Prosecutorial Misconduct Archives - Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Edward Bartlett — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 02:31:48 +0000

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Link: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/39a64d5a-0551-4b9d-9814-521b9af00a18/E0B849C39D8A38B26A503509BD6824E8.vawa-reauthorization-act-of-2022.pdf

Section 205

Subtitle Q—Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training for Law Enforcement

4 ‘‘SEC. 41701. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED TRAINING FOR

6 LAW ENFORCEMENT.

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

8 ‘‘(1) the term ‘Attorney General’ means the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the

10 Office on Violence Against Women;

11 ‘‘(2) the term ‘covered individual’ means an individual who interfaces with victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking,

14 including—

15 ‘‘(A) an individual working for or on behalf

16 of an eligible entity;

17 ‘‘(B) an administrator or personnel of a

18 school, university, or other educational program

19 or activity (including a campus police officer or

20 a school resource officer); and

21 ‘‘(C) an emergency services or medical employee;

23 ‘‘(3) the term ‘demonstration site’, with respect

24 to an eligible entity that receives a grant under this

25 section, means—

1 ‘‘(A) if the eligible entity is a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4)(A), the

3 area over which the eligible entity has jurisdiction; and

5 ‘‘(B) if the eligible entity is an organization or agency described in paragraph (4)(B),

7 the area over which a law enforcement agency

8 described in paragraph (4)(A) that is working

9 in collaboration with the eligible entity has jurisdiction.

11 ‘‘(4) the term ‘eligible entity’ means a State,

12 local, territorial, or Tribal law enforcement agency;

13 and

14 ‘‘(5) the term ‘mandatory partner’ means a national, regional, or local victim services organization

16 or agency working in collaboration with a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4).

18 ‘‘(b) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall

20 award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to collaborate with their mandatory partners to

22 carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising

24 investigative policies and practices to incorporate

1 trauma-informed, victim-centered techniques designed to—

3 ‘‘(A) prevent re-traumatization of the victim;

5 ‘‘(B) ensure that covered individuals use

6 evidence-based practices to respond to and investigate cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

9 ‘‘(C) improve communication between victims and law enforcement officers in an effort

11 to increase the likelihood of the successful investigation and prosecution of the reported

13 crime in a manner that protects the victim to

14 the greatest extent possible;

15 ‘‘(D) increase collaboration among stakeholders who are part of the coordinated community response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

19 ‘‘(E) evaluate the effectiveness of the

20 training process and content.

21 ‘‘(2) AWARD BASIS.—The Attorney General

22 shall award grants under this section to multiple eligible entities for use in a variety of settings and

24 communities, including—

1 ‘‘(A) urban, suburban, Tribal, remote, and

2 rural areas;

3 ‘‘(B) college campuses; or

4 ‘‘(C) traditionally underserved communities.

6 ‘‘(c) USE OF FUNDS.—An eligible entity that receives

7 a grant under this section shall use the grant to—

8 ‘‘(1) train covered individuals within the demonstration site of the eligible entity to use evidence10 based, trauma-informed, and victim-centered techniques and knowledge of crime victims’ rights

12 throughout an investigation into domestic violence,

13 dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including

14 by—

15 ‘‘(A) conducting victim interviews in a

16 manner that—

17 ‘‘(i) elicits valuable information about

18 the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

20 ‘‘(ii) avoids re-traumatization of the

21 victim;

22 ‘‘(B) conducting field investigations that

23 mirror best and promising practices available at

24 the time of the investigation;

1 ‘‘(C) customizing investigative approaches

2 to ensure a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach to the community being served;

4 ‘‘(D) becoming proficient in understanding

5 and responding to complex cases, including

6 cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking—

8 ‘‘(i) facilitated by alcohol or drugs;

9 ‘‘(ii) involving strangulation;

10 ‘‘(iii) committed by a non-stranger;

11 ‘‘(iv) committed by an individual of

12 the same sex as the victim;

13 ‘‘(v) involving a victim with a disability;

15 ‘‘(vi) involving a male victim; or

16 ‘‘(vii) involving a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (commonly referred to

18 as ‘LGBT’) victim;

19 ‘‘(E) developing collaborative relationships

20 between—

21 ‘‘(i) law enforcement officers and

22 other members of the response team; and

23 ‘‘(ii) the community being served; and

24 ‘‘(F) developing an understanding of how

25 to define, identify, and correctly classify a re-

1 port of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

3 ‘‘(2) promote the efforts of the eligible entity to

4 improve the response of covered individuals to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

6 stalking through various communication channels,

7 such as the website of the eligible entity, social

8 media, print materials, and community meetings, in

9 order to ensure that all covered individuals within

10 the demonstration site of the eligible entity are

11 aware of those efforts and included in trainings, to

12 the extent practicable.

13 ‘‘(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TRAININGS ON

14 TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED APPROACHES.—

15 ‘‘(1) IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING

16 TRAININGS.—

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General

18 shall identify trainings for law enforcement offcers, in existence as of the date on which the

20 Attorney General begins to solicit applications

21 for grants under this section, that—

22 ‘‘(i) employ a trauma-informed, victim-centered approach to domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

1 ‘‘(ii) focus on the fundamentals of—

2 ‘‘(I) trauma responses;

3 ‘‘(II) the impact of trauma on

4 victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

6 and

7 ‘‘(III) techniques for effectively

8 investigating domestic violence, dating

9 violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

10 ‘‘(B) SELECTION.—An eligible entity that

11 receives a grant under this section shall select

12 one or more of the approaches employed by a

13 training identified under subparagraph (A) to

14 test within the demonstration site of the eligible

15 entity.

16 ‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall consult with

18 the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime in

19 order to seek input from and cultivate consensus

20 among outside practitioners and other stakeholders

21 through facilitated discussions and focus groups on

22 best practices in the field of trauma-informed, victim-centered care for victims of domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

1 ‘‘(e) EVALUATION.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of

3 Justice, shall require each eligible entity that receives a

4 grant under this section to identify a research partner,

5 preferably a local research partner, to—

6 ‘‘(1) design a system for generating and collecting the appropriate data to facilitate an independent process or impact evaluation of the use of

9 the grant funds;

10 ‘‘(2) periodically conduct an evaluation described in paragraph (1); and

12 ‘‘(3) periodically make publicly available, during

13 the grant period—

14 ‘‘(A) preliminary results of the evaluations

15 conducted under paragraph (2); and

16 ‘‘(B) recommendations for improving the

17 use of the grant funds.

18 ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

19 are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General

20 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027

21 to carry out this section.

The post Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

From Moot Court to Criminal Court: A Former Law Student’s Harrowing Experience Before a Kangaroo Court

Edward Bartlett — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 21:02:40 +0000

From Moot Court to Criminal Court: A Former Law Student’s Harrowing Experience Before a Kangaroo Court

by Cyrus Leigh

April 27, 2021

In January 2017, my life was not unlike the countless law students who had gone before me. I was well on my way to completing my Juris Doctor, and I had recently moved closer to the law school, where I was spending six out of seven days a week. The Spring semester began, and I was 21 credits shy of earning my degree.

Then, my life forever changed.

I received a phone call informing me of an accusation against me, a reprehensible form of abuse against my nieces, aged just three and four-and-a-half years old at the time. After the call, I was in a state of complete shock and disbelief. I contacted my family and later a close friend, a child psychologist, to try to make sense of what I had just heard.

Fortunately, I had the full support of lifelong friends, family, fellow law students, and law professors to stand by me throughout the process – as they still do today – in what I can only describe as a living nightmare.

A few hours later, the police were at my door. I agreed to answer their questions at the station, and afterward, they drove me home and shook my hand. As I walked into my building, I failed to recognize what was happening, nor could I foresee the almost four-year-long road that lay ahead of me. As one of my professors had succinctly put it, I was being “railroaded.”

For the next few weeks, I was in a daze. I met with an attorney who, after speaking with the detective, assured me that charges were not imminent.

However, a month later, that all changed. I was asked to surrender myself and criminally charged. I tried to remain calm, fully knowing a grievous mistake was made and expecting someone would soon rectify it. A family member and attorney told me I would receive bail and return home in a day or two to figure out this mess, but then I recalled the first attorney with whom I met informing me about a recent change in New Jersey’s bail law. To add even more perplexity to a bizarre situation, I learned the prosecutor would be seeking my pretrial incarceration at a forthcoming detention hearing.

Ten days after being held in a solitary cell, just a month after I stood in moot court, I found myself standing in a real court. Instead of playing the role of a prosecutor donned in a suit in front of my classmates as I had only weeks earlier, I was now a prisoner dressed in chains, shackled among other inmates.

Instead of a class exercise having professors judge my advocacy skills about a hypothetical case, I stood in front of friends and family, being falsely accused of the most heinous and vile crimes, facing 25 years to life imprisonment, and deemed by a real judge – under a two-month-old bail reform statute, enacted to afford non-monetary conditions of pretrial release to low risks like myself – that because there was clear and convincing evidence of my dangerousness or flight risk, I had to be preventatively detained pretrial and thus sent back to the dungeon.

The prosecutor had argued for, and the judge ordered my detention, despite no evidence against me; dozens of letters of support submitted from family, friends, law students, and professors; three friends testifying to my good character and, most importantly, complete factual innocence. Moreover, it was precisely due to my lack of a criminal record that the state’s pretrial risk assessment determined I was the lowest possible risk for pretrial release.

It was only months later that I learned the state’s proposed pretrial order recommended my release on home detention and electronic monitoring – an important document that failed to surface during my detention hearing.

Within a month, I went from moot court to criminal court; two cases, the latter just as false and fabricated as the former, yet with catastrophic consequences. I witnessed first-hand a fictitious case develop around me, only to later envelop me whole. There are no words that can ever adequately describe that day or the years that have since followed, yet I suppose the most overused but apt term is Kafkaesque.

Nine months after my arrest on false charges, indicted, and facing 25 years to life, the state offered me a plea deal to time-served. I was speechless.

I had naïvely assumed a proper investigation would exonerate me, that the state would dismiss all charges, and I would receive an apology. I maintained my composure and sanity for months with this expectation.

A few weeks later, my attorney told me that the prosecutor would dismiss all the original (sexual) charges and amend two counts in the indictment from sexual endangering the welfare of children to non-sexual endangering, something I was neither accused of nor indicted on. The factual basis of that offense (and my conviction) is “the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language.” Again, I was astonished.

But after consulting with my family and counsel, we decided that it was in my best interest to accept the offer because, as we know, juries sometimes find innocent people guilty of the crimes they were charged with but had not committed.

And so, I accepted fault for cursing “in the hearing” of my nieces – and I went to prison.

After being intentionally misclassified by the prison and twice denied release by the parole board, the decisions all resting on the dismissed charges and not my actual conviction, I finally returned home in August 2020, after serving over two years in prison.

Sadly, I recently discovered that my conviction does not qualify for expungement, notwithstanding my former attorney’s assurances. Moreover, despite the Assistant Dean of my former law school’s assurances to my family, I learned that I would not be permitted to re-enroll and complete the final 21 credits required to earn the degree.

Thus, I have lost a substantial investment, years of my life (and so much more), and earned instead of a degree in law, a permanent criminal conviction – all because of one person’s malice and a prosecutor’s lack of integrity.

The post From Moot Court to Criminal Court: A Former Law Student’s Harrowing Experience Before a Kangaroo Court appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

Judge Calls for DOJ Probe of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Edward Bartlett — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:28:09 +0000

Judge Calls for DOJ Probe of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Iran Sanctions Case

The order followed a blistering opinion that took to task the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office for making “countless” belated disclosures.

By Tom McParland | February 17, 2021 at 05:46 PM

A Manhattan federal judge on Wednesday called on the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate “systemic” failures brought to light by the bungled prosecution of an Iranian businessman accused of funneling more than $115 million through the American financial system.

The four-page order, from U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York, followed a blistering opinion in September, which took the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office to task for making “countless” belated disclosures to lawyers representing Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad before, during and after his trial earlier this year.

Sadr was convicted last March, following a two-week trial that was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but his Steptoe & Johnson attorneys have since aggressively pursued evidence they suspected the government had withheld in discovery. In June, then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman acknowledged a spate of “discovery-related issues” and determined that it would “not be in the interests of justice to further prosecute this case.

Nathan, however, had continued her own fact-finding mission to determine whether any lawyers for the prosecution had either intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence or purposely misled the court about the late disclosures.

“Government lawyers wield enormous prosecutorial power,” Nathan wrote in her Sept. 16 ruling. “They must exercise it in a way that is fully consistent with their constitutional and ethical obligations. And it is the obligation of the courts to ensure that they do and hold them accountable if they do not.”

On Wednesday, Nathan said that she had found not found any intentional wrongdoing by individual prosecutors, but reiterated that “disclosure failures and misrepresentations in this case represent grave derelictions of prosecutorial responsibility.”

“In light of this, and given the systemic nature of the errors and misconduct that occurred in this case, the court will not engage in further fact-finding,” she wrote. “Instead, the court urges a full investigation by DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility of all matters related to prosecutorial misconduct in this case.”

“It is the Court’s hope that reforms adopted by the United States Attorney’s Office, coupled with a full investigation by OPR, will ensure that the Government’s errors in this case are not repeated,” the order said.

Excerpted from: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/02/17/sdny-judge-calls-for-doj-probe-of-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-iran-sanctions-case-398-65294/?kw=Judge%20Calls%20for%20DOJ%20Probe%20of%20Prosecutorial%20Misconduct%20in%20Iran%20Sanctions%20Case&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=dailyheadlines&utm_content=20210218&utm_term=nlj&slreturn=20210118122441

The post Judge Calls for DOJ Probe of Prosecutorial Misconduct appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: ADA Mary Kellett: Did the Punishment Fit the Offense?

saveadmin — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:06:43 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

For Unethical Maine Prosecutor, Did the Punishment Fit the Offense?

WASHINGTON / July 24, 2013 – Following announcement of the imposition of light sanctions on prosecutor Mary Kellett, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity is asking whether the punishment was sufficient, considering the severity of the offense.

Last week, Maine Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gorman announced that ADA Mary Kellett would have her license suspended for 30 days, but then stayed the suspension on the condition that Kellett complete six hours of continuing legal education.

Gorman’s decision followed the decision of a Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar panel which found Kellett had violated seven rules of professional conduct. Following an in-depth investigation, the three-member panel termed Kellett’s conduct in a sexual assault case to be “inexcusable” and recommended suspension of her license. The panel found Kellett had concealed exculpatory evidence and misled the jury in her closing arguments.

Kellett’s defense lawyers argued this was the first time Kellett has ever been charged with prosecutorial misconduct. But columnist Robert Franklin highlighted the existence of previous cases in which Kellett made charging decisions that lacked probable cause, according to media accounts. “This isn’t a slap on the wrist, it’s a caress with the softest of feathers,” Franklin charged. https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21040-no-discipline-for-rogue-prosecutor-mary-kellett

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity notes federal and state lawmakers are increasingly concerned with the problems of over-criminalization and over-prosecution. At a June 14 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Over-Criminalization, the American Bar Association testified that serious problems in the criminal justice process “undermine basic tenets of fairness and equality as well as the public’s expectation of safety.”

Many believe prosecutor misconduct is inadequately addressed. Most cases of misconduct are never investigated. Of the instances that are investigated, most are not publicly reported. Of those that are reported, most are never considered by the state ethics oversight board. A 2010 analysis by the Northern California Innocence Project found the State Bar publicly disciplined only one percent of prosecutors who had been found by a court to have engaged in misconduct.

“ADA Mary Kellett intentionally flaunted her ethical and moral duty to be a minister of justice.” notes CPI spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “And now she only has to take six hours of legal training? That doesn’t seem right.”

A Center for Prosecutor Integrity report reveals the four most common forms of prosecutor misconduct in sexual assault and domestic violence cases are charging without probable cause, engaging in selective prosecution, concealing evidence, and failing to enforce perjury statutes: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/White-Paper-Prosecutor-Misconduct1.pdf

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity, a project of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, is working to preserve the presumption of innocence, assure equal treatment under law, and bring an end to wrongful convictions: www.prosecutorintegrity.org

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

The post PR: ADA Mary Kellett: Did the Punishment Fit the Offense? appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: Excusing the Inexcusable: SAVE Deplores Plan to Give Free Pass to Crusading Prosecutor who Engaged in Unethical Practices for Six Years

saveadmin — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 03:19:44 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Excusing the Inexcusable: SAVE Deplores Plan to Give Free Pass to Crusading Prosecutor who Engaged in Unethical Practices for Six Years

WASHINGTON / July 17, 2013 – Seven months after a state ethics panel determined Hancock Co. prosecutor Mary Kellett engaged in “inexcusable” misconduct, Justice Ellen Gorman has announced a plan that would seemingly excuse Kellett’s unethical behavior. On Monday, Gorman announced she intends to shelve a 30-day suspension on assistant district attorney Mary Kellett. As a result, no sanctions will be placed on the prosecutor who engaged in unethical practices over a period of 6 years, resulting in the wrongful conviction of an innocent man.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — deplores the impending decision as an affront to every citizen of Maine who believes the criminal justice system should be “just.”

The facts of the case reveal accuser Ligia Filler often changed her story to suit the circumstances. The woman was a known child-abuser with profound mental health problems, as revealed by a police recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GsKIcQhjaJg

In normal cases, Ligia Filler would have undergone extensive mental health counseling, and her accusations of marital rape quickly dismissed.

But Hancock Co. ADA Kellett was known to be an aggressive, even crusading prosecutor. In numerous cases, Kellett has been found to prosecute innocent men, even when media accounts revealed the sex was consensual or the accusation fabricated: http://www.fillerfund.com/marykellett.htm

In her quest to convict defendant Vladek Filler, prosecutor Kellett withheld key pieces of evidence. This information would have revealed the accuser’s unstable emotional state, likely leading the jury to reach a “not guilty” verdict.

Eventually, Kellett got caught. On December 5, 2012 a 3-member ethics panel ruled Kellett violated seven Bar Rules. In unusually strong language, the panel described Kellett’s conduct as “unexcusable,” and recommended suspension of her license to practice law.

Vladek Filler was victimized numerous times, SAVE believes. First, by an abusive wife. Second, by a domestic violence agency that ignored his pleas for help. Third, by a false accusation of marital rape. And fourth, by a zealous prosecutor.

And if Justice Gorman follows through with her proposed plan, Filler will be victimized again, this time by a complacent Supreme Court judge.

“By imposing a 30-day suspension on Kellett and then suspending her own suspension, Justice Ellen Gorman has engaged in a form of legal double-talk,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Justice will not be served by allowing prosecutor Mary Kellett to continue her ideological crusade against innocent citizens of Maine.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

The post PR: Excusing the Inexcusable: SAVE Deplores Plan to Give Free Pass to Crusading Prosecutor who Engaged in Unethical Practices for Six Years appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: Most Americans Doubt Fairness of Criminal Justice System, Reveals Center for Prosecutor Integrity

saveadmin — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:46:35 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Most Americans Doubt Fairness of Criminal Justice System, Reveals Center for Prosecutor Integrity

WASHINGTON / June 11, 2013 – A public opinion survey reveals a substantial majority of persons harbor doubts about the effectiveness of the American criminal justice system. The nationwide survey reveals a crisis of confidence in our nation’s legal system, says the non-profit Center for Prosecutor Integrity.

The presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American legal system. But two-thirds (66.8%) of the survey respondents believe the presumption of innocence is becoming lost in our nation’s legal system.

Equal treatment is promised by the 14h Amendment to the Constitution. But three-quarters (74.8%) believe our legal system often does not follow the rule of ‘equal treatment under the law.’

Prosecutors occupy a central role in the criminal justice system, but over two-fifths (42.8%) say prosecutor misconduct is widespread. Strong majorities of persons say most cases of prosecutor misconduct are kept hidden from the public (71.4%), and similar numbers say prosecutors who commit misconduct are almost never punished (73.5%).

A previous survey found one in 10 persons reported they had been falsely accused of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse: http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/survey/ False allegations undermine the rule of law, squander limited criminal justice resources, and weaken the credibility of victims, CPI believes.

“These stunning findings show the American criminal justice system has come off its moorings,” notes CPI spokesman Phillip Holman. “Lawmakers must grapple with the fact that over-criminalization and lack of prosecutor accountability have weakened the very legitimacy of our legal system in the eyes of many.”

The telephone interviews were conducted June 3-5, 2013. An average of 993 persons answered each of the survey questions. The sampling frame comes from voter registration records in 47 states; as such, the survey is not fully representative. More information about the survey findings and methods can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/prosecutors/survey/

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity, a project of S.A.V.E., is working to preserve the presumption of innocence, assure equal treatment under law, and bring an end to wrongful convictions: www.prosecutorintegrity.org

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

The post PR: Most Americans Doubt Fairness of Criminal Justice System, Reveals Center for Prosecutor Integrity appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct are Widespread, Says SAVE Report

saveadmin — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:50:12 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct are Widespread, Says SAVE Report

WASHINGTON / May 15 – A new report by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments highlights the problem of unethical conduct by prosecutors at the state and federal levels. “Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct in Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Cases” concludes a number of prosecutors have pursued overly zealous practices in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Such practices erode constitutional guarantees of due process of law and probable cause.

Prosecutors are ethically required to evaluate allegations and only pursue those backed by probable cause. That’s because they wield the power of the state against the modest power of individuals who may be charged. Over the past two decades, prosecutors have often abandoned that role in favor of “win at any cost,” claims the new study.

That’s particularly true when the allegations involve sexual assault or domestic violence, according to the SAVE report.

Former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman has noted, “Now people can be charged with virtually no evidence.” In the case of the Central Park Five, for example, five minors were coerced by prosecutors and police into pleading guilty to a crime they had no part in. The prosecutor obtained the confessions despite the absence of objective evidence connecting them to the crime.

The same is true in domestic violence cases.

Despite the fact that half of domestic violence is perpetrated by women, the vast majority of those arrested and charged are men. That’s because “dominant perpetrator” laws encourage the arrest of the larger, stronger partner, i.e., the man. Such gender-biased charging policies are unconstitutional, notes the SAVE report.

Prosecutor malfeasance has real-world consequences. In Virginia, 15% of sexual assault convictions were shown to be false by DNA evidence. In domestic violence cases, some 80 – 85% of allegations are ultimately recanted, but “no-drop” policies mean prosecutors often pursue them anyway.

“For the sake of our families and our system of justice, prosecutors must be held to long-established ethical standards,” says S.A.V.E. spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Probable cause and due process of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.”

S.A.V.E.’s new special report can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Prosecutor-Bias-Misconduct-in-Domestic-Violence

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org.

The post PR: Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct are Widespread, Says SAVE Report appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: How Well is the Media Covering the Kellett Prosecutor Scandal?, SAVE Asks

saveadmin — Tue, 14 May 2013 08:56:11 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

How Well is the Media Covering the Kellett Prosecutor Scandal?, SAVE Asks

WASHINGTON / May 14, 2013 – Three weeks ago a state ethics board issued a long-awaited report highly critical of Hancock Co. prosecutor Mary Kellett. Now a victim advocacy group is asking, Why have only two local media outlets covered the historic story?

Following a two-year investigation, the report is viewed as historic because the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, charged with enforcing legal ethics codes, has never previously recommended the disbarment of a standing prosecutor.

On April 24, 2013 the ethics panel released a report showing assistant district attorney Mary N. Kellett ignored a court order, suppressed evidence, misled the jury, and engaged in “conduct unworthy of an attorney.” The report petitions the Maine Supreme Judicial Board to impose “appropriate disciplinary sanction” on ADA Kellett (1).

But three weeks later, only two media outlets, WABI TV and the Bangor Daily News, have provided coverage of the milestone story (2, 3).

SAVE notes the Kellett investigation has garnered extensive national media attention. Following release of the April 24 ethics report, two lengthy editorials appeared in national venues: “Discipline Case Against Prosecutor Mary Kellett Heating Up” (4) and “Filler Case Nearing Conclusion, Perhaps” (5). Over 10,000 persons have viewed accounts of the story on social media pages, as well.

SAVE invites reporters, editors, producers, and other media representatives to review the timeline of events (6), which raises the worrisome question of whether ADA Kellett charged the wrong person with the crime.

“When a Hancock County man was charged with spousal assault, media outlets provided wall-to-wall coverage,” notes SAVE spokesman Howard Goldman. “But when an overly zealous prosecutor is found guilty on multiple counts of unethical conduct, local media outlets seem to dawdle.”

SAVE filed a 9-page ethics complaint in 2011 alleging numerous instances of prosecutor misconduct (7). Over 1,400 persons have signed a petition calling for the disbarment of the prosecutor (8).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

The post PR: How Well is the Media Covering the Kellett Prosecutor Scandal?, SAVE Asks appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: Ethics Board Issues Rebuke of Hancock Co. Prosecutor Mary Kellett

saveadmin — Tue, 07 May 2013 02:28:33 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Ethics Board Issues Rebuke of Hancock Co. Prosecutor Mary Kellett

WASHINGTON / May 7, 2013 – A state ethics board has issued a report concluding Hancock County prosecutor Mary N. Kellett engaged in multiple counts of prosecutorial misconduct arising from a 2009 assault trial. The ethical violations include ignoring a court order, misleading members of a jury, evidence suppression, and indulging in “conduct unworthy of an attorney.”

The Board of Overseers of the Bar report petitions the Maine Supreme Judicial Board to impose “appropriate disciplinary sanction” on assistant district attorney Kellett.

The Board report, issued April 24, 2013, documents how Kellett engaged in a series of maneuvers designed to withhold exculpatory documents that would have demonstrated the innocence of Vladek Filler, charged in 2007 on five counts of spousal sexual assault.

Filler’s defense attorney, Daniel Pileggi, had asked for copies of 911 logs, audiotapes, and other police reports — requests that were repeatedly ignored by prosecutor Kellett. As a result, Pileggi was unable to fully cross-examine the accuser during a 2009 trial held in Bangor.

Only later was it learned that one of the police reports revealed that accuser Ligia Filler had “chanted about ‘cutting up’ the defendant while laughing and crying hysterically, swearing, and kicking a door.” A separate police recording of the woman making loud threats is available online (1).

In unusually strong language, the Bar report describes prosecutor Kellett’s refusal to comply with a 2008 court order to release key documents as “inexcusable.” In failing to provide exculpatory materials to the defendant, Kellett fell short in meeting her “constitutional and ethical obligations,” the report declares in ringing tones.

The report also details how Kellett made “extremely prejudicial and improper arguments” to the jury. These statements may have served to remove the presumption of innocence from the accused, leading to the wrongful conviction of Vladek Filler for gross sexual assault in 2009.

“Citizens of Maine should be alarmed that a rogue Hancock County prosecutor has been allowed to disregard the most basic notions of fairness and due process,” notes SAVE spokesman Howard Goldman. “We can only wonder how many other reputations and lives have been harmed by the zealotry of prosecutor Mary Kellett.”

SAVE filed a 9-page ethics complaint in 2011 with the Board of Overseers of the Bar alleging numerous instances of prosecutor misconduct by Kellett (2). SAVE now calls on Hancock County district attorney Carletta Bassano to suspend Kellett from all prosecutorial duties pending final resolution of the case.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GsKIcQhjaJg
(2) http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/COMPLA1.pdf

The post PR: Ethics Board Issues Rebuke of Hancock Co. Prosecutor Mary Kellett appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.

PR: SAVE Cites Excessive Delays, Bias with Hancock County Prosecutors

saveadmin — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:32:42 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

SAVE Cites Excessive Delays, Bias with Hancock County Prosecutors

WASHINGTON / April 25, 2013 – A Hancock County prosecutor, found guilty in December on multiple counts of unethical conduct, has yet to be sanctioned for her misconduct. Assistant district attorney Mary Kellett’s unethical actions harm the credibility of real victims and represent a threat to innocent citizens, charges SAVE, a victim-advocacy group.

After a two-year investigation, a three-member panel of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar ruled on December 5, 2012 that ADA Kellett engaged in multiple incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. The Bar Panel found Kellett did not act as a truth seeker, misled the jury, and engaged in conduct unworthy of an attorney (1).

The Panel cited Kellett’s failure to turn over “at least two key pieces of exculpatory evidence” which were critical to the defense of Vladek Filler, who had been charged with sexual assault. The seriousness of Kellett’s misconduct, the Panel emphasized, “cannot be overstated.”

More than four months later, the Maine Judicial Supreme Court has yet to decide on Kellett’s punishment. Despite the Bar Panel’s recommendation for suspension of her law license, Kellett has been allowed to continue her prosecutorial work.

Prosecutor bias has been documented in other domestic violence cases in Hancock County.

Cynthia Boucher had violated the bail conditions for a previous domestic incident against her husband Michael, an Ellsworth city councilman. He ended up in the hospital with facial lacerations.

Despite being a repeat offender, Mrs. Boucher was offered a plea deal that removed the domestic violence and bail violation charges, replacing them with a charge of simple assault. Boucher was ordered to spend only a weekend in jail and pay a $300 fine. Her victim was forced to flee the area with his daughter and resign his city council seat (2).

“This 4-month delay in sanctioning Mary Kellett is unconscionable and outrageous,” notes SAVE spokesman Howard Goldman. “Dozens of innocent men may risk similar prosecution without probable cause, while female repeat offenders are being given sweet-heart deals by Hancock County prosecutors.”

SAVE calls for DA Carletta Bassano to immediately remove Mary Kellett from her prosecutorial duties, and urges the Maine Supreme Court to act promptly on the Bar panel’s recommendation to restore integrity and credibility to Maine’s criminal justice system.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

(1) http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar_overseers_discipline&id=464815&v=article
(2) http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/20/news/hancock/wifes-violent-outbursts-prompt-ellsworth-city-councilor-to-resign-leave-town/

The post PR: SAVE Cites Excessive Delays, Bias with Hancock County Prosecutors appeared first on Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus.