---

Introduction

In the realm of justice, prosecutors hold a formidable power—the power to decide who gets charged with crimes, what charges they face, and how aggressively to pursue convictions. However, when this power is misused, it can lead to catastrophic consequences. Prosecutors who knowingly violate constitutional rights and send defendants to prison unjustly are more criminal than law enforcers. The failure to hold these prosecutors accountable is a glaring flaw in the justice system, one that demands urgent attention and action.

Prosecutorial Misconduct: A Rampant Issue

Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when a prosecutor breaks the law or breaches ethical standards in the course of their duties. This can include:

• Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: As established by the landmark Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors are required to disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant that could exonerate them or reduce their sentence. Violating this duty undermines the fairness of the trial.
• Introducing False Evidence: Fabricating evidence or encouraging witnesses to lie under oath can lead to wrongful convictions.
• Discriminatory Jury Selection: Using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race, gender, or ethnicity, as prohibited by Batson v. Kentucky (1986).
• Inflammatory Statements: Making prejudicial comments to the jury to sway their verdict unjustly.
• Hearsay: Using hearsay without corroboration violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, as prohibited by Crawford vs. Washington (2004).

---

My Case: A Personal Encounter with Prosecutorial Misconduct

My experience with prosecutorial misconduct provides a stark example of the injustices that can occur when those in power abuse their authority. Deputy County Attorney Lori Ediemanis of the Maricopa County Attorney Office engaged in willful misconduct and malfeasance during my trial. She concealed both impeachment and exculpatory evidence, omitted material facts, and actively defrauded me of my home and private property, knowing otherwise with the evidence in her possession.

Specific Misconduct by Lori Ediemanis

• Concealing Evidence: Ediemanis withheld crucial information, including the criminal histories and arrest records of both Jamil Curd and Detective Marchele Miller. This evidence could have significantly impacted the credibility of these key figures in my case.
• Omitting Material Facts: Ediemanis failed to disclose that Jamil Curd was not a lawful resident in my home, a fact that was central to the charges brought against me.
• Impugning My Credibility: Despite my clean record with no previous criminal history or arrest record, Ediemanis focused on attacking my character while shielding the questionable backgrounds of others involved.

This misconduct was not only unethical but also illegal. It violated my constitutional rights and resulted in a wrongful and unlawful conviction that drastically altered my life.

---

Notable Cases of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Several high-profile cases highlight the devastating impact of prosecutorial misconduct:

1. Michael Morton: Wrongfully convicted of his wife’s murder in Texas in 1987, Morton spent nearly 25 years in prison. It was later revealed that the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, had withheld evidence that could have proven Morton’s innocence. Anderson was eventually sentenced to 10 days in jail and lost his law license—a slap on the wrist compared to the years Morton lost.
2. Anthony Graves: Sentenced to death in 1994 for a crime he did not commit, Graves spent 18 years in prison, 12 of them on death row. His conviction was based on the false testimony of a co-defendant, which the prosecutor knew was false. The prosecutor, Charles Sebesta, was eventually disbarred but faced no criminal charges.

Legal Framework and Accountability

Despite the clear violations of constitutional rights, prosecutors often escape significant punishment. The doctrine of absolute immunity shields prosecutors from civil suits for actions related to their official duties, as established in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976). This means that even if they engage in egregious misconduct, they cannot be held personally liable in civil court.

However, there are mechanisms within the legal system intended to address prosecutorial misconduct:

• State Bar Associations: These organizations can discipline prosecutors for ethical violations, including disbarment.
• Criminal Prosecutions: Although rare, prosecutors can be criminally charged for their misconduct.
• Civil Rights Lawsuits: Under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, victims of prosecutorial misconduct can sue for damages, but absolute immunity often protects prosecutors from liability.

International Oversight and Remedies

When domestic systems fail to hold rogue prosecutors accountable, international mechanisms may offer recourse:

• International Criminal Court (ICC): While primarily focused on war crimes and crimes against humanity, the ICC can bring attention to systemic human rights abuses, including those perpetrated by judicial systems.
• United Nations Human Rights Council: Individuals and organizations can submit complaints about human rights violations, prompting investigations and reports that can pressure governments to act.
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: For individuals in the Americas, this body can investigate human rights violations and issue recommendations.

---

What Can Be Done?

Addressing prosecutorial misconduct requires a multifaceted approach:

1. Legislative Reforms: Implementing laws that limit or eliminate absolute immunity for prosecutors, ensuring they can be held civilly and criminally liable for misconduct.
2. Independent Oversight: Establishing independent commissions to investigate and prosecute cases of prosecutorial misconduct.
3. Transparency and Accountability: Requiring full transparency in prosecutorial decisions and actions, with regular audits and public reporting.
4. Victim Compensation: Creating funds to compensate victims of wrongful convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct, funded by fines imposed on offending prosecutors.
5. International Pressure: Leveraging international bodies to hold countries accountable for failing to address systemic prosecutorial misconduct.

Conclusion

The unchecked power of prosecutors who violate constitutional rights undermines the very foundation of justice. While the current system often protects these individuals, there are pathways to accountability. Through legislative reform, independent oversight, and international pressure, we can begin to hold these rogue prosecutors accountable and restore faith in the justice system. By shining a light on these injustices and advocating for change, we can ensure that no one else suffers from the abuses of those sworn to uphold the law.

---

For more insights and to join the fight for justice, visit ewingsamuels.com.

Until Next Time…

I Am,

Ewing Redmond Samuels III

---