Virginia Prosecutorial Misconduct

A study of criminal appeals from 1970 to the present revealed 127 Virginia cases in which the defendant alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct. In 22, judges ruled a prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed or remanded the conviction, sentence or indictment. In eight, a dissenting judge or judges thought the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant.

Out of the 22 cases in which judges found prosecutorial error or misconduct, 13 involved the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, five involved the discrimination during jury selection and four involved trial tactics or comments.

Out of the eight cases in which dissenting judges thought the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant, four involved discriminating in jury selection, three involved withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense and one involved improper questions at trial.

Chesterfield County deputy prosecuting attorney Warren Von Schuch prosecuted at least four cases in which defendants alleged prosecutorial misconduct or error on appeal. In one case, judges ruled Von Schuch’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed the conviction. In two, the court’s majority ruled Von Schuch’s conduct was harmless error, but a dissenting judge or judges would have reversed the convictions because of Von Schuch’s conduct. In a recent federal case, judges ruled Von Schuch’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed the conviction.

In March 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s reversal of Beverly Monroe’s murder conviction because the state, represented by Von Schuch, suppressed “a wealth of exculpatory evidence.” The court held that there is a “reasonable probability that, had the prosecution properly disclosed exculpatory material, the jury would not have convicted Monroe of first-degree murder.”

In November 1992, Von Schuch prosecuted Monroe for the first-degree murder of her boyfriend, Roger de la Burde.

Evidence showed that on March 1992, Burde died from a single gun shot to the head by his personal handgun. Monroe and a groundskeeper found his body on a couch in his home. Officials originally treated his death as a suicide and collected little evidence from the scene.

Soon, the state police suspected foul play and began investigating Monroe, who had been romantically involved with Burde for about 13 years.

At trial, Monroe presented two alternate explanations for Burde’s death. First, she tried to show that he committed suicide. Second, she offered evidence of other people who might have wanted Burde dead. Monroe also presented alibi evidence showing that she was about 13 miles away from Burde’s home when a forensic expert determined he died.

In November 1992, the jury convicted Monroe of first-degree murder and she was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

In April 2002, Virginia’s eastern district court granted Monroe a writ of habeas corpus and released her from prison. In his opinion, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Williams wrote that Monroe’s case was a “monument to prosecutorial indiscretions and mishandling.”

In March 2003, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to reverse Monroe’s conviction. In his opinion, Justice Robert King outlined ten different pieces of exculpatory evidence that Von Schuch withheld from the defense, including statements of eyewitnesses and deals with witnesses who testified at trial. “In these circumstances, it is impossible to say that Beverly Monroe received a fair trial, or that we should be confident she is guilty of first-degree murder,” King wrote.

In March 1992, the state appeals court reversed George Buck’s drug possession conviction because Von Schuch discriminated in jury selection.

Before trial, Von Schuch struck two potential jurors who were black. When the trial judge asked for an explanation, Von Schuch said he struck a 28-year-old black woman because she was young and did not have children. He also said he struck a black man because he was wearing a Virginia State University jacket, and he lived near a city with a “significant drug problem.”

Von Schuch explained that he struck the latter juror because, “based upon his appearance and the address location, I thought that he would be tolerant of this type of offense.”

In 1992, state appellate judges held that Von Schuch’s explanations for striking the potential jurors were not race-neutral and reversed Buck’s conviction. The court noted that Von Schuch did not remove a potential white juror who was twenty-three and had no children.

The court also held that Von Schuch’s explanation regarding the university jacket was suspect because it was a predominately black university and the temperature warranted wearing a jacket.

“A jacket is not an unusual choice of clothing for a juror to wear in December,” wrote Justice James Benton. “It is not enough for a prosecutor to offer “rote ‘neutral explanations’ which are only facially legitimate.”

After the court reversed Buck’s conviction, the state appealed. The appeals court subsequently re-instated Buck’s conviction. In 1994, Buck appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that Von Schuch’s reasons for removing potential black jurors were racially neutral and upheld the conviction. Justice Leroy Hassell Sr. dissented.

Regarding the young black woman, Hassell wrote it was “perfectly clear” that Von Schuch removed her “solely because of the color of her skin” because she did not remove a 23-year-old white woman with no children.

“The prosecutor’s explanation here is a classic example of a pretextual reason advanced to conceal blatant racial discrimination,” Hassell wrote.

Hassell wrote that Von Schuch’s explanation regarding the black man with a university jacket was even more troublesome.

“The prosecutor’s statements give credence to, and perpetuate, the odious stereotype that African-Americans are more tolerant of crime than other Americans,” wrote Justice Hassell.  ¶ 11:13 PM