Defense Attorneys' Perceptions of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorPollock, Joycelyn
dc.contributor.authorCunningham, Shannon N.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberStafford, Mark
dc.contributor.committeeMemberBowman, Scott
dc.contributor.committeeMemberAcker, James
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-24T21:11:17Z
dc.date.available2016-10-24T21:11:17Z
dc.date.issued2016-07
dc.description.abstractAccording to the National Registry of Exonerations (2015), more than 1,500 individuals have been declared factually innocent or had a criminal conviction overturned in the United States since 1989, and official misconduct by government actors, including police and prosecutors, was a contributing factor in nearly half. Prosecutorial misconduct, despite being identified as a leading cause of wrongful convictions, is believed to be largely undetected. It has been posited that most instances of prosecutorial misconduct will never be discovered (Barkow, 2010), and an accurate assessment of the prevalence of prosecutorial misconduct has not been made. Prosecutors enjoy a great deal of autonomy in their work and remain isolated from the research community. They are generally difficult to access and are reluctant to share information (Johnson, 2014). Defense attorneys work with prosecutors regularly and have a unique opportunity to become aware of acts of misconduct. This exploratory study employed a mixed-methods approach, using both qualitative interviews and self-administered surveys to determine defense attorneys’ perceptions of the prevalence and types of prosecutorial misconduct, as well as their assessments of proposed responses to misconduct. Findings indicate that defense attorneys perceive prosecutorial misconduct as a relatively frequent event that is somewhat underreported, due in part to a fear of retaliation from prosecutors and a perception that the current sanctioning process is ineffective. Selective prosecution, the failure to disclose evidence, improper conduct with informants and/or witnesses, and improper conduct at the grand jury stage were identified as the most common types of prosecutorial misconduct. Increasing sanctions, increased training, and the open files policy were identified as promising responses to prosecutorial misconduct. Findings failed to find a relationship between prosecutorial experience and perceptions of the prevalence of misconduct.
dc.description.departmentCriminal Justice and Criminology
dc.formatText
dc.format.extent161 pages
dc.format.medium1 file (.pdf)
dc.identifier.citationCunningham, S. N. (2016). <i>Defense attorneys' perceptions of prosecutorial misconduct</i> (Unpublished dissertation). Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas.
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10877/6303
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectProsecutorial Misconduct
dc.subject.lcshProsecutorial misconducten_US
dc.subject.lcshCriminal justice, Administration of--Moral and ethical aspectsen_US
dc.subject.lcshLegal ethicsen_US
dc.titleDefense Attorneys' Perceptions of Prosecutorial Misconduct
dc.typeDissertation
thesis.degree.departmentCriminal Justice
thesis.degree.disciplineCriminal Justice
thesis.degree.grantorTexas State University
thesis.degree.levelDoctoral
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophy

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
CUNNINGHAM-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf
Size:
1.9 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
LICENSE.txt
Size:
2.13 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt
Size:
4.53 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download

Collections

Graduate Theses and Dissertations