A Poisoned Prosecution

[JoeFin]

A Poisoned Prosecution
Misconduct in sexual abuse cases damages reputations--and can ruin lives

WASHINGTON, June 26, 2003 -- In May 1999, Robert Wasser's life was turned upside down when Walworth County, Wis., Assistant District Attorney Diane Resch charged him with fourth-degree sexual assault. The charge stemmed from a complaint filed by Wasser's then 20-year-old adopted daughter Samantha (not her real name).

Wasser and his wife Bonnie had dedicated their adult lives to helping abused and neglected children. Over the years, the couple had adopted 22 children and were on the state's list of parents who take in special needs kids. The state would sometimes use them for emergency placement when children had nowhere else to go. When the Wassers adopted 14-year-old Samantha, they knew the risks. Her previous foster father had sexually assaulted her, and she would need special care. But they had had success raising similar adopted children and were confident they could help her.

Wasser's troubles began one weekend when Samantha was home from Wisconsin Lutheran College, a four-year, coed liberal arts school in Milwaukee. Wasser found a handwritten note from Samantha to her boyfriend, a man she would later marry, about dropping out of college and leaving Wisconsin together. Wasser confronted Samantha about the note. Later, he drove her back to college.

The drive to Milwaukee was tense--but still, the conflict with Samantha seemed minor to Wasser, considering her painful past. All that changed, however, a few months later, when an overzealous prosecutor with a history of misconduct and a series of mistruths and outright lies turned a minor dispute into a major crisis. While the charges against him were eventually dismissed, he lost his job, his reputation was damaged, and he incurred the expense of a court battle. The woman who prosecuted him, and misled the court in the process, still has her job.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=sidebarsa&aid=26

[JoeFin]

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Imbler v. Pachtman that prosecutors should be protected by absolute immunity from civil lawsuits, reasoning that the threat of litigation from defendants might interfere with a prosecutor's job. The justices also assumed that supervisors and bar disciplinary boards would offer punishment enough to deter prosecutors from breaking rules. Research conducted since the Imbler decision suggests that in most prosecutors' offices and at most state disciplinary agencies, the justices' expectations are not being met: prosecutors are rarely disciplined for misconduct in the courtroom. The justices have not overridden the 1976 ruling.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=sidebarsb&aid=36

Unlike any private attorney, the local prosecutor--be he district attorney, county attorney, or criminal district attorney--is an elected official whose office is constitutionally mandated and protected. Prosecutors are still subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but they must police themselves at the trial court level because of their status as independent members of the judicial branch of government. Such a holding is not tantamount to making the fox guardian of the henhouse or letting the wolf keep watch on the flock, because a prosecutor who violates ethical rules is subject to the disciplining authority of the State Bar like any other attorney. Perhaps even more importantly, as mentioned above, his violation of the rules will subject his cases to reversal on appeal when his unprofessional conduct results in a denial of due process to a defendant. Lastly, he, like all elected public officials, must regularly answer to the will of the electorate. Should his conduct create too much appearance of impropriety and public suspicion, he will ultimately answer to the voters. -- State ex rel. Eidson v. Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1 (Tx. 1990)
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=sidebarsb&aid=39

[K9]

When the revolution comes, those that pimp justice will pay.

[JoeFin]

It's only too apparent to me Nifong is depending on his acquired immunity. How else can anyone explain his eluding to "Date Rape Drugs" or pursuing this case with complete lack of physical evidence?

Its simple, he has the motive to win an election. The accuser has the motive to escape prosecution for probation violations, and the students.....

Will their just rich white kids