IDAHO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

The study of criminal cases from 1970 to the present revealed 102 Idaho cases in which defendants alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct. In eight, judges ruled a prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed or remanded the conviction, sentence or indictment. In nine, one or more dissenting judges thought the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant. One defendant was later proven innocent.

Of the cases in which judges ruled a prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant, four involved the prosecution withholding evidence from the defense, three involved improper trial arguments and one involved the prosecution denying a defendant a speedy trial.

In 1994, the state appeals court reversed Danny Gardner’s vehicular manslaughter conviction because evidence of his innocence was withheld from him and his defense attorney.

The Bannock County prosecutor who handled the case, Mark Murphy, told the Center that in hindsight Gardner did not deserve to spend a single day in prison, let alone the ten years a judge handed to him.

The case stemmed from an incident in May 1993, when Gardner and his young nephew were driving on the highway. Their car crossed the center line and struck a pick-up truck that was traveling in the other direction. The driver of the truck died, and three other passengers were seriously injured. Both Gardner and his nephew were also hospitalized for injuries. A urine sample collected from Gardner at the hospital tested positive for marijuana, and police found a pipe in his car.

The Idaho state police officers who investigated the accident said that when they interviewed Gardner’s nephew, he told them Gardner lit a pipe and took a few deep breaths just before the accident, and then he “kind of slumped over the steering wheel.”

The officers also interviewed an eyewitness to the accident, who was driving directly behind Gardner. He told them that he saw the left-front tire of Gardner’s car blow out just before the accident. He gave police a written statement, in which he said the tire blew out and the whole car “jumped into the oncoming lane like it was on rails.” He also told them he noticed that the tire was flat after the accident.

The police officers did not disclose this eyewitness’ statements to Murphy.

“Had I had that information at the outset, there is no way I would have filed those charges,” Murphy said. “That guy would have never spent a day in state prison.” Without knowledge of the exculpatory evidence, Gardner pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter and the court sentenced him to 10 years in prison. In 1994, the appeals court reversed his guilty plea because the state withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

“The State argues that there could not have been a violation of the prosecutor's obligation under Brady v. Maryland because the prosecutor here was as ignorant as defense counsel of the undisclosed witness's statement,” wrote Justice Lansing. “We cannot accept this position…we think the duty of disclosure enunciated in Brady is an obligation of not just the individual prosecutor assigned to the case, but of all the government agents having a significant role in investigating and prosecuting the offense.”

Murphy said he was disappointed to learn that the police officers are still working for the state.

“When I undertook the prosecution of a case, I did it because I wanted to do the right thing, to do the just thing, not because I wanted to win,” he said. “I think to those two, it became like a contest where you have to win at all costs—it wasn’t about doing the right thing; it was about winning or losing.”

In 2001, the state appeals court reversed Santiago Martinez’s conviction for lewd conduct with a minor because Bingham County prosecutor David Shirley “blatantly disregarded a ruling of the district court” and elicited evidence he knew was banned from the trial. The appeals court ruled that the jury’s verdict might have been different absent three instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the trial.

Shirley elicited one of the prejudicial comments when the victim took the stand. He asked her to describe what she did after the lewd conduct. In response, the victim described an act that was not supposed to be discussed at trial. Shirley said he did not know the victim was going to respond the way she did.

“The judge believed I should not have asked that question,” he said. “I was just trying to get all the details, before and after the incident, so the judge and jury could decide.”

Shirley said he was surprised and disappointed to learn that the court reversed Martinez’s conviction on those grounds because the trial judge thought any prosecutorial error that occurred was harmless.

“The appellate court, when they got the case, must have disagreed,” Shirley said. “I hadn’t experienced a reversal like that before.”  ¶ 11:33 PM