I’ve written before about how prosecutors around the country seem to be riding roughshod over the rights of citizens. I based this partly on Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. Prosecutors build cases around unreliable accusers and witnesses, bought testimony, and flimsy evidence. Once they initiate a case they seem incapable of dropping the case with an admission that they were wrong or acted too hastily.

An unreliable accuser was used to make the Duke case. It boggles the mind that Nifong couldn’t see this before committing to the case. So, one looks for other motivation. Many believe that it was political.

Bought testimony was used to make the case against the two Border Patrol agents. They were convicted and imprisoned for irregularities surrounding their shooting of a drug smuggler attempting to cross the border with a huge amount of marijuana. Their conviction was obtained mostly on the testimony of the smuggler. He agreed to testify because the federal prosecutor granted him complete immunity from drug smuggling and other charges. It doesn’t take a mental giant to understand that such testimony is unreliable. Yet, prosecutors are buying and relying on such testimony every day around the country. I believe that granting immunity in return for testimony should be outlawed. If not, then the defense should be allowed to hire an actor to provide testimony that exonerates the defendant from the commission of the crime.

Another aspect of this case boggles my mind. The agents claimed that the drug smuggler had a gun when they shot him. It seems to be generally accepted that the smuggler escaped across the border into Mexico after being shot. Yet the prosecutor made much of the fact that no gun was found. Hello! Did he not have ample opportunity to dispose of a gun while in Mexico? Can you trust the word of a drug smuggler? I’m beginning to believe the justice system in this country is an absolute joke.

Flimsy evidence was used to make a pornography case against a teenager in Arizona. Matt Bandy faced up to 90 years in prison for having nine images of child porn on his computer. Wendy McElroy describes the case in greater detail in her recent column. It’s a tragic story of out-of-control law enforcement.

An intercepted transmission of one of the images was traced to Matt’s computer. About ten policemen raided his house and confiscated his computer. Although the police found the images on the computer there was no evidence that Matt knew they were there or was responsible for the transmission. In fact, it is generally known — by anyone the least bit savvy about computers and the internet — that the possibility existed that someone else was using his computer as a repository. None of this mattered to the prosecutor. He refused to let the defense and forensic computer experts examine the hard drive until ordered to do so by a judge. When the examination of the hard drive blew away his case he refused to drop the case. Instead the prosecutor extorted a confession from Matt that he had once shown some Playboy pictures to some of his friends — which apparently is a felony in Arizona. He converted the case into something that had nothing to do with the original charge in an attempt to save face. It hasn’t been reported but I suspect that he also extorted from Matt’s parents an agreement not to sue. Matt’s defense cost his parents about a quarter million dollars — all apparently to protect teenage boys from viewing Playboy pictures.

Many lawyers gain work experience as prosecutors early in their careers before moving into private practice. But those that make their careers as prosecutors do so for one of two reasons. Either they don’t have what it takes to make it in private practice or they are power hungry. Or both. OK, some of the career prosecutors are probably fine upstanding citizens that abhor the conduct of those described above. But I’m beginning to wonder where they are.

I’m also beginning to wonder where the Governors are in the states where this nonsense is occurring. Aren’t they responsible for the oversight of all public officials in their states? In my state the Governor can suspend or remove officials from office for misconduct. Short of that I would think that he could call a prosecutor and commit a little extortion of his own.

Update:  There is a web site devoted to Matt Bandy’s plight called Justice for Matt.  I discovered this because they have linked to this post on the site.