Misconduct of the Prosecution: Houston Attorney- Part II

Prosecutors are required by law to disclose any evidence that tends to exonerate or exculpate you from criminal charges which could help demonstrate your actual innocence or that could reduce your sentence to you and your defense counsel. Called "Brady material,"  this requirement means that prosecutors must disclose evidence known only to police, agreements relating to witness testimony and any other information that tends to show you may not be guilty. Failures to disclose this and other misconduct by the prosecutor may be the basis for appeal or other post-conviction/post-judgment relief.

Impeachable Testimony: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

In 1963, the state of Maryland prosecuted John L.Brady and a companion, Mr. Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had actually withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had committed the act of killing by himself and the defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling was affirmed.

 Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a confirmed record of knowingly lying in an official capacity.  Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant.

Frequently, prosecutorial misconduct is not apparent during trial proceedings; knowledge of misconduct may surface only after a trial has ended. Like all appellate or post-conviction/post-judgment litigation, appeals or collateral challenges based on prosecutorial misconduct involve complex rules and procedures.

 If you believe prosecutorial misconduct occurred in your criminal case, contact Parnham & Associates today for a free consultation with an aggressive and resourceful criminal defense attorney. We will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.

Understanding the Grand Jury System, Part 2: Inequities in the Grand Jury System

In this three part series on grand juries in the USA, Houston, Texas criminal attorney George Parnham explains a little understood part of our criminal justice system.

Grand Juries have recently made headline news in the USA after they have decline to indict police officers in cases which involved what many people consider unreasonable use of force.

On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after a police officer put him in a chokehold. Medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police", however the NYPD policy prohibits the use of chokeholds and law enforcement personnel contend that it was merely a "headlock".
On December 3, 2014 a grand jury decided not to indict officer Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer accused of choking Garner to death. The event stirred numerous public protests and rallies with charges of police brutality. The Justice Department has announced an independent federal investigation.

On August 9, 2014 in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer. The disputed circumstances of the shooting and the resultant protests and civil unrest received considerable attention in the U.S. and abroad, and sparked a vigorous debate about law enforcement's relationship with African-Americans, and police use of force doctrine in Missouri and nationwide.
The Prosecuting Attorney decided to bring the case in front of a grand jury to determine whether there was probable cause to indict Wilson for his actions. On November 24, it was announced that the jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Legal analysts raised concerns over the prosecutor's unorthodox approach, asserting that this process could have influenced the grand jury to decide not to indict, and highlighted significant differences between a typical grand jury proceeding in Missouri and Wilson's case.

Grand Juries almost always indict in criminal cases, with the common exception being cases which involve police officers. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.


There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are less likely to indict police officers; the first is juror bias, in that jurors may tend to trust police officers even when the evidence says otherwise. Second is prosecutorial bias; because prosecutors depend on the police while working on criminal cases, they may be inclined to present a less compelling case against officers.

A third possible explanation may simply be that prosecutors normally only bring a case to a grand jury if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as a police shooting, public pressure can force them to bring charges even if the case itself is weak.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict officers in these and other cases have spurred various proposals to reform grand juries. One measure being considered by Congress would require that in an alleged crime  involving a police officer, the governor would appoint a special prosecutor to conduct a public probable cause hearing that is open to the public. If passed, law enforcement would forfeit federal funding unless they adopt the new rules.
In Texas senators recently introduced bills to eliminate what is referred to as the "key man" or "pick-a-pal" system, requiring the courts to randomly summon jurors instead of allowing a district judge to pick three to five people to serve as grand jury commissioners, who are then charged with finding 30 prospective grand jurors and selecting 12 who qualify. Critics have long argued that grand jurors in Texas are often pulled from those with strong ties to the criminal justice system.
 Some of the current proposals may deserve consideration but they would have greater long-term impact and meaning if they improve transparency within the criminal justice system more generally, and are not limited to cases just involving police.