From: Harvey, Steven (sharvey@co.coconino.az.us)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 12:25:26 MST
In response to my previous post:
As a
> practicing criminal defense attorney, I can attest that this is not
> the case. Selective prosecution is not a defense. Who to prosecute
> is within the discretion of the prosecutors, & the only remnedy is to
> vote them out of office. The accused cannot prevail on a claim of
> selective prosecution. What must be shown is that the particular
> prosecution is malicious, which is very different. Steven Harvey
Rael wrote:
### Ooops. I guess I made a mistake here. I assumed that availability of
records showing that the prosecutors habitually ignore a crime would be
sufficient to sway a jury. Let's say, if you had video recordings of
hundreds of cars speeding by a police car, with only one of them being
(apparently randomly) selected for a stop - could you introduce it in a case
defending the selected person? What if that person was minority? What is the
meaning of "malicious prosecution"?
I respond:
Mere randomness isn't objectionable. In fact most speeders, drug
users, etc. aren't apprehended. Nor do police methods generally aim at
discovering all offenders. (IMO)
If the person was a minority, then this could form the basis for a
legal challenge.
{assuming that many non-minority offenders were seen but ignored.) Because
minority status is an impermissible basis for the exercise of discretion.
Malicious prosecution is where the State prosecutes a case having
actual knowledge of the innocence of the accused, for some ulterior motive.
(Rough definition - in my jurisdiction, at least)
Hope this is of general interest
Steven Harvey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST