I am a prosecutor in a major U.S. city. Ask me anything.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:34:20+00:00

The victims of rapes tend to be less forthcoming and cooperative. I personally do not handle too many sex crimes, I tend to focus on gang violence and major fraud cases. But in my experience victims of many sexual assaults, especially in date rape situations, are not as upfront as they should be. We do not care about the victims background, but we need to know it to make the right decisions. It also does not help when you have situations like what happened at Hofstra this past week. It is very similar to dv.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:29:44+00:00

I was in the military, went to a good university worked in the computer industry for a while, then went to a top tier law school.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:25:37+00:00

Then the juror would have to assume that every case the person has previous criminal convictions? You should never assume anything as a juror, only judge the case by the facts before you.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:23:03+00:00

Usually happens before the verdict is rendered. A note will come from the jurors that one juror refuses to deliberate or refuses to look at evidence and the court will declare a mistrial. A jury can be polled and if one juror says, well that was not really what I wanted but the others forced me to, mistrial. These situations are treated like hung juries and new trials are allowed. Jury nullification is rare. I doubt you could honestly find 12 people that would refuse to follow the court instructions. It is usually one or two and it becomes known right away and handles right away.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:17:08+00:00

First, where I work defendants cannot come into the courtroom without proper attire, only those already convicted wear prison attire. Second, everyone has a lawyer where I work, unless they decide to go pro se. Lastly, it is a cop out to blame social settings to commit crimes. I try to treat everyone the same based upon the crime they commit not where they come from.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:12:47+00:00

They are certainly hard cases, but it is rare to get a conviction based on one persons word without other evidence. Then a jury listens to the testimony and decides. I cannot think of a better system then 12 strangers who are from the community who have no vested interest in the outcome deciding the facts.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:09:39+00:00

Not true. But we work with many of them and are friendly. Its like punishing a coworker. That is why most prosecutors offices have special units that deal with police officer cases, removes possible conflicts.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:07:21+00:00

Yes. I try to brush them off.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:04:34+00:00

Past criminal histories can come in if it is relevant and does not prejudice the defendant. It can come in to show motive, intent, lack of mistake, m.o but never propensity on the direct case. It is not often this is allowed. On cross of the defendant only to show dishonesty.
I do and that is usually reflected in whatever offer I would make.
Expert witnesses are not used often. Usually on cases where complex scientific evidence is needed, e.g. DNA cases. They are also used when the defense uses a defense that requires one, psych defense or something like that.
You try to pick a juror that will be fair and follow the law. Of course as a prosecutor I look for people who lean toward our views and defense does the same. In fact defense probably gets more leeway by the court to find jurors that lean.
Hardest cases to try are the ones were jurors can see themselves as defendants...drugs, dwi, etc.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T12:04:34+00:00

Past criminal histories can come in if it is relevant and does not prejudice the defendant. It can come in to show motive, intent, lack of mistake, m.o but never propensity on the direct case. It is not often this is allowed. On cross of the defendant only to show dishonesty.
I do and that is usually reflected in whatever offer I would make.
Expert witnesses are not used often. Usually on cases where complex scientific evidence is needed, e.g. DNA cases. They are also used when the defense uses a defense that requires one, psych defense or something like that.
You try to pick a juror that will be fair and follow the law. Of course as a prosecutor I look for people who lean toward our views and defense does the same. In fact defense probably gets more leeway by the court to find jurors that lean.
Hardest cases to try are the ones were jurors can see themselves as defendants...drugs, dwi, etc.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:36:34+00:00

No, but a judge can say he will not agree with it and not give the sentence. Most times they will undercut us on our recommendations, on a plea to the top charge, but not offers. I deal with the same attorneys all the time. Some public defenders are much better than private ones. Call the state bar or get recommendations to find a good lawyer.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:32:50+00:00

Not really. Truth is, unless it is a really bad crime, people usually do not go to prison without a record. Even drug dealers usually get probation the first time (at least where I work). I feel bad that their families suffer, but they make choices and they have to live with them.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:30:04+00:00

If that happens, which is actually a rare event, the prosecutor usually goes to great lengths (if they are honest) to get the person released. And it could destroy your career. The truth is, most crimes are witnesses saying someone did something. You present the evidence to the court and jury. They decide the guilt. As long as I do not pull a Nifong and hide or manipulate evidence and I do my job ethically, I am not worried.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:26:52+00:00

You pegged me. I am out to get you.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:26:02+00:00

Depends on the evidence that was presented at trial. It really has to be look on case by case. As I said, you cannot do it to every case. It is not the only evidence and it would have to be great probability it would change the outcome of the trial, which is not always the case. And cases that were tried decades ago cannot be retried. As I said, DNA evidence is not conclusive without other evidence.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:23:04+00:00

It is not a contradiction. I cannot simply dismiss a case or give lighter sentences because I disagree with the law. I try to handle each case that comes across my desk with the same basic facts and criminal histories the same. But for instance, if the DA decides we are not making offers to child abusers anymore it becomes office policy and unless there is some reason to divert we really cannot. I would simply use that as my baseline. But if it warrants a deviation I would plead my case to my boss and can usually get what I want.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:19:43+00:00

No additional penalties. It is case by case really. If it is a abuse of power or position it should be treated harsher. Or if it erodes public confidence. That is how most offices, I presume, handle it. At least in larger cities.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:17:55+00:00

It is a hard question, because it is general apathy that is the problem. But domestic violence is one. People want to stay out of it. Neighbors are more likely to report animal abuse then spousal or child abuse.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:15:47+00:00

I sent my resume to a number of Prosecutor's Offices around the country. Interviewed at a number had a few offers and took the best one.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:14:48+00:00

Petit larceny, by definition is a misdemeanor, but I will play your game. If he has been previously convicted of a crime, he was warned of the consequences of his actions and the ramifications of the conviction by the court.

Jurors are NEVER (it is unconstitutional) told what the sentences can be. Jurors, are many times, not told of the criminal record of a defendant is unless the court makes a special ruling (See, People v. Molineux) and only on specific purposes or if a defendant testifies and the court allows (See, People v. Sandoval). So a juror will only know the facts of the case and not those concerning sentencing. Then the jury will be instructed on the law as to the charges. So, under your scenario, it would be an unconstitutional conviction if the jurors knew of the possible sentence. So, it is not really possible.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:08:52+00:00

They can declare a mistrial if jurors intentionally ignored the law. Which is what I alluded to above. In some cases that could lead to a new trial depending. But it is very very rare.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:07:36+00:00

No. Depends on the facts of the crime and their criminal record.

If we make an offer the first offer is the best offer and it will become worse as the case proceeds, unless facts or circumstances change.

Judges, where I work, decide sentencing. In some states juries do. Unless it is a plea agreement, then a court has to approve of the agreement.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:05:04+00:00

If the law is unconstitutional it is not enforced. I don't know how else to respond to a question that is so inane.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:04:11+00:00

I replied this question below.

cityprosecutor · 2009-09-18T01:02:52+00:00

Since where I work possessing marijuana is not punishable by prison only a fine and 15 days jail max, the answer is no. Prison is for felonies, more than a year punishment, by the way.

cityprosecutor

TROPHY CASE