Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards
Research the Internet and locate at least one real-life example of each of the following:
• Prosecutorial misconduct
• Ineffective assistance by criminal defense counsel
• Judicial misconduct
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in which you summarize each example and address the following questions:
What did the prosecutor do wrong? How does immunity protect the prosecutor from the consequences of his or her misconduct?
What did the criminal defense attorney do wrong? What is the Strickland v. Washington standard? Refer to Ch. 10 of Courts and Criminal Justice in America. How do the performance prong and the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard apply to the example?
What did the judge do wrong? Which judicial selection option—either appointment, election, or merit—would help to reduce instances of judicial misconduct?
How does the misconduct or ineffectiveness of these courtroom participants reflect or thwart the crime control model of criminal justice? How does the misconduct or ineffectiveness of these courtroom participants reflect or thwart the due process model of criminal justice?
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Courtroom Participations’ Professional Standards Name: Institutional Affiliation: Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards Prosecutorial Misconduct Prosecutorial misconduct happens when the prosecution mishandles evidence, withholds information, or fabricates details to achieve a particular outcome. A case illustrating prosecutorial misconduct is that of Pottawattamie V. McGhee. In the case, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington were sued and convicted of murder in 1978 and handed a life incarceration sentence. The Pottawattamie County found the two men guilty of killing a retired police officer, John Schweer who was working then as a security guard. However, in 2002, the judgment was reversed, and the two men were released in 2003. The prosecutors had knowingly withheld information regarding another potential suspect, hence violating the due process rights of the accused. The prosecutors coerced testimonies, manufactured, and fabricated evidence that led to the conviction of the men (Rosenzweig, Shatz, and Pierre, 2009). In 2005, McGhee and Harrington su