Posted: August 26th, 2022

Misconduct in Courts

Misconduct in Courts
The judicial system uses corrective law in deciding most cases, which consist of legal paternalism, legal morality, and legal positivist law. Most of the time, individuals have no rights apart from those provided by the constitution. Various legal sources have created three types of laws, interpretationalism, strict constructionism, and natural laws (Bathurst, and Schwartz, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). The judges may apply the laws in making various decisions or by attorneys in the defense process. According to strict constructionists, the constitution should be implemented exactly, such as the conservative judges. On the other hand, liberal judges believe that the law keeps changing, and the constitution keeps adjusting (Olalere, 2020). Liberal judges find themselves applying laws that favor the social and natural laws based on morality, hence easy to fall into misconduct, such as faulty observation proceeding.
Malcolm Alexander is a victim of flawed eye witness identification procedure, an ineffective trial lawyer (Olalere, 2020).. The case of Malcolm Alexander is one of the many cases that are exonerated after wrongful conviction. Judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel misconduct are critical issues in the united states criminal justice system. Judges are the sole reason why most people are behind bars, including Malcolm Alexander. According to Malcolm’s case, was as a result of a flawed lawyer trial in court and unreliable identification, which is a form of judicial misconduct, and procedural misconduct caused by judges’ dishonesty (Zyberi, 2017).
The flawed identification procedure leads to the provision of sentences that goes beyond the appealable era. Malcolm Alexander was arrested in 1979 for rape allegations towards the director of a new antique store in Grena (Bathurst, and Schwartz, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). According to the court, the white rape victim was taken from the store by a black man and taken to a private dark and small bathroom at the antique store’s back. In 1980, Alexander experienced a white woman who asked alexander for money and later complained of sexual assault. The police officer placed the alleged photo in a frame. After the rape case, police, the case was investigated, and in identifying the criminal, alexander’s photo was provided for review (Zyberi, 2017). The woman, chode alexander since had no idea on how the suspect looked like. Although Alexander’s photo was the only one in the physical line-up, police officers conducted the investigation further.
Additionally, the physical line-up procedure was not conducted by the lead detective in the case. Another detective carried out the procedure who assumed alexander’s photo and the man identified by alexander previously to be different. After taking a statement and comparing the handwriting to that of the word tentative written next to alexander’s name previously, the detective provided that alexander was ninety-eight percent the assailant (Zyberi, 2017). Detectives and other investigative officers play a major role in providing faulty evidence and misinterpreted eyewitnesses. The detective did not carry out the further test, such as a blood test, which could have provided legit information.
Judicial and procedural and procedural misconduct occurs due to a judge’s negligence in examining evidence. According to the judicial rules, judges are supposed to examine and decide what evidence to exclude and consider. Judges ensure prosecutors present valid witnesses and evidence in court, wherein in case of a Brady material, the judge excludes the evidence (Bathurst, and Schwartz, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). In Malcolm’s case, the evidence provided was based on facts and not valid evidence, such as a blood test or DNA testing (Zyberi, 2017). In Malcolm’s case, other types of prosecution and judicial misconduct include failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, the introduction of false evidence, making a false judgment, and use of personal opinion in making decisions. Judges must understand the importance of proffered evidence.
The judge was too quick to judge based on his interpretation of the law instead of following the written constitution and written code of ethics (Olalere, 2020).
During the trial, Alexander did not show up; neither did his attorney conducted an opening statement. The attorney did not cross-examine witnesses concerning the identification of alexander or calling out witnesses for the defense. Instead, the attorney provided an eighty-seven-page transcript of the case in a closing argument (Bathurst, and Schwartz, 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). The court charged alexander for a life sentence, which was a wrongful conviction. Failure of lawyers to perform their duties, such as represent a client in court, is misconduct; defense attorneys should act professionally and undertake their responsibilities as agreed by the client. Ineffective assistance of counsel is defense misconduct is a major cause of wrongful convictions.
Bad lawyering is prohibited under the sixth amendment right to counsel. Attorneys should investigate prosecution witnesses, provide experts to challenge the prosecution’s physical evidence, and appear for a hearing. When a lawyer is allocated money for defense, the lawyer should present the client in court. Malcolm Alexander’s attorney is considered ineffective because the performance was ineffective in court (Zyberi, 2017).. Due to the attorney’s negligence and misconduct, the case would have been ruled fairly to avoid wrongful convictions. According to research, reversing a wrongful such as Alexander Malcolm is difficult, where the court denies most DNA exoneration cases. On the other hand, ineffective assistant counsel in Alexander’s case involves failing to interview alibi, failing to demand DNA testing to determine whether Alexander was guilty, and not reporting a conflict of interest.
References
Bathurst, T. F., & Schwartz, S. (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online, September). Illegally or improperly obtained evidence: In defence of Australia’s discretionary approach. In Judicial Review: Selected Conference Papers: Journal of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, The (Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 79). Judicial Commission of NSW.
Olalere, F. A. (2020). Case study account of causes and legal implication of wrongful conviction. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 11(2), 122-134.
Zyberi, G. (2017). Dealing with Professional Misconduct by Defense Counsel During International Criminal Proceedings.

Write My Paper