Prosecutors in the states are known as district attorneys, state attorneys, or have other similar names. Although a prosecutor regularly deals with police officers, witnesses, and victims, the prosecutor’s primary obligation is not to serve the interests of these parties.
Mr. Durham, the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut, has investigated potential wrongdoing by the F.B.I. and C.I.A. for the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, in 2018.
However sympathetic to the suffering of a victim, the prosecutor is also not the victim’s lawyer. Instead, the prosecutor’s duty is to serve the cause of justice. The prosecutor’s true client is justice itself, which means that the prosecutor must exercise discretion (sound judgment) at every step in a criminal investigation, trial, and beyond.
But prosecutors were trying to make a broader case against Trump himself, on a different matter: his company’s real estate valuation practices.
RNLA President David Bowsher writes about the success RNLA had in 2021 as we resumed...
There is no better time to officially join the RNLA. The RNLA boasts chapters around the country where you are provided the opportunity to network with like-minded professionals and join the movement to help ensure open, fair, and honest elections. Click HERE to learn more.
Join the RNLA every other Friday for a deep dive into the most pressing legal and political topics of the week. Webinars are bi-weekly and an exclusive benefit for members. Visit our Events Page to register.
Representative Jamie Raskin , who began drafting the article of impeachment against President Trump mere hours after insurrectionists descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6, will serve as lead impeachment manager. His role will make him the lead prosecutor in the Senate trial.
The nine House members who will serve as the prosecution team in the Senate trial include notable players from Trump’s first impeachment.
Trump responsible for inciting violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and said the impeachment charge was intended to “defend the integrity of the republic.”
Raskin also wrote the resolution that called on former Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to relieve Mr. Trump of presidential powers.
In 2019, shortly after his election to Congress, he supported Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. In a statement about his appointment as an impeachment manager, Mr. Neguse said that Mr. Trump’s perpetuation of “harmful misinformation about the integrity of election results” had contributed to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.
Mr. Castro, who voted to impeach Mr. Trump in 2019, sat in on hearings as a member of the Intelligence committee during the former president’s first impeachment inquiry and during public questioning ahead of the drafting of impeachment articles. A Harvard-educated lawyer, Mr. Castro worked in private practice before his days in Congress ...
Dive into the background of the nine impeachment managers Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to present the case to the Senate in the second impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump, and a common thread will emerge: deep experience in the law.
Most criminal appeals and writs are lost by the defendants, and most are handled routinely by the prosecutor’s office. But now and then the prosecutor, when examining the arguments put forth by the appellant, decides that the appeal or the writ has merit.
Updated: Dec 30th, 2020. Prosecutors are lawyers who investigate, charge, and prosecute (take to trial) people whom they think have committed a crime. In the federal system, United States Attorneys are appointed by the President to run regional offices; they in turn hire assistant prosecutors. Prosecutors in the states are known as district ...
Not much, but here’s a run-down of how abusive prosecutors can be brought to heel:
In most federal and state courts, prosecutors and defense counsel have a conversation at some point about “settling this matter.” In exchange for a guilty plea (sometimes to a specific crime), the prosecutor agrees to ask for a specific sentence (in some courts, the judge is part of the bargain, agreeing in advance to impose the agreed-upon sentence). The defendant avoids the risk of ending up with more convictions and a harsher sentence; the prosecutor avoids the risk of losing the case altogether, and resolving the case removes it from the prosecutor’s busy schedule (not an insignificant factor).
Furthering the cause of justice is the primary role of the prosecutor, but many practical considerations influence the prosecutor’s decisions to pursue some cases, but not others. Among them are: 1 the sheer number of criminal statutes; prosecutors couldn’t possibly enforce them all and must decide which ones are most important and which violations are worthy of punishment 2 the limited number of prosecutors, courts, and prison capacity 3 the unique character of any suspected criminal incident—some witnesses are credible, but those that are not cannot support a reasonable prosecution, and 4 the need to take the individuals involved into account. For example, a prosecution might do more harm to the victim, or a victim may implore the prosecutor not to pursue the case. Whether to proceed in these situations (balancing individual justice with enforcing the law) is one of the most difficult decisions that prosecutors make.
The American Bar Association’s Standards for Criminal Justice identify these factors that may be at work when prosecutors make charging decisions: the prosecutor’s reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. the extent of the harm caused by the offense.
A prosecutor's charging decisions set the stage for the conviction and sentencing. The law defines the offense and its punishment, and the judge must sentence within the confines of the law for the convicted offense. Even if the defendant beats some of the charges or ends up convicted of lesser offenses, the court’s power has been circumscribed to some degree by the prosecutor's initial charging decision.
In another radio segment, Mitchell said that last September she told Trump and his chief of staff, Mark Meadows , there was a “massive effort to steal the election”.
At a CNP national meeting in mid November one panel featured Mitchell, Christian Adams the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (Pilf), and other lawyers discussing “Election results and legal battles: What now?”
Mitchell, who also chairs Pilf, which received $300,000 in 2020 from the Bradley foundation, has indicated it could get active in the legal battles over the new Georgia law.
FreedomWorks’ president, Adam Brandon, has hailed Mitchell as “an outspoken advocate and voice of reason for improved election laws, especially during the chaotic 2020 election cycle”, and dubbed her “our guide”, chairing its election initiative, which will also include training and deploying activists in the states to monitor election procedures.
The House counsel’s office is also tasked with helping lawmakers and their offices when it comes to certain legal matters, like whether proposed legislation would hold up in court or if it would be in conflict with federal or state laws.
During one particularly busy stretch in May, Letter defended a subpoena for records from Trump’s private accountant in federal court in Washington, D.C. Three days later he was arguing in a California court against the Trump administration’s ability to use military funds for a wall on the southern border.