I believe the latest example was a DA in North Carolina called Nifong. The Innocence Project has exonerated and freed 200 convicts with DNA exculpatory evidence, IIRC. I'm not saying all of these prosecutors are evil, but there have been quite a few cases of prosecutors deliberately witholding exculpatory evidence.
In fairness, I don't believe that all prosecutors are ravenously, dangerously political animals whose only concern is their "win rate". I'm sure the majority are good men and women who want to protect society from the animals that they regularly prosecute. That said, I hear stories about prosecutors clearly prosecuting innocent people far too many times to be comfortable sentencing people to death.
You know what they say about opinions.
While I'm a supporter of the death penalty, I believe it should only be handed out in certain situations, where there's absolutely NO doubt of the murder's guilt. Examples include John Wayne Gayce, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, etc...
If there's even the slightest possibility of innocence, the death penalty should not be given.
I used to do some work for a legal group here in KC called Public Interest Litigation Clinic, and just one of their "successes" is the release of Joseph Amrine, who was accused of the stabbing death of another prisoner while in jail. The only witnesses against him were other prisoners, one of whom was the actual murderer, the others who later admitted that they lied while on the stand. However, even when they admitted that they had lied, the prosecution stated that since they were convicted criminals, their assertion that they lied wasn't enough to give Amrine another trial - Interesting how their testimony WAS enough to convict him of a capital crime, though. The ugliest part of it was when the prosecution admitted that while he may have been innocent of the crime, he did receive a fair trial, and therefore still needed to be executed. At one time, he was only a few hours from being executed. The appeals court disagreed, and he was granted a new trial and eventually released. Here's a bit of what PILC had to say on the matter:
Joseph Amrine was convicted and sentenced to death solely on the testimony of jailhouse informants who have admitted that their bought-and-paid-for testimony against Amrine was false. The most reliable eye-witness, Corrections Officer John Noble, implicates Amrine's very first accuser, Terry Russell, in Barber's death. Only hours before Barber was stabbed, Russell was released from disciplinary confinement imposed for attacking Barber scarcely a week earlier. New evidence establishes that without question, Amrine is innocent. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc observed that "[t]he strength of Amrine's showing at this point raises the real possibility that his case may be an example of the 'extremely rare' scenario for which the actual innocence exception is intended." 128 F.3d at 1228. Nevertheless, the Missouri Attorney General continues to press for Amrine's execution, using legal technicalities to prevent him from obtaining a new trial.
From the moment that he was accused, Amrine has denied involvement in the stabbing of fellow inmate Gary Barber. Against Amrine's steadfast claim of innocence, supported by the only law enforcement officer witness to Barber's stabbing and a plausible alibi defense, the state has only the self-serving and disavowed testimony of inmates Randall Ferguson, Jerry Poe and Terry Russell, given in exchange for their safety and freedom. If the state had to prove its case against Amrine on the evidence now available, it could not do so. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals observed, "If the trial testimony of Poe, Ferguson, and Russell were not credited, there would appear to be no evidence implicating Amrine in Barber's murder." Amrine v. Bowersox, 128 F.3d 1222, 1228-29. (8th Cir. 1997)(en banc). The trial prosecutor, Tom Brown, admitted that without the three inmates who now admit they committed perjury at trial, "we would not have had a case," and charges would have to be dismissed. or the court would have had to direct a verdict of acquittal.
Mark