For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2 - 21

Lady Justice May
Not Be Blind:
The Failure to
Hold Prosecutors
Accountable for
Failing to Disclose
Exculpatory
Evidence
Introduction
A
s highlighted in the publication Hidden Hazards:
Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims in Pennsylvania,
2000-2016 one of the biggest problems Pennsylvania
faces concerning prosecutorial misconduct is the failure to
provide exculpatory evidence. A study conducted by the
Quattrone Center, in 2021, highlighted this fact in their
research where the most common type of prosecutorial
misconduct found in Pennsylvania is prosecutors' failure
to adequately disclose exculpatory evidence (2,114 claims
raised, 29% of all claims), followed by improper closings
(1,915 claims raised, 26.6 % of all claims), other misconduct
claims (958 claims raised, 12.3 % of all claims), other
improper remarks (719 claims raised, 10 % of all claims),
improper examination (536 claims raised, 7.4 % of all
claims), and gathering/presenting false evidence (411
claims raised, 5.7 % of all claims).1
The legal profession, through its evolution, has fostered
a culture that promotes self-interest above all else, where
recognitions and promotions are based on the outcome
rather than the process. Starting from the moment a
future lawyer takes the Law School Admission Test (LSAT),
to how the exams in law schools are graded, to the grading
of the Bar Exam, all of which pit one applicant against
the general applicant pool. It is only natural for private
attorneys and prosecutors to take an adversarial posture
Yashar Alizadeh
in their conduct in the course of their representation,
which, when done within the law and without violating
a defendant's constitutional rights, is representative of
an accomplished lawyer. However, in such an adversarial
culture and environment, the possibility for misconduct
and abuse of power exists and, as discussed in this article, is
occurring presently.
While defense attorneys face the loss of their ability
to practice law and possibly legal malpractice actions for
their conduct by the injured party, prosecutors are immune
from civil liability, which would serve to hold the prosecutor
individually responsible for their deliberate misconduct.
With no system in place to hold prosecutors accountable
for conduct that deprives a defendant of due process, some
prosecutors have disregarded their duty to seek justice, not
merely to convict.
In Imbler v. Pachtman,2
the United States Supreme Court
The
decided that prosecutors should have absolute immunity-
cannot be sued-for any misconduct in the courtroom.3
Court disregarded the language of Section 1983 of the Civil
Rights Act, which expressly provides that " every person "
who violates the rights of another " shall be liable to the
party injured " in favor of its view of the common law.4
The Court reasoned that " if prosecutors could be sued for
decisions made while in the course of their official duties
as prosecutors, they may start second-guessing themselves.
Vol. 7, Issue 2 l For The Defense 21
For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2
