Case scenario analysis and reaction
In and out of court cases the prosecution has certain ethical guidelines and requirements they must follow as an officer of the court. Should they come into knowledge of a crime or breach in code of ethics the prosecutor is required to report these discrepancies to the court whether or not this means damaging their case. In this case if the prosecution had known of a violation of the individual's rights by the police they would have been legally and ethically required to report this issue to the court whether or not it would hurt or help their conviction in court.
These expectations of reporting by the prosecution as well as all ethical codes are greatly enhanced by the court system themselves. Constant stop and review by the system at each step means that at any time should a branch of the law breach their code of ethics they are more likely to be caught in this. The more often ethical codes and discrepancies within a case are reviewed the more likely they are to be caught in violation of these ethics. The requirement of the prosecution to report any known breach of ethics also greatly heightens the bar of ethical requirement within the court system.
[...] (2010). ?Non-Media? Jury Prejudice and Rule Lessons from Enron. Review of Litigation, 133-158. Eakin, M. (2009, July 27). Media Ethics with a Life at Stake: The Sam Sheppard Murder Trial. The Institute for Applied & Professional Ethics. Retrieved September from http://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2001- conferences/media-ethics-with-a-life-at- Stake-the-same-sheppard-murder-trial/index.html. Double Jeopardy Legal Definition of Double Jeopardy. [...]
[...] The protection of the system from bias is also a key role in this idea so as to protect not only the individual but also the integrity of the system itself. Those in power are unable to abuse the courts and justice system as well as legislation to their liking to change an undesirable outcome. This meaning, that a judge or prosecutor cannot retry a case simply because they did not like the outcome the first time a defendant was tried. However, in some cases double jeopardy does not apply because the original case did not reach the required stage in the process to qualify as a first charge. [...]
[...] In the trial of O.J. Simpson public opinion weighed so highly on the jury as well as the media that many of the criminal justice system and public at large believe a retrial should have been in order after a biased jury handed down sentencing. The defendant's lack of testimony also greatly affected the jury's decision by creating a feeling of arrogance and carelessness by the defendant for the case. This could also cause a unanimous feeling that the defendant did not wish to defend his own case due to guilt. [...]
[...] That being said there are exceptions to the new evidence rule. If there is such a huge change in the evidence presented by the prosecution that heightens the strength of their case to extremes a judge may approve a retrial at their discretion. In the defendants eyes double jeopardy is considered to be one of the greatest changes of the modern day criminal justice system. To an individual charged of a crime not only are they protected from later financial and social issues from not only employment but also the community, it also protects from the emotional trauma of a trial and prosecution by those around them. [...]