Can a district / attorney arbitrarily decide not to prosecute a case or is their some direct oversight?

Question

Or go after somebody for which no evidence exists for that matter? Obviously, in some states the people can vote them out of office, but what about statutes, do they restrict prosecutoral behavior at all?

Answer 1

the district attorney can use his or her discretion to NOT prosecute a case if, for example, they feel that there are exceptional circumstances that would prevent a conviction, or if they feel that they have a stronger case on another charge. one of the best examples of prosecutorial discretion involves juvenile offending because the da does have some ability, depending on the state, to charge the child as an adult, or a child, or to recommend some type of treatment rather than judicial resolution of the matter at all

however, they are ethically bound to NOT pursue a case for which NO evidence exists.

Answer 2

In most states there are laws and guidelines for every public servant to follow. If it can be proven that a District Attorney has purposely and wrongly attempted to prosecute someone he can be sued for "Malicious Prosecution" civily. There is also a charge called Malfesance in Office (spelling?). The office of the District Attorney can decide not to prosecute a case based on lack of enough evidence to establish a prima facia case. In NY the term used is "343". That term comes from the old Criminal Procedure Law codes.

Answer 3

Their are guideline the D.A. must follow but if you think that somethings not right my advice would be to go to your local library and look in the legal section and look up a case called :
Wayte v. U.S., 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) or look in the law journal of the ; 34 Georgetown Law Journal Annotated Review of Criminal Procedure (2005) p.197,under:Prosecutorial Discretion Notes; 646, 647,& 648. An Excerpt from the book reads as this:

"Quote"; Courts recognize broad discretion to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions, in part out of regard for the seperation of powers doctrine, and in part because prosecutorial decisions are "particularlly ill-suited to judicial review". So long as there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed an offense, the decision to prosecute rests within the prosecuter's discretion. A prosecuter may also decide what charges to bring, when to bring them, and where to bring them. A prosecuter also has far-reaching authority to decide whether to investigate, grant immunity, negotiate a plea bargain, or dismiss charges. (end quote). There is a couple of pages also that deal with a prosecuter recomending lienentcy or waveing charges in return for testimony. I hope this helps.
GOD BLESS/GOOD LUCK!!

Answer 4

I can only speak for Hennepin County MN but I should think this is pretty basic. The job of the DA is not what most people think. Their job is to see that justice is administered properly NOT to see that there is a guilty verdict. Most DA's and federal prosecutors do not abide by this and will go after a guilty verdict no matter what the evidence suggests because they only think of their "track record", win-loss record which really perverts justice. (Ever heard of prosecutorial misconduct?) A good DA once he goes over the evidence has the option (not the final say) of at least going before the judge and submitting a motion of dismissal. It's the final discretion of the judge but I can't imagine a judge second guessing a prosecutor and forcing him to go to trial.

Answer 5

DA's generally have sole authority to decide which cases to prosecute, or not. If you have evidence of a DA not doing his job, then you can use the judicial system, and go up the chain to a higher authority, who will force the DA to do his job with a writ of mandamus.

Answer 6

They "go after" the cases they think they can win.

Like any lawyer, they have a budget and must put their resources where they will do the most good.