Prosecutor Sanctioned For Altering Transcript Of Police Interview With Child Molestation Suspect
from the roflmao-life-liberty-etc. dept
The California State Bar has finally handed down sanctions [PDF] in a case of prosecutorial misconduct that could have landed a defendant with a life sentence.
Last year, a court tossed child molestation charges against a defendant after it came to light prosecutor Robert Murray had altered the transcript of a police interview with the suspect. Murray claimed it was all just a joke. But the "levity" he inserted into the transcript drastically altered the prison sentence the defendant was facing (from 16 years to a possible life sentence), prompting his defense lawyer to push him toward a plea bargain.
All it took was two sentences:
(Detective): "You're so guilty you child molester."
(Defendant): "I know. I'm just glad she's not pregnant like her mother."
Even if it was just a joke, Murray made no effort to inform the defense lawyer of these additions, despite claiming it was supposed to be something enjoyed equally by the defendant's legal representation. In fact, Murray didn't admit anything until he was forced to, a full nine days later and only after the actual interview transcripts were made available to the defense.
The District Attorney's office didn't like seeing its prosecution vanish. It argued that dismissing charges was too much of a deterrent -- something that should be used only in the most egregious cases of "abject physical brutality." "Oh my, no," said the court.
Indeed, there is simply no support for the People’s contention that an act must involve some form of physical brutality in order to support a sanction of dismissal. Meanwhile, there is ample support for defendant’s contention that egregious violations of a defendant’s constitutional rights are sufficient to establish outrageous government misconduct.
Now it's time for Murray to face sanctions from the bar association for his "joke." Murray, to his credit, was open and cooperative after being forced to confront his own misdeed. (Indeed, some credit is granted for his cooperation, but it's nowhere near as expansive as Murray hoped it would be. The bar court doesn't have much sympathy for the "Well, I'm really sorry now" argument.) Nearly railroading someone into a life sentence was considered to be only worth about 30 days of professional discomfort to the prosecutor, according to the judge who first handled Murray's case.
Fortunately, the bar itself disagreed. And the state bar court agrees with its harsher assessment. It's not a straight-up trade of life-for-possible-life, but it's far more than was originally recommended.
After independently reviewing the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we agree with the courts of record in this matter. We find that Murray deliberately created and inserted a fraudulent document into a criminal prosecution while he was actively negotiating a resolution by plea agreement. This altered evidence bore no indicia of being a "prank," and Murray made no prompt effort thereafter to control the consequences. Murray's behavior is wholly inappropriate and unbecoming of an experienced prosecutor, who is expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct and to act as a gatekeeper to the fair administration of justice. We therefore recommend a one-year actual suspension to protect the public and to maintain integrity and confidence in the legal profession.
Murray sought the 30-day suspension, feeling that his actions were only "gross negligence," as the previous judge had ruled. But the state bar court sees it differently. This wasn't just negligence. It was a purposeful distortion of the justice system -- something that cannot possibly described as merely a "joke gone bad." It was something no one on the prosecution side found even remotely funny, nor could they recall anything like this happening before.
Hinman's supervisor, Chief Deputy Kang, said he had never seen a prosecutor play a joke like this on a public defender in his office. When asked whether he thought Murray was joking, he testified: "Maybe, in some measure, in Mr. Murray's mind, this was funny. I don't see it as a joke."
Similarly, when Officer Martinez was asked his opinion of Murray's actions, he testified: "I didn't think it was funny." He further testified that in his experience as a law enforcement officer, he had never before seen or heard of a prosecutor doing something like this.
Not only did Murray harm his own case and the reputation of the DA's office, but he also hurt the very people he's supposed to be protecting. The dismissal of charges means the 10-year-old victim's allegations will never be fully addressed. Murray's "joke" cost her a chance at justice. He doesn't just have to look the defense in the eye and admit he screwed everything up. He also has to look a child in the eye and try to explain why he single-handedly destroyed her case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, confession, robert murray, transcript
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTF?
A one year suspension? I can't see how behaviour like that calls for anything less than disbarment. He attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the court process. It baffles the mind to think that after a year they're going to let this guy slide back in.
As much as people claim lawyers are all lying unethical weasels, the opposite really has to be true. The system functions on the basis of lawyers not deceiving each other or the court. There are certainly times when you can (and may be required to) not say anything, but there is never an excuse for lying to opposing parties or the courts.
If I pulled something like this the bar association in my area would have me suspended the instant they caught wind of it, and I can't imagine any other outcome other than disbarment. The fact that this guy is a prosecutor shouldn't spare him, either--it makes it all the more egregious that he is subverting the fairness of the trial process.
At this point how can the public be convinced that the other matters he may have touched aren't equally tainted in some fashion or another? Surely a full and complete review of every file he's been on now becomes necessary.
Unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
It's like a kindergardener daring a child to run across a street with traffic.
Letting him try again after he is free to choose whatever other job he likes doing for a year seems hopelessly optimistic. The least one would need to do is make sure that this year is actually spent in a manner connecting him with the ethics he should have had in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's one small consolation.
will find it pretty difficult to find work in any large firm.
He'll be stuck with whatever work he can drum up on his own,
perhaps as a personal injury lawyer with a postage-stamp ad
in the Yellow Pages and no other advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's one small consolation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's one small consolation.
You forget: DAs are elected. If it took 6 tries to get rid of Joe Arpaio, this guy is a shoo-(back)in.
Also keep in mind, this was in Kern County, where they invented day care abuse hysteria. Their electorate just won't learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The D.A., who may have been elected…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
His next law suit will be a black Justice robe, since he is obviously capable of determining guilt without an adversarial hearing or analysis of the evidence. He just KNOWS when someone is guilty and isn't afraid to do whatever is necessary to ensure that they see justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course no one wants to go back and see how many other 'pranks' were played with peoples lives by this idiot.
This case is the exception not the rule. Far to often we see the cogs who violate the rights of others given a pat on the back or protection from actual punishment.
What are the odds his contract provides for a nice cushy exit.
Perhaps they should take the year of pay he would have earned and use it to get the 10 yr old help, since this moron destroyed her chance at justice.
'to protect the public and to maintain integrity and confidence in the legal profession'
I've got a list when the wheels of justice decide to move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is funny. Why doesn't he do the difference? Then he can tell us if any physical harm was done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now it's likely he'll get a raise and a promotion, gen that he's demonstrated that he'll do anything to secure a conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanctionned? Couldn't a better, clearer word be used?
sanc·tion noun: sanction; plural noun: sanctions
a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule. "a range of sanctions aimed at deterring insider abuse"
Can a sanctioned sanction be used as a sanction to convince people that a sanction is a good idea?
/ Yes, I know, the NSA probably has a completely different sanctioned meaning for the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now every other defendant who he has ever had a hand in prosecuting needs to take a real close look at their own case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's California
I wonder if the Bastion of Liberal land has more integrity in its legal system? Based on this story, apparently not! But hey don't feel bad lefties, the righties are right beside you in lock step.
The left and the right are surprisingly agreeable when it comes to corruption. Neither side seems to be able to get enough of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's California
This is a non-partisan authoritarian issue: the prosecutor believed that he was above the law and that his little joke wouldn't matter. I presume he was planning to run for office down the line citing this case as an example of how valiantly he defends the innocent, etc. I'll just have to keep on saying this, won't I?
*Due process is not an impediment to justice.*
That epically stupid prosecutor ought to have those words tattooed on the inside of his eyelids and painted on every flat surface of his home, inside and out, till he flippin' well gets it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you really think a kitchen would hire him? He's the kind of guy who would spit on people's burgers as a joke....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You enter politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a year suspension?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
safer to catch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quite the knee slapper indeed
But the "levity" he inserted into the transcript drastically altered the prison sentence the defendant was facing (from 16 years to a possible life sentence)
He not only torpedoes the case by fraudulently adding something to the transcript, leaving the victim high and dry, he does so in a way that stood to result in a life sentence and he gets...
We therefore recommend a one-year actual suspension to protect the public and to maintain integrity and confidence in the legal profession.
His 'joke' was disgusting, but their decision almost makes it look downright hilarious in comparison. For what he did they hand out a one-year suspension, demonstrating the feather light treatment those in the profession get from their own, no matter how bad their actions are... and they think there's any 'integrity and confidence in the legal system' left to protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The State Bar
Remember folks. Your state's Bar Association is just like your company's HR department. The HR department is there to protect the company, not you. The State Bar is there to protect lawyers and their industry, not you the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was transcriptionist asked about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It might be a de facto disbarment
I don't know if the unstated rules in California are the same but we shouldn't rush to judgement that this is just a slap on the wrist. As others have pointed out he'll have very few job opportunities in a year since anyone on the other side of the table can reasonably ask if anything was fabricated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He could have been bribed to 'throw' the case....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempting to revise a transcript that has been filed with a court after the fact is a big no-no & counsel damn well knew it. Disbarment can be the only remedy in this scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lock him up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]