To make it more clear:
Say that a girl is a witness to a murder. She was hit with a blunt object, therefore having to be hospitalized for a day. During the first hearing, she wished to testify in court. It is obvious that her boyfriend is vengeful, reasons being that she was injured. Can her boyfriend prosecute the suspect?
2007-10-23 12:20:05 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Actually, it's not a conflict of interest, least of all a "blatant" one. The mere existence of some kind of a personal interest in the subject matter of the litigation does not amount to a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which an attorney represents someone whose interests are adverse -- ADVERSE -- to the interests of another client or to the attorney's personal interests. There is no adversity here. The attorney's personal interests -- to see the defendant convicted because he had hurt his girlfriend -- are identical to the interests of his client, the State. If the witness' boyfriend was the defense attorney -- now, THAT would be a conflict of interest. In the fact pattern given, however, there is no legal problem with the witness' boyfriend prosecuting the case.
However, for this guy to act as the prosecutor is still a bad idea as a matter of STRATEGY. A personal stake in the case can interfere with his competence as a prosecutor and boost any future claims by the defendant of fraud, fabrication, etc.
2007-10-23 13:51:35 · answer #1 · answered by Rеdisca 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cases on prosecuted on behalf of the 'state' or 'government'. When a complaint is issued against someone, it's the "State of (fill in the blank) vs. defendant's name. It is not John Jones or boyfriend or neighbor vs. so and so. The state is the complainant. Everyone else is a potential witness. So it's not a matter of the boyfriend having an option to prosecute or not prosecute. It's a matter of whether the prosecuting agency (district attorney) chooses to prosecute because evidence is sufficient to do that, and the prosecution on behalf of the State. I hope that doesn't sound overly confusing, but that's the gist of theory.
2007-10-23 12:34:57 · answer #2 · answered by nothing 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The prudent prosecutor would discuss the matter with the judge before proceeding. Judge may wish to put it to defense, but if judge sees no problem and prosecutor sees no problem, it would probably fly. Frankly, there are a metric tonne of rules of court concerning conduct and evidence that should be sufficient to prevent potential conflicts. Of course, if defense loses, conflict of interest might form the basis of an appeal. And MAYBE it would work, but probably not if the trial judge considered the matter and OK'd it.
2007-10-23 12:32:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would think that in the case where the prosecutor was in a significant relationship with a witness in the case he would probably have another prosecutor interview the witness and possibly try the case.
2007-10-23 12:25:35 · answer #4 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah sure, the law only prohibits the introduction of witnesses who are relatives up to 5th degree of consanguinity. and2nd degree of affinity.
2007-10-23 12:58:41 · answer #5 · answered by drinking master 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
don't really understand what the question is you are asking,.....can you be more specific??,.....oh i think i get it now,.....you are the prosecutors girl friend??,.....
2007-10-23 12:27:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that would be a clear conflict of interest.
2007-10-23 12:25:35 · answer #7 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
who is that fat bearded woman on David picture?
2007-10-23 12:30:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋