According to the article:
Florida has adopted American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. ABA Standard 3-1.3 Conflicts of Interest provides in pertinent part:
(f) A prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial, business, property, or personal interests.
(f) A prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial, business, property, or personal interests.
I hope Harvard recorded her rant. Then again she might just claim that she was ranting in code.
The ABA Standards are written like the “Pirates Code” from “Pirates of the Carribean;” they should be thought of more as guidelines rather than rules. It says they “shouldn’t allow their professional judgment to be affected” but it is ambiguous. It allows a prosecutor to say “sure I signed a book deal for a million bucks, but that didn’t get in the way of doing my job.” Yeah, right.
I was bored and looked up the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Their Rule for Special Duties of Prosecutors states:
Rule 4-3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial rights such as a right to a preliminary hearing;
(c) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.
I practice in Indiana, and while Florida’s rule is similar, it is not as specific as Indiana’s. Our Rule 3.8 states:
Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
In an Indiana case decided last year (didn’t have time to look it up), the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor’s financial deal regarding a pending case is exculpatory evidence under subsection (d) of this rule, and the prosecutor is required to disclose. If I recall the opinion correctly, it also held that these financial arrangements acted to disqualify the prosecutor. In the case, the defense suspected the prosecutor signed a book deal, and specifically requested it be disclosed. The prosecutor refused.