CPI Establishes a Database of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Radley Balko is now officially with the Washington Post and one of his first articles is about one of the best ideas I’ve ever heard. The Center for Prosecutor Integrity has created a database that they hope will eventually contain every single instance of prosecutorial misconduct in the country.

Even when courts find misconduct—even egregious misconduct—they rarely name the offending prosecutor. In fact, prosecutors’ names rarely appear on court decisions at all. Likewise, most state bar investigations of prosecutor misconduct are also kept confidential. That may seem sensible, given that the allegations may turn out to be baseless. But that of course stands in stark contrast to the fact that the people prosecutors accuse of crimes aren’t afforded the same courtesy. Even when a prosecutor is found to have committed misconduct and is sanctioned in some way, some states still keep the entire affair confidential. You could make a convincing argument that prosecutors are better protected from wrongful misconduct allegations than citizens are from wrongful convictions.

At the federal level, the Department of Justice usually conceals internal investigations of federal prosecutors. As a journalist, this is frustrating because it makes it difficult to suss out repeat offenders. In the end, we’re reliant on professional organizations to sanction their own, and there’s ample evidence that these organizations just aren’t up to the task.

Now for some good news: A nonprofit reform group called the Center for Prosecutor Integrity (CPI) has just launched a new registry of prosecutor misconduct. It’s searchable by name, case, date, and several other variables. It also looks to providesome interesting data breaking down misconduct by infraction, region, and so on. So far, the database only includes 200 recent incidents from federal cases, but CPI “plans to expand the Registry to include all known cases of prosecutorial misconduct.” They’re currently looking for partners in individual states to help populate the database with new cases.

It’s clear at this point that the courts, state bars, and federal government have little interest in bringing any transparency to this problem. If it’s going to happen, it will probably need to come from private actors. The new registry seems like a good start.

It certainly does. This is a brilliant idea.

"I've got it figured out, colnago80. You've reprogrammed your keyboard so that the NumLock key ..."

EPA Environmental Justice Official Resigns
"There are two parts of the story. I personally don't have that much problem with ..."

Two More Accusers Step Forward in ..."
"And who better to testify that heterosexual escapades have no cost other than Jimmy Lee ..."

And Two More Women Come Forward ..."
"Keep talkin, crackpot sister! You do more to hasten the end of religion than a ..."

Crokin: God Will Reward My Crackpottery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    I love this.

    Canada has been struggling with RCMP’s failure to investigate the rapes, deaths and disappearances of many first nations, BC bands, & inuit women. The numbers are impossible to define because the RCMP’s own inaction (like declining to take a report) can make agreement of records impossible. There was some recent independent research up here, and there is now an independent database, but it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on in the RCMP and, as impossible as it is to verify that independent records are *more* accurate than RCMP records, the existence of those records makes possible reporting that creates extrinsic motivations for solving access-to-justice issues when intrinsic motivations have clearly proved insufficient.

    May both these efforts be blessed with talent, integrity, attention, and quick success.