Examining Judicial Misconduct in High-Profile Cases

Over time, the public image of attorneys as aggressive predators has been confirmed by their intense pursuit of success in high-profile cases involving celebrities from various industries. Attorneys in prominent roles are often viewed negatively as untrustworthy and corrupt, sometimes engaging in misconduct or providing inadequate representation to further their own careers.

The three cases of misconduct highlighted could be a lawyer's worst fear if the attorney does not stay within legal limits and faces external influences. This essay will present real court cases from Oklahoma, Texas, New York, and Kentucky that demonstrate misconduct by the judge, prosecution, and defense in the courtroom.

The outcomes of each case will also be discussed.

The New York Times archives played a crucial role in the significant case of Mr. Michael Morton, who was freed in 2011 after being wrongly incarcerated in Texas for almost 25 years. The Innocence Project, a reputable non-profit group made up of law students, lawyers, and others, handled his case and pursued a DNA test that ultimately demonstrated his innocence in the killing of his spouse.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Free Essays

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

(NY Times-2011)

The inquiry focuses on the errors made by the prosecutor and how immunity protects them from facing repercussions. For example, in Mr. Ken Anderson's situation, now a judge in the same county as the crime, he failed to comply with a court directive to furnish vital police reports to the defense. Despite this misconduct, he was elevated to a judgeship and purportedly instructed his replacement to resist the defendant's pleas for DNA analysis that could have cleared him with evidence from the undisclosed reports.

The Brady Rule, set by the Supreme Court in 1963, requires prosecutors to reveal favorable evidence for the defendant. Despite this, they often avoid punishment for not following it. In a civil case about prosecutor immunity, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors should be penalized and possibly lose their license to practice law. Unfortunately, some prosecutors and judges commit misconduct without repercussions because they are seen as protectors of the state and are sometimes treated leniently by certain American courts.

The article focuses on a case of judicial misconduct in Oklahoma involving a judge and her spouse. According to information from Channel 9 news website, District Judge Tammy Bass-Lesure and her husband Karlos Antonio Lesure Sr. were found guilty of unlawfully obtaining funds intended for adopted children, who were no longer under their care. The Oklahoma County District Attorney brought charges of perjury and fraudulent claims against the couple. It was revealed that Tammy Bass-Lesure had served as a Judge in Oklahoma County for more than 12 years.

Despite refusing to comment on the extreme level of judicial misconduct to reporters, Judge Bass-Lesure has not faced any follow-up on the case that came to light through complaints about no child support from the couple whom the judge awarded custody of the children to (Channel 9 News.com-2011). The question now arises about whether appointing someone to a judgeship would be based on election, merit, or appointment. The class textbook for CJA-224 cites the American Bar Association's explanation of the definition of "a good judge", which includes eight attitudes and more.

In their careers, lawyers should prioritize integrity, legal knowledge and ability, professional experience, judicial temperament, diligence, good health, financial responsibilities, and public service in order to avoid judicial misconduct (Siegel-2011). However, as society becomes more indifferent during the election of District Attorneys, those assuming positions through election or appointment should be held to a higher standard similar to a merit system. Given the widespread judicial misconduct in the judicial system, the advancement of lawyers to the level of judgeship should be based on merit.

When facing a visit to the Judge or Courtroom, unlike lawyers appointed by the Courthouse, individuals accused typically select a lawyer who suits their needs and pays for their services personally. Unfortunately, those unable to afford the $100-$150 per hour fees charged by private lawyers must rely on a public defender provided through the indigent defense program established based on the Sixth Amendment in the lower court judicial system.

Indigent defense attorneys, also known as public defenders, are often viewed as the "bottom of the barrel" due to their inadequate income from lengthy cases. Many lawyers try to avoid this role by providing quick and inaccurate advice to accused individuals. In the case of Padilla vs. Kentucky (130 S. Ct.4235-2010), Mr. Padilla, a Vietnam War veteran who had lived in the United States for over 40 years after fleeing Honduras, was arrested for drug distribution. At his initial court appearance, his attorney advised him to plead guilty in exchange for not being deported back to Honduras.

The Judge initially found that the lawyer representing Mr. Padilla had provided incorrect advice, leading to a new ruling based on the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel. The Court pointed out that counsel's oversight in not informing Padilla about the potential deportation consequences of his drug distribution conviction was deficient conduct. The case was sent back for evaluation of the impact of this failure, as noted in the article by Norris (2011).

In the cases of the main characters in courtrooms across America, the ineffectiveness of the defense counsel has been demonstrated to meet the definition of the "prejudice prong related to the outcome of the Strickland case, as evidenced by the Court's final ruling that there is a reasonable probability that, without counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different" (Siegel-2011). The misconduct in all three cases highlights how the Constitutional rights of due process are being emphasized in society's courtrooms today, whether they are adhered to correctly or not.

Mr. Herbert Packer, a professor at the Law Institute on the campus of Stanford University, constructed the Due Process Model, which illustrates the idea that the due process model in the criminal justice system is based on liberalism. According to this model, constitutional rights should not be seen as mere technicalities; instead, criminal justice authorities should adhere to rules, procedures, and guidelines to guarantee fairness and consistency in the justice process (Cliffnotes.com-2012).

Overall, comprehensive research by all parties in the previous cases could have prevented misconduct at any level.