skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 69156 Find in a Library
Title: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROSECUTOR WITH THE JUDICIARY (FROM PROSECUTORIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, P 35-62, 1977, BY JOHN JAY DOUGLASS - SEE NCJ-69153)
Author(s): T MURPHY
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 28
Sponsoring Agency: National College of District Attorneys
Houston, TX 77004
Sale Source: National College of District Attorneys
College of Law
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77004
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE CHAPTER ASSERTS THAT TRUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR IS OFTEN ONE OF BOTH COOPERATION AND CONFLICT CAUSED BY THE NECESSITY OF AVOIDING EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
Abstract: THE ROLE OF TRIAL JUDGE IS THAT OF IMPARTIAL ARBITER WITH POWER TO CURB BOTH ADVERSARIES. A JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE WARRANT REVIEW, PRETRIAL RELEASE, EFFICIENT PRETRIAL PROCEDURES, CALENDAR MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE OF COURTROOM DECORUM, AND SENTENCING. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR IS PRIMARILY GOVERNED BY SEPARATION OF POWERS. CONFLICTS MAY ARISE FROM DECISION OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT (E.G., DECLINING TO ISSUE A WARRANT AND RELEASING AN ACCUSED OVER GOVERNMENT OBJECTIONS), CALENDAR MANAGEMENT, AND JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN THE PROSECUTION FUNCTIONS, AS REVIEWED IN UNITED STATES V. SMITH AND UNITED STATES V. COWAN. HOWEVER, MAXIMUM COOPERATION CAN PREVENT UNNECESSARY CONFRONTATION AND SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS AND CANON 3A(4) OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT SERVE TO FORMALIZE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR TO AVOID FREQUENT CONTACTS WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO UNETHICAL CONDUCT AFFECTING A TRIAL'S OUTCOME. A 1972 SURVEY OF PROSECUTORS BY THE NATIONAL COLLEGE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS REVEALED COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE JUDICIARY. COMPLAINTS FROM JUDGES ABOUT PROSECUTORS RANGE FROM OBSESSION WITH CONVICTION RATES LEADING TO INDISCRIMINATE PLEA BARGAINING TO DISREGARD OF CRIME VICTIMS AND OVERCHARGING OF CRIMINAL CASES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. FOR RELATED DOCUMENTS, SEE NCJ 69153, 69154, 69157, 69158, 69160, 69161.
Index Term(s): Prosecutorial discretion; Prosecutorial diversion; Prosecutorial screening
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=69156

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.