Defining the problem

Official misconduct occurs when a public servant abuses their authority or fails to fulfill their legal obligations during criminal proceedings. Official misconduct can be perpetrated by police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, medical examiners, or any other public servant participating in the criminal legal process. Official misconduct can not only lead to wrongful convictions that devastate lives, but also undermines public trust in the criminal legal system. While many officials serve with justice and integrity, even isolated instances of misconduct can have profound consequences.

The National Registry of Exonerations cites official misconduct as a factor in 59 percent of documented. wrongful convictions.

What does official misconduct look like?

Official misconduct can take many forms.

Prosecutorial misconduct:

  • Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: Failing to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant (Brady violations).
  • Misleading Arguments: Presenting false or misleading evidence or arguments to the court or jury.
  • Overcharging: Using excessive charges to coerce plea deals.
  • Encouraging False Testimony: Pressuring witnesses to provide testimony that fits the prosecution’s theory, even if it’s inaccurate.

Law enforcement misconduct:

  • Fabricating Evidence: Creating false evidence to support a case against the defendant.
  • Coercing Confessions: Using force, threats, or psychological manipulation to obtain false confessions.
  • Improper Identification Procedures: Suggestive lineups leading to mistaken eyewitness identifications.
  • Suppressing Evidence: Hiding or destroying exculpatory evidence.
  • Tunnel Vision: Focusing solely on a single suspect while ignoring contradictory evidence or alternative leads.

Misconduct by a judge:

  • Bias in Proceedings: Demonstrating favoritism toward the prosecution or otherwise failing to ensure a fair trial.
  • Improper Jury Instructions: Giving instructions to the jury that misstate the law or prejudice the defendant.
  • Allowing Improper Evidence: Allowing inadmissible or unreliable evidence to be presented to a jury.

Defense attorney misconduct:

  • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failing to investigate, prepare adequately for trial, call important witnesses, or meaningfully challenge the state’s presentation of their case.
  • Conflict of Interest: Representing clients while having personal or professional conflicts that impair their advocacy.

Medical examiner or forensic expert misconduct:

  • False or Misleading Testimony: Providing exaggerated or incorrect forensic conclusions.
  • Use of Junk Science: Relying on unvalidated or discredited forensic methods, such as bite mark analysis.
  • Failure to Disclose Limitations: Not informing the court or jury of the limitations of forensic evidence or test results.

Misconduct by other criminal legal actors:

  • Laboratory Personnel: Falsifying test results, contaminating evidence, or failing to follow protocols.
  • Corrections Officials: Tampering with inmate communications or retaliating against inmates who attempt to appeal their convictions.

Systemic factors

Official misconduct does not occur in a vacuum. There are numerous systemic factors that incentivize misconduct and hinder accountability. These factors include:

  • Lack of accountability mechanisms, such as oversight or disciplinary action for misconduct.
  • Incentive structures that reward convictions over justice.
  • Insufficient training on ethical obligations and forensic reliability.

Prevention and remedies

Police and prosecutors must be trained to avoid, and be held accountable for, using illegal means to obtain a criminal conviction. Immediate legal remedies include post-conviction relief, appeals, and civil rights lawsuits. Systemic reforms may aid in preventing wrongful convictions stemming from official misconduct. Examples of reform efforts include disciplinary action for prosecutors and law enforcement officers who engage in misconduct, implementation of evidence handling procedures, mandatory trainings for law enforcement, and various legislative reforms to address specific trends of misconduct.

Case Examples: Cassandra Black Elk and Edgar Barrientos-Quintana

Cassandra Black Elk was wrongfully convicted of felony child neglect after the death of her infant daughter. The theory of the state’s case hinged on an autopsy that investigators assumed would show that the child had been shaken to death. However, the autopsy showed no signs of abuse of neglect, was well cared for, and died from sudden, unexplained infant death syndrome. Additionally, the State’s attorney and investigators were present at the autopsy and learned of the medical examiner’s preliminary findings, but did not inform Cassandra or her defense counsel of this exculpatory evidence.  Cassandra’s defense counsel proved ineffective when he encouraged Cassandra to plead guilty before reviewing a copy of the autopsy results.  Her conviction was vacated due to this constitutionally deficient advice.

Edgar Barrientos-Quintana was convicted of murder in a drive by shooting death of 18-year-old Jesse Michelson. No physical evidence linked him to the crime, and his conviction was largely based on eyewitness testimony from juvenile witnesses with connections to a rival gang. Investigators used highly problematic eyewitness identification procedures that went against established best practices to obtain these eyewitness statements. Edgar’s defense attorney failed to present exculpatory evidence to the Court and failed to challenge the investigator’s and witnesses’ testimony during trial.  Investigators and prosecutors failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, amounting to Brady violations.  After weighing the totality of the misconduct by various actors in the criminal legal system, the court vacated Edgar’s conviction.