What about Ethics?

 

I was looking over a case Masters vs Gilmore, et.al.  It’s a case of a prosecutor’s misconduct. The beginning of the lawsuit cites the ethical canons of the office of prosecutor. I thought they would be interesting food for thought. 

Canon 5 of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Canons of Professional Ethics adopted in 1908 provides:
The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, butto see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the secreting of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible.


In turn, Ethical Consideration (“EC”) 7-13 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility
adopted in 1969 provides:

The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate;his duty is to seek justice not merely to convict. … With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice: the prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence, known to him, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused,mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.

These principles have been acknowledged by the Colorado Supreme Court in

People v.District Court, 632 P.2d 1022 (Colo. 1981). The Court stated

Our analysis begins with recognition that the duty of the prosecutor is to seek

justice, not merely convict. As stated in Singer v. United States, “… the (prosecutor) in a criminal prosecution is not an ordinary party to a controversy, but is a ‘servant of the law’ with a‘twofold aim … that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.’”

… But there is more. These principles are enshrined in the jurisprudence of the United

States Supreme Court. See Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.,

481 U.S. 787(1987); Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965). In Young, the Supreme Court said


This distinctive role of the prosecutor is expressed in [EC] 7-13 of Canon 7 of the[ABA] Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1982): “The responsibility ofa public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.”


...These principles even find expression chiseled into the stone of the Robert F. Kennedy Center (Department of Justice Headquarters, Washington, D.C., constructed in 1935)

where it is admonished that [t]he United States wins its case whenever justice is done one of its citizens in the Courts.”  


Implicit in these principles is the notion that justice be done to victims, to their families,and to the United States Constitution. This happens when fundamental fairness applies to convict the truly guilty. Bedrock principles, yes. Fundamental and objectively reasonable
within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,of course. And, these principles long pre-date the events of the case now before this Court.  


Now, average citizen, I defy you to look at the Billings’ Murder case and the role of the prosecutor and find any actions within this ethical requirements.  If these things are supposed to be the status quo, how can a man be tried, convicted and sentenced to death in 3 days?

A Million Years from Now

A Million Years from Now

A million years from now,
what  will you see?
the good times
the bad times
the tough times
all from memory.
A million years from now,
what will I see?
the good times
the bad times
the tough times
and how you stood here for me.
L. Patrick Gonzalez Jr.
Florida Death Row

 

 

The Billings’ Murders: An Editorial by Sue Bradley

As I’ve said before, this blog is about getting “Justice” for those that didn’t get it. In Pensacola, Florida, it appears that this is an impossibility for some. If you are not well liked in Pensacola, and you are not in the political clique, then you get accused, convicted and sentenced without a shred of evidence.
Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. and I were not friends in the past and because he has been a hot head with a big mouth, so many people don’t think it matters whether he’s innocent or not. I’m here to tell you that no one regardless of the majority’s opinion should be sitting on Death Row without any evidence against them. If this was you, or a member of your family that this happened to, then wouldn’t you want them to have every opportunity to have a fair and just trial? I don’t believe this has happened in the Billings Murder Case. Not for Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. or any of the other co-defendants in this case.
I believe, that 5 years later, there are more questions than answers. I challenge any of you reading this blog to take a good hard look at the evidence in this case. I believe you will find that the murder has gone unsolved!

One person in the case got immunity for turning states evidence. Has anyone with a brain looked at the statement of that witness? It is a FARCE….plain and simple. The witness talks in circles. He contradicts his testimony over and over. He actually corroborates statements made by Gonzalez, Jr., in his first police interrogation, concerning the Mexican and Gulf Coast cartels. No one believed Gonzalez, Jr. even though he said he feared for his life and the life of his family. However, the witness is given immunity while proving no insight or evidence.
This witness is the only person that has actual physical evidence against them. As an intelligent person, I don’t understand it. Is there a cover up that needs to be investigated? If there is, then who do we get to listen and review the evidence? Who is powerful enough to get to the bottom of this case?
Most of this case is open for the public to review. Do “we the people” really want to see another person die for something they didn’t do? I certainly don’t. I have no stake in this case. No one involved is related to me nor am I receiving anything for the time I spend on this case. I–simply as a fellow human being–believe in the justice system and believe that the guilty should pay for their crimes. However, I believe that in this case, Justice has not been done. I believe innocent people are in prison that shouldn’t be and I believe anyone that takes an unbiased look at the evidence will see that.