Color me amazed - and skeptical
The ABA journal had an article yesterday about an Oklahoma prosecutor who is facing an ethics complaint for his conduct in a capital murder case. The bar association claims the lawyer used an eyewitness who he should have known was lying. The prosecutor of course insists the witness was telling the truth, and his lawyer has complained that he did not participate in a post-conviction hearing, and therefore didn't get to tell his side of the story. (sounds kind of like a grand jury).
I don't know the facts, but I would assume they are pretty compelling. It's not easy to prove a witness testified falsely - even when they admit it. Unless you have some type of physical evidence, the court will often find an explanation for the change other than they lied. I'm guessing there must be a lot more here that I don't know. Especially since the defendant was granted relief in federal court - not exactly and everyday occurrence.
I've said before here, here, and here that prosecutors have no incentive to vet the evidence they put on. The standard response is "we'll let the jury decide". The screening process is amost non-existent; while they should weed out questionable cases - and evidence - at the outset, very few prosecutors do that. And why should they? The worst that can happen is that they get a not guilty.
Prosecutors are almost completely immune from civil suits, which leaves only the bar to police their conduct. They have not had a history of doing so, which makes this case all the more interesting.
I have no idea what the ultimate outcome will be. However, even if no sanctions are imposed, a message has still been sent - as prosecutors are so fond of arguing. Maybe prosecutors will look a little more closely at the evidence they put out there, and think twice before calling that witness who even they have doubts about.
