded to terrorist watchlists after 9/11, after some crafty fabrications.
Prosecutors also participate in these federal crimes, the same type of prosecutors that withhold evidence! Since they never have any intention of indicting their victims, since they fabricate the cases, their victims are never confronted and honest judges can never provide judicial review of corrupt prosecutors.
Sometimes these officials are corrupt but with good intentions. The problem with cheating like this is, it also allows the bad apples, with malicious intent, to frame people they merely dislike. Since they know their victims will never be confronted – they can literally make up anything or commit crimes themselves or pin unsolved crimes on whoever they like.
Withholding evidence is the tiny piece of this type of fraud, the big story is the decades of blacklisting that preceded it!
This is not theory, this happens in every state in the United States. The big question is how to deter these types of “color of law” crimes?
Regarding Nuremberg Trials: The book by assistant prosecutor from America named Whitney Harris is called Tyranny On Trial. It is quite good.
It always amazes me when a judge or prosecutor actually follows the constitution and bill of rights and does the right thing, and they deserve a pat on the back? Instead, how about prosecuting the plethora of judges and prosecutors that fail to do so. Black is white and right is wrong and up is down, etc.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Procedural History
Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment.
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling was affirmed.
A defendant’s request for “Brady disclosure” refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.”[Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses,and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
I sometimes wonder if bettykath isn’t a writer for The Onion. She can’t actually believe the stuff she writes. But it is funny, so I say Onion staffer.
Why lead this story with a mugshot of the alleged perpetrator, who looks like a menacing villain in photo? Although the text of the post seems supportive of the decision to fire, the decision to use the photo feels like a subtle effort to remind readers of the “cost” of fidelity to constitutional rights. Seem particularly pointed since this blog often posts mugshots asking readers to guess the horrible/disgusting/bizarre crime a suspect has been charged with.
Maybe prosecutors and judges should NOT ever be politicians running for political office? Maybe that is a flawed design needing reform?
Maybe the greatest prosecutor ever, Robert Jackson, (chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, attorney general and U.S. Supreme Court justice) once said prosecutors can be the very best government servants or the most dangerous and most harmful to America. Jackson said prosecutors should never get to choose their cases.
Today the common assessment is that prosecutors are so extremely powerful and unchecked that they could indict a “ham sandwich” if they wanted to. The system today is broken it needs major reforms.
RB – Goering ran circles around Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials. It wasn’t until they brought in the British prosecutor that they made any headway.
YYY, I’m sure Don Siegleman would agree with you. Let’s start with Leura Canary.
I agree with Joseph Jones. Knowingly causing someone to be punished unjustly should be a (serious) crime.
Wow bettykath, give your SJW self a rest for one moment and applaud the fact the rule of law in this country still has a heartbeat.
And justice for all!
This should happen more often.
While I’m pleased that a prosecutor is being held accountable, the trend I see developing is that women and Blacks are the ones being held to account. It’s Black cops that are convicted of bad behavior while white cops are found not guilty if they are even charged. It was a female Black cop who was the only person held accountable in the death of Eric Garner.
At what point does the victim of the withholding of evidence get to sue the prosecutor and not be confronted with the defense of “prosecutorial immunity”?
When I say “sue” I refer to a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for civil rights violation and Section 1985 for conspiracy with others to violate my civil rights.
The prosecutor is also guilty of fraud. This could be raised in a civil suit and possibly in a criminal prosecution against the prosecutor. A federal prosecution could be in order against the prosecutor who defrauds a human and a court.
I want more than a mere loss of income stream. I want such person convicted of a crime (write a new one if necessary, try domestic terrorism: I presume her inaction was for “political” ends of being re-elected), and to be sentenced the same as the person she wrongfully persecuted.
Good for them! Not enough enforcement of proper standards, anymore. Looking forward to seeing the details.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter