PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Prosecutorial Misconduct Study Report Released
For over two years, Steve Weinberg, a veteran investigative journalist, working closely with Attorney Neil Gordon, writer Brooke Williams and a team of researchers with the Center for Public Integrity, conducted an exhaustive study of prosecutorial misconduct across the United States. The project is well suited to the Center for Public Integrity, a consortium of journalists, lawyers and researchers in Washington, D.C., that specializes in uncovering systemic problems. Funding for the prosecutorial misconduct project is coming from several sources, most prominently the Open Society Institute, New York City.
Did you know --
The Center’s study of criminal appeals from 1970 to the present revealed 441 Ohio cases in which the defendant alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct. In 71, judges ruled a prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed or remanded the conviction, sentence or indictment. In 16, a dissenting judge or judges thought the prosecutor’s conduct warranted reversing or remanding the defendant’s conviction, sentence or indictment. Out of all the defendants who alleged misconduct, two later proved their innocence.
Carmen Marino worked as a prosecutor in Cuyahoga County for 30 years before he retired in 2002. He served as chief prosecutor and head of the major trial division. He also headed the prosecution in the case against Rasheem Matthew. At least 15 Ohio criminal appeals have addressed Marino’s conduct. Out of those, judges reversed four defendants’ convictions because of Marino’s prejudicial trial arguments. Marino said "it’s not difficult to win convictions in Ohio, as jurors are predisposed to find defendants guilty because they trust police and prosecutors." In another two cases, dissenting judges would have reversed the defendants’ convictions because of Marino’s behavior. Rasheem Matthew's case is one of those. Carmen Marino has had five convictions overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Since 1970, individual judges and appellate court panels cited prosecutorial misconduct as a factor when dismissing charges at trial, reversing convictions or reducing sentences in at least 2,017 cases.
The nature of the questionable conduct includes:
Courtroom misconduct (making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
Mishandling of physical evidence (hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records);
Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence;
Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Using false or misleading evidence;
Harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant’s counsel (including selective or vindictive prosecution, which includes instances of denial of a speedy trial);
Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.
 Home |
| State vs. Matthew |
| Affidavit 1 |
| Dismissed 1 |
| Trial Transcript |
| To Make a Donation |
Send E-Mail to: innocenttruth@aol.comCopyright © 2004 Innocenttruth Project. All Rights Reserved