The Center for Public Integrity

Actual innocence cases in which courts found prosecutorial misconduct

Since 1970, appellate judges ruled on allegations of prosecutorial error or misconduct allegations in 45 San Diego County cases, of which 8 led to reversals, dismissals or acquittals. As in other jurisdictions studied by the Center for Public Integrity, the totals come solely from appellate opinions. San Diego County defense lawyers provided numerous examples of error or misconduct at the pre-trial or trial stage.

But San Diego stands out amidst the 2,341 jurisdictions the Center researched for its attempts over the last 30 years to do things differently—in part because the office of district attorney has been held by prosecutors who have attempted to make the office more accountable. Perhaps a reflection of their success lies in this fact: the citizenry of San Diego County became so educated about prosecutorial misconduct that when it did occur, they were ready to hold the district attorney responsible and vote him out of office, no matter his accomplishments or intentions.

The changes began with the election in 1970 of Edwin L. Miller Jr., who would go on to serve for 24 years. During his tenure, Miller made drastic changes to the office, in part by stressing specialization and career ladders. He encouraged young trial prosecutors who showed talent to stay on permanently, thus solidifying the culture at the top. He introduced some reforms—notably the compilation of an office manual for prosecutors, and the publication of a journal, Law Enforcement Quarterly, first published by the San Diego District Attorney's office in 1971. (Originally a specialized journal for legal professionals, in 1989 it became a more approachable magazine for general readers.)

Unlike any private attorney, the local prosecutor—be he district attorney, county attorney, or criminal district attorney—is an elected official whose office is constitutionally mandated and protected. Prosecutors are still subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but they must police themselves at the trial court level because of their status as independent members of the judicial branch of government. Such a holding is not tantamount to making the fox guardian of the henhouse or letting the wolf keep watch on the flock, because a prosecutor who violates ethical rules is subject to the disciplining authority of the State Bar like any other attorney. Perhaps even more importantly, as mentioned above, his violation of the rules will subject his cases to reversal on appeal when his unprofessional conduct results in a denial of due process to a defendant. Lastly, he, like all elected public officials, must regularly answer to the will of the electorate. Should his conduct create too much appearance of impropriety and public suspicion, he will ultimately answer to the voters. — State ex rel. Eidson v. Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1 (Tx. 1990)

Prosecutors, like other attorneys, must adhere to the standards of professional conduct that exist in the state where they practice. Every state has a disciplinary system under which lawyers can be punished for violating ethical standards. Some acts of prosecutorial misconduct, apart from leading to reversals of convictions, can constitute ethical violations and thus subject the prosecutor to disciplinary action by the state bar authority.

Jennifer M. Joyce, the current elected circuit attorney in St. Louis, oversees an office whose prosecutors, the Center for Public Integrity found, were challenged at least 167 times for alleged prosecutorial misconduct before she took office. Defendants were acquitted or had their convictions reversed in 29 of those cases. About halfway through her four-year term, Joyce and her staff seem acutely aware of the challenge ahead as they try to improve the situation in their home city.

The task is a daunting one. The top person in the office has a difficult job that tends to become more difficult every decade. That is especially so in major metropolitan areas, where the top prosecutor must manage hundreds of lawyers and support staff with a budget that always seems inadequate, deal with horrific crimes almost every day, think about prevention as well as conviction, all the while balancing the obligation to serve justice with the unavoidable scrutiny of won-lost statistics that become a factor in re-election campaigns. The difficulty has grown in medium-sized and small jurisdictions as well.

Frank Conley, just retired as chief judge of Boone County, Mo., after three decades on the bench, recalled his two terms as the elected prosecuting attorney after his 1962 victory. "In a full eight years as prosecutor, I had two legitimate armed robberies," Conley said. "Now, we have an armed robbery every night. We were just a little town back then." Today, Columbia, the seat of Boone County and its dominant incorporated area, has a population of about 80,000. "Substance abuse and the transient nature of our communities today, where you're here today and gone tomorrow, all of that has contributed to a lot of the problems we've seen," Conley said. "There is no sense of community in the sense that we knew it 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. It is gloomy."

Joyce, whose office is accountable to 333,960 citizens of St. Louis, is well aware of those problems.

For the stories to go along with this project, click here to see the Harmful Error page, or here to read the Methodology behind the data.