r/ProsecutorTalk

Putting them in jail is ACTUAL sexual violence, unlike what those men consent to.

Hello!! I'm going to be starting as a new pre-bar hire at an NYC DA's office. I'm wondering how long I can allow my commute to be, because finding affordable and otherwise adequate housing near my office will be tough. I am currently trying to keep my commute sub 30 mins but it is very hard; do you think a 40 min commute is too long?

Former state prosecutor here.

Defendant made a statement that multiple witnesses testified to: "touch me and see what happens"

Would you have charged first degree premeditated murder? My office constantly argued that there was time to premeditate in any strangulation case, emptying the clip is premed by the 15th shot, any number of stabs >2 gives time for premeditation, etc.... Does really fit this case but we constantly argued carrying with unlawful intent was premed too.

Second degree instruction, as a lesser included, is required in my state. So I don't see any risk to prosecution other than politics.

Can anyone in the legal field, assist me with a class project in my criminal justice class, just some questions about your daily routine, it’s like a day in the life type of project :)

I'm giving a training on prosecutorial misconduct and I'm looking to fill in the death by powerpoint with some humorous (short) clips. Anyone have any good examples? (Video clips from real high profile cases are also good)

Main topics I'm covering are 1. Things not to ask on direct. 2. Things not to ask in cross. 3. Things not to say in closing. 4. Brady

Curious how different offices handle these cases and what factors contribute to the outcome proposes for a plea deal or absolutely trial?

Especially for a shooting. Of course every case is different, but what factors make it a good or bad self defense case?

Since proving a negative is obviously more of an uphill battle than just whether or not they did it.

If victim shot back or hit defendant?

If defendant has no criminal history?

Stand your ground state?

Bullet trajectory?

No witness or witnesses caught in a lie ( favoring defense)?

Random encounter or prior relationship? If prior relationship surprise visit vs calling ahead?

Victim doesn't talk or victim talks but partially or completely implicates themselves?

Defendant out on bail with no violations vs in custody.

Media attention vs no media attention

How do you determine who shot first? Is this always necessarily relevant?

How do you handle defense experts such as a use of force or ballistics expert? Do you have a police officer with experience testify to argue against? What if police officer or state witness favors self defense?

I feel some police and DAs have a policy written or unwritten to charge someone no matter what in shootings to show they're handling violent crime. Most offices won't backtrack if they think later the other party was actually the bad actor. A lot of line DAs don't get discretion without supervisor sign off. Busy office vs rural office and trial availably and costs. Are sometimes these messy cases pushed to trial to let the jury decide because it's messy and so outcome is entirely on the jury?

i have to decide if i should accept my DA offer or accept the job as a firing squad member in idaho!

I am interested in working for a NYC DA office like the Manhattan DA, Brooklyn DA, and Queens DA. I am wondering for those happen to work or intern at any of these three DA’s office now, or did in the past. Can you tell me about how they expect you to dress in the office? What kind of clothes are acceptable to them?

I’m an attorney wondering if this is an ethical rule (4.2) violation by the prosecutor.

Case 1 has Victim A and B. Defendant is charged with stealing (burglary) from of them. Case 2’s incident happened after Case 1’s, where Victim B threatened to beat Victim A because they thought the earlier theft was A’s fault. B was charged in that and got an attorney.

Prosecutor preparing for Case 1 met with B for a case prep without their Case 2 attorney’s permission or presence and told them they’d get evaluated for a fifth on Case 1’s trial day. Prosecutor is adamant no facts of Case B were discussed, but acknowledges they knew B was represented in it and that the reason for the fifth eval was Case 2.

Do you think this is reportable to the Bar?

I’m a rising 3L and interning in a DA’s office this summer. I should soon be able to appear in court, but this far I have been basically managing discovery for some cases than have been assigned to me, observing a lot, and doing the very occasional mini research assignment.

I like it so far, but it feels like I’m not doing much that’s substantive.

Which brings me to my question. Given that the vast majority of what I’ve been doing outside of observing is “managing” discovery, I’d like to know how I can do this better, best practices, ways to be more efficient.

I will say this is a pretty tedious part of the job and appears to require no substantive legal reasoning and is virtually entirely administrative, but I understand it’s important.

I fill out a discovery request form and give it to our paralegal to reach out to the police prosecutor or other entity (eg the DMV) for the discovery I’ve checked off on the discovery request form. Over time, the discovery starts coming in electronically or physically. I scan and upload the physical discovery. I then share the discovery with the defense attorney on the case.

The main frustration is that discovery does not come in promptly and almost always I will have to follow up by reaching out to the police prosecutor myself to ask again for what we previously requested. Then sometimes what we get is not what we asked for or it is unclear if it is what we asked for, requiring further follow up.

I don’t mind doing this, of course. I just feel like I’m doing it inefficiently. I also have a tendency to reread the police reports for cases I have to make sure I haven’t missed anything, which also takes time and is inefficient when almost always I haven’t missed something.

I realize I’m sort of rambling here. But does anyone have any tips for how to manage discovery efficiently and to not let it dominate one’s entire day if it doesn’t need to?

So I have been a prosecutor for coming up on 2 years now. There is a defense attorney who sometimes practices in my jurisdiction who has consistently been mischaracterizing evidence in motions and on the record. They have also started misquoting law (without citations, of course). For instance, in one case they said that a witness never identified the weapon used in the crime. This is not true, officers found the weapon on scene and the witness said “yep, that’s what he used”. In another motion, they stated that officers had no PC to enter the defendant’s home, cited a ton of caselaw about the castle doctrine and sacred importance of the home, but in reality the officers had both a search warrant and an arrest warrant to justify entry. Another time, they said that the law requires the prosecution to show X, when the law actually puts the burden on the defense for that particular issue.

It has gotten pretty bad, to the extent that the judge has reamed this attorney out on the record for mischaracterizing the law, the evidence, and whatnot. The judges have also started requiring a lengthy record be made about how and when the attorney advised their client as many defendants came back saying they had no idea x punishment was even a possibility.

I have had a string of cases recently with this attorney due to some misfortune I cannot explain. On almost every case we have had them ask for an offer “because their client asked them to” not for any evidence-based or mitigation-based reason. My written responses have always been professional, as I have taken care to edit myself, but at one point I honestly told the attorney directly that they make it very difficult to treat their clients fairly. I shouldn’t have, but I did.

Honestly I am wondering if this is an issue in other jurisdictions, if it’s something worth reporting to attorney reg or what. Has anyone else been in this situation and if so, how did you remain professional in dealing with the attorney?

Hi, I am considering a lateral move from an office that has roughly 20 prosecutors to an office that has 400 plus prosecutors. For those that have made a similar move, what are some of the pros and cons of going to a large office from a small office.

I'm a newly barred attorney working as a "prosecutor" (more on that below). ​My (female) manager, who loves tearing down other women, took an instant dislike to me. I've been told by other coworkers it's because I don't suck up enough. I'm also new to office culture- knowing the right things to say and when, knowing whose ass to kiss, etc.

I already came in to the prosecutor's office with imposter syndrome because this is my second career and to be honest, I wasn't sure I had what it took to be a prosecutor/lawyer in the first place. But I know I have the passion and the grit and I like to think I could have done really well in a courtroom. She didn't even let me rotate into a courtroom yet- I'm still in her little intake unit. I just have the title of prosecutor without even having had the chance to appear in court.

I stuck it out for a long time thinking things would get better, and they are not. I'm applying for other jobs and have a few interviews lined up, with other prosecutor's offices and elsewhere.

How do I explain my lack of courtroom experience during interviews? Granted, I've only been barred for a month, but I've been with the office as a law clerk for a long time. ​And, h​ow do I rebuild my confidence?

It's not wrong, people shouldn't get so butthurt about it. Imprisoning someone over this is infinitely more harmful than what they have done.

I cannot believe that anyone actually is harmed by this, and even if they are, violent prisons are worse.

Without getting too into details or commenting on details of case, a prosecutor no longer with my office supposedly made a deal with a “cooperating witness.” No notes. No proffer. Just defense saying there was an offer for testimony. I do not find this witness credible at all and am not letting them anywhere NEAR my witness stand. Trying to find case law to support my position which is “no testimony, no deal.” (We’ll ignore for now the fact this amorphous mystery deal has massive Brady issues. I already have a plan in place to fix that and make sure any offers both extended or executed are disclosed.)

does anyone know of any precedent for revoking a deal in such a circumstance? My view is deal was for testimony so if I don’t call them I’m not bound by someone else’s dumb offer, but I’ll likely get a motion for specific performance. (Add another wrinkle. Their “deal” would require me to change a charge to avoid a man. Min. So they can’t even do an open plea and play to “equity.” They’d need a court order.

Edited to Add for Clarity: I DO believe defense attorney that something was offered for testimony. But because procedure was not followed there is no documentation of exactly what, and there is no formal proffer. From all the police interviews I’ve watched, I do not find her credible or helpful. There’s a lot to unpack here. It will likely necessitate putting lawyers on stand in a hearing to make sure defense counsel in primary offender’s case gets full Brady scope. Everything that was offered to everyone done on the record. No issue doing that I’ll likely be the first to suggest it, just trying to work with my boss on how to do it with the least drama and/or appealable issues. Defense has a right to know. (Hence why I don’t do off the books deals) Some of it we already have a clear way ahead. My ask here, is that given I have zero intention to put this liar on the stand, and I can’t find any precedent in this jurisdiction on “what happens when a cooperation agreement is extended but the witness isn’t called” does anyone know persuasive authority that will help my ultimate goal which is “I don’t want to honor an improperly executed cooperation agreement (even after I (maybe) find the exact terms) because a no longer involved attorney didn’t share my opinion that this witness is not credible and a liability on the stand?”

Hope that clears things up.

I'm constantly getting pitched on legal AI products. I am constantly being told that AI will revolutionize the practice of law, or even make lawyers obsolete. I am constantly being told that lawyers who don't use AI will be left in the dust by those who do use AI. But nobody every really tells me how this is going to happen.

I am a prosecutor in my mid-30s. I prosecute violent crime, gun crime, and crimes against women and children in a mid-sized midwestern U.S. city. I carry a caseload of about 150 open cases, most of them relatively complex, at various stages of litigation. I am a trial attorney; even though I don't have as many trials as I would like to have, my practice is centered around trying cases to a jury.

If you are a lawyer who thinks that AI will absolutely change the way we practice law, I want to hear from you. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing, I want to hear from you. If you are a lay-person who actually has familiarity with the practice of law, I want to hear from you. How will AI revolutionize my practice, either now or in the near future? How can I use AI to make my life substantially easier as a lawyer? How will AI make my colleagues and I obsolete? How will criminal litigators who use AI leave those who do not in the dust?

I am very skeptical that there is any valid place for AI in the ethical practice of law. Change my view.

Note: We can talk research tools if you want, but that's not really what I'm getting at. I have used Westlaw AI to do research, and its fine, but I can do just as well without it. Maybe these tools will get better in the near future, but I don't do enough deep research that just having a better research tool will revolutionize my practice.

Otherwise it's just telling people to allow themselves to be assaulted! It's always, always better to catch a charge than allow someone to punch you or put you in the hospital or worse. Why are so many of my colleagues so risk averse? It makes me mad that so many people who claim to be lawyers act like you can never defend yourself and just have to "be the bigger person" if you get hate crimed. Totally untrue. If a pack of violent youths or a gigantic MAGA biker comes out you shouting for slurs and red faced and screaming at you, that's reasonable to assume they are imminently going to use force against you.

I had my first jury trial recently and lost. It happens, I know but this one stung.

I was in defense before switching over, and I have a very good relationship with the defense bar. However, theres a group of PDs in my jurisdiction (not all!) that subscribe to the idea that prosecutors are inherently evil. After my loss, I could hear that group talking about me, making fun of me and my closing argument, etc. I can’t explain why, but it’s heavy on my mind. Did I make a fool out of myself? The facts weren’t the best, and I tried with what I had, but am I just bad at this?