Prosecutors Had the Wrong Man. They Prosecuted Him Anyway. (Published 2018) (2023)



Supported by


  • 120

Prosecutors Had the Wrong Man. They Prosecuted Him Anyway. (Published 2018) (1)

By Michael Wines

In the robbery, kidnapping and rape that began in the French Quarter of New Orleans on April 6, 1992, much of the evidence pointed to a man named Lester Jones.

He fit the description of the attacker down to his round-rimmed glasses. His car looked like the perpetrator’s. The rape took place near the housing project where he lived. And after the police arrested him on suspicion of other crimes in the French Quarter that same month, they found jewelry from the robbery in his possession.

Yet the Orleans Parish district attorney’s office chose to arrest a different man, 19-year-old Robert Jones — no relation — for the crime. Mr. Jones not only was convicted, but spent more than 23 years in jail before being cleared of those crimes and a murder he did not commit.

On Tuesday, Mr. Jones sued, charging that prosecutors had deliberately and repeatedly covered up evidence that would have undermined the case against him. More than that, he charged that he was neither the first nor the last victim of such treatment — that prosecutors had an unwritten policy of hobbling the legal defenses of accused citizens without their knowledge.

The New Orleans district attorney’s office has chalked up legal black marks for years, including a string of Supreme Court cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. But the lawsuit filed on Tuesday, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is perhaps the most damning compilation of misconduct accusations to date.

In at least 45 prosecutions dating to the 1970s, the lawsuit says, the district attorney’s office possessed evidence that could have helped the accused, but failed to disclose it. In nine of those cases, appeals courts overturned convictions after the evidence was uncovered.

The cases include that of John Thompson, who was awaiting execution when investigators found that prosecutors had withheld the results of a blood test. John Floyd spent 36 years in prison for the murder of a newspaper proofreader before it came to light that someone else’s fingerprints and DNA had been found at the scene. Reginald Adams spent 34 years in prison for the murder of a police officer’s wife, only to be freed after a police report implicating a different man was found buried in unrelated case files.

The Jones lawsuit contends — and legal experts agree — that those 45 cases are likely a fraction of the actual number of instances in which favorable evidence was wrongly concealed. Most, they say, are simply never discovered.

Prosecutors are supposed to disclose any information they uncover that might help the defense. But enforcing that obligation — and punishing those who ignore it — has been no easy task. After Mr. Thompson was freed, he won a $14 million judgment, only to have the Supreme Court reverse the award in 2011, ruling that prosecutors can be held financially liable only if they are shown to have a pattern of unethical behavior. He received nothing.

Earl Truvia and Gregory Bright, freed after 27 years in jail for a murder they did not commit, also took a lawsuit over the prosecutors’ so-called Brady violations to the Supreme Court, which declined in 2015 to hear it.

This time, lawyers for Mr. Jones and experts at the Innocence Project have pored over court records to compile evidence of a pattern.

“This was a galling disregard for the constitutional rights of defendants,” said Michael L. Banks, a lawyer with the Philadelphia firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. “From the top of this office, there was a culture of winning. And winning meant getting convictions. And that’s why there’s such a striking pattern of wrongful convictions.”

A spokesman for Leon A. Cannizzaro Jr., the current Orleans Parish district attorney, declined to comment on pending litigation.

Prosecutors have been obligated to turn over favorable evidence to the defense since a 1963 Supreme Court decision, Brady v. Maryland, which said that failure to do so violated the right to due process. But the ruling left prosecutors to decide which evidence should be disclosed.

Lawyers and judges have complained that too often, prosecutors err in their own favor. In 2013, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at the time, Alex Kozinski, famously warned of an “epidemic” of Brady violations, adding: “A robust and rigorously enforced Brady rule is imperative because all the incentives prosecutors confront encourage them not to discover or disclose exculpatory evidence.”

Jennifer Laurin, an expert on civil rights and criminal law at the University of Texas School of Law, said she could not say there was evidence of an epidemic. “But what I do see is a system that is not well designed to ensure compliance with Brady,” she added. A handful of unscrupulous prosecutors may conceal information that undermines their cases, she said, but many more well-meaning prosecutors may simply misjudge the importance of evidence to a defendant’s case, or even be unaware that it is important at all.

When evidence is not properly disclosed, experts say, the omission is rarely discovered. The vast bulk of criminal cases never go to trial — 97 percent of federal criminal convictions are the result of guilty pleas. The accused often must decide whether to go to trial and risk the maximum sentence or plead guilty in exchange for a lesser punishment, all without knowing how strong the case against them is.

After conviction, the odds that favorable evidence will be discovered in prosecutors’ files is vanishingly small, because it can take hundreds or thousands of hours of legal work. Mr. Banks’s firm worked without pay to overturn Mr. Thompson’s conviction. “We literally put a couple of million dollars” in time into the Thompson case, Mr. Banks said, “because it was a capital murder case.” But “most of the time that prosecutors hide evidence, nobody ever knows.”

Robert Jones’s ordeal began with a telephone tip to the police. He was convicted in 1996 of the robbery, kidnapping and rape in a trial that lasted but two days. Although most of the evidence indicated that Lester Jones, not Robert, was responsible, two of the victims had identified Robert in a lineup. Prosecutors argued that Lester and Robert knew each other — Lester Jones had said so in a statement to the police — and that Robert had used his friend’s car and given him stolen jewelry as compensation.

Only years later, after the Innocence Project New Orleans took up Robert Jones’s case, did the truth emerge: A lineup from which Mr. Jones was selected had been tainted because it included people that the rape victim knew, thus narrowing the range of suspects. Days before trial, Lester Jones had recanted the assertion that he knew Robert. And Lester had been convicted of two similar French Quarter crimes that happened the same month.

None of that evidence was given to Robert Jones’s lawyer before the 1996 trial. Nor was a trove of other evidence favorable to Mr. Jones, including evidence that the rapist had told his victim he was taking her to his “neck of the woods;” the victims’ initial descriptions of the attacker, which pointed to Lester; and the fact that none of those descriptions included Robert’s most prominent feature: a mouth filled with gold-capped teeth.

The prosecution also failed to disclose the conclusion that New Orleans police detectives had reached long before the 1996 trial: The robbery and rape for which Robert Jones went to jail was part of a five-crime spree in the French Quarter that month, all of which appeared to have been committed by the same assailant.

When the fifth crime took place, Robert Jones was already in jail.

A correction was made on

Jan. 22, 2018


An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is Alex Kozinski, not Kosinski.

How we handle corrections

A version of this article appears in print on , Section


, Page


of the New York edition

with the headline:

Lawsuit Cites 45 Cases Of Prosecutor Misconduct. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe


  • 120




What is an example of prosecutorial misconduct that has resulted in a wrongful conviction? ›

In 1987 in Texas, Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his wife based on circumstantial evidence. Morton's defense attorney was never told about, or given access to, the police report in which Morton's three year old son had told police that his father had not killed his mother.

What is the result of prosecutorial misconduct? ›

In California, as in most other states, when a defendant believes that a prosecutor has engaged in misconduct, they can raise the issue in a motion to dismiss the charges or for a new trial.

Does exculpatory evidence mean? ›

In criminal law, exculpatory evidence is evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant. In other words, the evidence is favorable to the defendant. In contrast to it, inculpatory evidence tends to stress guilt.

How often does prosecutorial misconduct occur? ›

Police officers committed misconduct in 35% of cases. They were responsible for most of the witness tampering, misconduct in interrogation, and fabricating evidence—and a great deal of concealing exculpatory evidence and perjury at trial. Prosecutors committed misconduct in 30% of the cases.

What are 3 examples of prosecutorial misconduct? ›

Examples of prosecutorial misconduct involving improper arguments include:
  • Asserting facts that are not in evidence.
  • Misstating laws.
  • Vouching for the credibility of a witness.
  • Mischaracterizing evidence.
  • Discriminating in jury selection.
  • Interfering with a defendant's Constitutional rights.
  • Failing to train subordinates.
Jul 14, 2021

How can a prosecutor be unethical? ›

Some, perhaps a substantial number, are so driven by impulse to punish the accused, they readily disregard their ethical obligations; these individuals, unrestrained by the rules or by conscience, hide exculpatory evidence from defense counsel, coach their witnesses, pressure defense witnesses into disappearing, ...

Which is the most common type of prosecutorial misconduct? ›

Prosecutorial misconduct can take many forms. The most well-publicized type of misconduct involves the withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland. It can also encompass the exclusion of people of color from juries, in violation of Batson v.

What is an example of false evidence? ›

Examples of False Evidence

Making a false receipt with intent to use in a personal injury trial. Altering a will with intent to use it in probate court. Presenting a false photograph to depict total physical damage to a car in a hit and run crash. Submitting altered evidence to fight traffic tickets.

What kind of evidence tends to prove a defendant's innocence? ›

Exculpatory evidence is any reasonable evidence that tends to show the defendant's innocence. Any exculpatory evidence the prosecutor or law enforcement has is called Brady material, and the requirement to turn Brady material over to the defense is called the Brady rule.

What is the Giglio evidence? ›

Giglio evidence is a type of exculpatory evidence that might help a criminally accused cast sufficient doubt on his or her guilt as to obtain an acquittal from a jury. Giglio evidence is named after the US Supreme Court case Giglio v. US, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

What type of evidence must always be turned over by the prosecutor? ›

Exculpatory evidence is also called Brady material and includes any evidence that may prove a defendant's innocence. The Brady Rule requires the prosecutor to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense team before trial.

What is the most falsely accused crime? ›

A study by the National Registry of Exonerations, which keeps records of over 2,000 cases across the country that ended in exoneration for the defendant, found that three crimes are most commonly involved in exoneration cases — murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes.

Do prosecutors make mistakes? ›

While the state does wield a lot of power, prosecutors do make mistakes. Mistakes happen up to and including trying to pin a crime on an innocent person.

At what point are prosecutors most likely to file charges? ›

Because defendants have a right to a speedy trial, the prosecutor must generally file charges within 48 hours of the arrest when the defendant is in custody (in jail). Weekends, court holidays, and mandatory court closure days do not count against the 48 hours.

What is an example of a wrongful conviction? ›

The Central Park jogger case, also known as the Central Park Five case, resulted in the wrongful convictions of five young men of color from underprivileged backgrounds. Their alleged crime was attacking and sexually assaulting a white woman who was jogging in New York City's Central Park.

What is official misconduct in wrongful convictions? ›

In a majority of cases where wrongfully convicted people have experienced this kind of misconduct, prosecutors have been accused of making improper arguments at trial, purposely withholding evidence of innocence or other favorable evidence (in what is known as a Brady violation), and more.

Which of the following is an example of prosecutorial misconduct quizlet? ›

The types of prosecutorial misconduct include withholding exculpatory evidence, misusing pretrial publicity, using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors, and using false evidence in court.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Manual Maggio

Last Updated: 31/08/2023

Views: 5934

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (49 voted)

Reviews: 88% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Manual Maggio

Birthday: 1998-01-20

Address: 359 Kelvin Stream, Lake Eldonview, MT 33517-1242

Phone: +577037762465

Job: Product Hospitality Supervisor

Hobby: Gardening, Web surfing, Video gaming, Amateur radio, Flag Football, Reading, Table tennis

Introduction: My name is Manual Maggio, I am a thankful, tender, adventurous, delightful, fantastic, proud, graceful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.