Sentence Reduction as a Remedy for Prosecutorial Misconduct
Sonja B. Starr
University of Michigan Law School
September 2, 2008
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-31
Current remedies for prosecutorial misconduct, such as reversal of conviction or dismissal of charges, are rarely granted by courts and thus do not deter prosecutors effectively. Further, such all-or-nothing remedial schemes are often problematic from corrective and expressive perspectives, especially when misconduct has not affected the trial verdict. When granted, such remedies produce windfalls to guilty defendants and provoke public resentment, undermining their expressive value in condemning misconduct. To avoid such windfalls, courts must refuse to grant any remedy at all, either refusing to recognize violations or deeming them harmless. This often leaves significant non-conviction-related harms unremedied and egregious prosecutorial misconduct uncondemned.
This Article accordingly proposes adding sentence reduction to current all-or-nothing remedial schemes, arguing that this would provide courts with an intermediate remedy that they would be more willing to grant. It argues that several prosecutorial incentives combine to make sentence reduction an effective deterrent. Moreover, because sentence reduction could be tailored to the magnitude of the violation, it could resolve the windfall dilemma and serve as an effective corrective and expressive remedy.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 61
Keywords: prosecutorial misconduct, sentence reduction, remedial deterrence, harmless error, Batson, speedy trial, criminal procedure remedies, prosecutorial incentives, expressive remedies, deterrent remedies, corrective justiceworking papers series
Date posted: September 5, 2008
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.687 seconds