Post-Conviction Review on Trial: When do Appellate Courts Correct for Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Author:

Scheuerman Heather L.1ORCID,Griffiths Elizabeth2,Medwed Daniel S.3

Affiliation:

1. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

2. Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA

3. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract

Appellate courts sometimes provide relief in cases where prosecutors engage in certain actions, either free from scrutiny during investigation (backstage) or under judicial oversight during litigation (front-stage), that go beyond their authority and the law. Yet little is known about how the nature and types of prosecutorial misconduct recognized by appellate courts systematically affect their decisions to provide relief. Using data from the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, we analyze 150 appellate court cases between 2010 and 2015 in which prosecutorial misconduct is substantiated by the courts. We find that higher courts are more likely to correct for cases involving multiple types of misconduct and for cases in which the misconduct occurs “backstage,” outside of judicial oversight, rather than during litigation.

Funder

James Madison University

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Law,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Reference71 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3