Atlasia v. Antonio V

[Junkie]

With all due respect to the Court, this seemed like the only place to post this.

In my opinion, Blue is acting within his role as a legal representative.  For me the question is one of candor to the tribunal.  Lawyers cannot put forth an argument they know to be false.

Most of the time, this is not a factor.  Lawyers are putting forth the cases the best they can, even if they personally are against the position, because the law calls for advocating the best for their client.  Even when the law is clear, lawyers can argue to change not the law but cannot argue that the law is different than what it is.

Where this is different is in the role of a prosecutor.  Prosecutors have immense power -- the sole power of whether to bring charges against a person.  They only serve the people they are sworn to protect when they prosecute only those they believe are guilty.  Prosecutors should NEVER charge and prosecute a person they do not believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty of that crime.  To have otherwise is a system no one wants to live under.

I am not commenting on the facts of the case, or whether it can be proven -- only on the idea of proprietorial discretion and ethics.  If a proprietorial truly believes that they cannot prove that a defendant committed a crime, then they cannot issue charges, cannot argue for conviction.  Appoint a special prosecutor fine, they may have a different opinion.  But NEVER prosecute when you do not believe someone is not guilty.

[Junkie]

Libertas, I respectfuly disagree with you.  A prosecutor can only ethically do their job when they believe that the defendant has done a crime AND that they can prove it.  Blue did not believe in either of those conditions.  Thus he did the right thing.  He offered to appoint a special prosecutor, also the right thing.  This has happened a few times, even in front of the Supreme Court.

My favorite example of this is the case of the Hillside Strangler(s).  The DA of LA brought charges.  After some time, the DA believed that he could no longer prove the case and moved to dismiss.  The Judge disagreed and refused to dismiss (within the right of the judge -- at least in Wisconsin and obviously California).  The DA, not believing that the case could be ethically prosecuted, brought in the California AG, who felt differently, actually did some real good work, and successfully prosecuted the case.

Interesting side note -- the DA who started the case was elected AG, so when the case ended it was back in his office.  More interesting, the Judge became DA.

The point of all this is a special prosecutor could have brought in.  Blue gave you the option of naming one.  Dallasfan, Han, would have been great to name just two I am sure you would have liked.  I am sure there would have been others that would have been willing to take a look at the evidence and then determine if they could proceed based on those two conditions.

This is the only way the Justice system works.  You may not like it in this case, but trust me, it is much better than having prosecutors that blindly prosecute people they do not believe committed crimes.