Prosecutorial Misconduct and Constitutional Remedies

Henning, Peter J.

Journal: Washington University Law Review

Volume: 77

First Page: 713

Year: 1999

Bluebook Citation: 77 WASH. U. L. REV. 713 (1999)

Author: Peter J. Henning: all 16 publications


Abstract

This Article analyzes the Supreme Court’s determination of whether prosecutorial misconduct violated a defendant’s rights, as well as the related issue of what constitutional remedies are available to redress the prosecutor’s violation. The issues are connected because the Court frequently refers to prosecutorial intent as a facet of its misconduct analysis. The Article maintains that reliance on actual intent is misguided because it can elevate punishing a prosecutor to deter future misconduct above granting a constitutional remedy to correct harm to a defendant. Moreover, in the one instance in which the Court sanctions judicial inquiry into prosecutorial motives, the exercise of peremptory challenges, the result has been to create an impression of injustice.

The Article concludes that, rather than misinterpreting constitutional protections to permit relief as a deterrent to future prosecutorial misconduct, courts should employ non-constitutional means to police the conduct of prosecutors.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.