DEA Huge Bust in Afghanistan 1 Metric Ton of Heroin

Investigator's Guide to Allegations of Ritual Child Abuse

The following essay and its hyper-links describe a guide written by K.V. Lanning on ritual child abuse. It is perhaps the most important and influential document ever written on the topic. Its wisdom has held up well, even though there have been enormous developments in the subject since the essay was written in 1992.

Kenneth V. Lanning is a Supervisory Special Agent at the Behavioral Science Unit at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. The Center is located at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA. It assists police forces throughout the US. The group is often called in as consultants by local and state police forces.

Lanning began working in the field in 1981. Allegations of ritual abuse began to surface circa 1983. At first, he tended to believe that the abuse really occurred. He reported:

But the number of alleged cases began to grow and grow. We now have hundreds of victims alleging that thousands of offenders are abusing and even murdering tens of thousands of people as part of organized satanic cults, and there is little or no corroborative evidence. The very reason many "experts" cite for believing these allegations (i.e. many victims, who never met each other, reporting the same events), is the primary reason I began to question at least some aspects of these allegations.

Lanning defines a satanic murder as "one committed by two or more individuals who rationally plan the crime and whose primary motivation is to fulfill a prescribed satanic ritual calling for the murder." Using this definition he has been unable to identify even one documented satanic murder in the United States.

Guide can be found here.

Presentence Report: What You Don't Know Might Hurt You

An interesting article that came out this past Sunday in the Roanoke Times about a little known, yet widely practiced, part of federal sentencing: a written recommendation from United States Probation Officer that is given to the Judge in addition to the Presentence Report. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 requires a presentence report for offenses. The report includes a summary of the offense, a summary of the sentencing guidelines, and discusses all aspects of the offender's life including work history, substance abuse issues, mental and physical health problems, and includes calculations of possible sentencing outcomes. Much investigation and preparation goes into both getting information for the report as well as getting information to challenge legal inaccuracies, factual disputes, or other challenges to the report. Often times, issues identified in the presentence report are contested at the sentencing hearing in open court.

The Roanoke Times article report on the questions raised by the process, in addition to the presentence report, of the probation officer's "recommendation" which can be a written recommendation or an off the record conversation that takes place between the Judge and the Probation Officer.

In Roanoke, after the sentencing hearing, the offender received a copy of the presentence report in the mail which included the mistakenly mailed confidential recommendation from the probation officer. The defense attorney and the offender both thought the report contained inaccuracies and painted an unfairly unflattering picture of the person. Here is an excerpt of the article (full article here):

No one who tracks how each of the nation's federal districts deals with the rule about sentencing recommendations, according to the national office of the federal defenders service and two longtime U.S. judges in Roanoke. Most districts keep the recommendations secret, between the judge and probation officer, said Karen Edmonds, a Washington-based spokeswoman for the administrative office of the U.S. Courts.

"There is no justification for a lack of transparency in this critical aspect of the adversary process," University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller wrote in an e-mail response to questions.

Miller, editor emeritus of the academic journal Federal Sentencing Reporter, is among scholars and lawyers who for years have called for the U.S. Sentencing Commission and Congress to change the federal rule. Unless defense attorneys and prosecutors have a chance to challenge a probation officer's recommendation, a judge could impose a sentence based on wrong information, Miller said.

Paul Dull, a Roanoke defense lawyer not involved in Wooten's case, said basic fairness is at stake.

"We all have clients who for one reason or another" irritate a probation officer, said Dull, who has years of federal courtroom experience. "And there's no way for us to know if the probation officer said to the judge, confidentially, 'Hey, this guy. ... He was uncooperative.' "

The suggestion of such a scenario set off a stir in Roanoke's federal justice system over the summer.

Cargill , a federal defender since the Western Virginia office opened in 2006, represented former restaurateur Wooten, who was sentenced in July to 33 months in prison. A month later, Wooten, who had already reviewed his pre-sentence report with Cargill, received a routine copy in the mail.

Also in the envelope was the probation officer's confidential sentencing recommendation, accidentally mailed from the probation office.

Wooten and Cargill thought the probation officer's recommendation painted Wooten in a worse light than he deserved.

On Aug. 11, Cargill fired off a letter to the head of the probation office, the U.S. attorney's office and the judicial district's chief judge. He called for a review of sentencing recommendations "to be sure they do not contain facts that are not in the presentence report" and slammed the events that he said left his client unable to respond to inaccurate statements.

Such open criticism of court workings is unusual for lawyers.

Fourth National Seminar on Mental Health and the Criminal Law

January 13-16, 2011

Royal Sonesta Hotel

New Orleans, LA

Program Contact: Chastain Smith Chastain_Smith@ao.uscourts.gov

Registration Contact: LaShawn Parker LaShawn_Parker@ao.uscourts.gov

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Our understanding of the etiology of a variety of mental impairments is rapidly evolving. We have learned much in recent years, for example, about the neurobiology of many mental disorders. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, has resulted in a richer and more contextual understanding of intellectual disability. There have also been a number of new insights into how jurors and judges "process" evidence regarding mental impairments. Finally, there have significant legal changes which impact the presentation of mental state evidence at all phases of a criminal trial.

But, new knowledge can be effectively utilized on behalf of indigent criminal defendants only if advocates are aware of and conversant with these trends and developments.

This seminar will address many of these new developments including the neurobiology of schizophrenia and other serious mental illness; the effects of trauma on brain functioning, cultural issues in mental health assessments and a number of other cutting edge topics. Additionally, there be a significant emphasis on the investigation, development and presentation of evidence of intellectual disability in capital cases including sessions on intellectual functioning and intelligence tests, assessing adaptive deficits, proof of age of onset, stereotypes of intellectual disability as well as sessions on strategies for Atkins hearings and trials.

Finding and Researching Experts and Their Testimony

Several years ago, an Arizona trial court judge overturned a jury’s verdict, ordered a new trial and sanctioned the defendant over half a million dollars because the defense expert had lied about his qualifications. Importantly, the judge based his decision to sanction on his expectation that the defendant would have conducted thorough research on the experts:

This court opined that defendant ... knew or should have known of the falsity of its own expert’s credentials,

but could not conclude that [defendant] in fact knew. This court has been persuaded by plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration that “should have known” warrants sanctions.

Expert witnesses are used in a wide range of litigation and their opinions are often viewed as critical—frequently they can make or break a case. As a result, many trials have turned into a battle of the experts. Yet despite their importance, few attorneys take the time to utilize the proper resources to find the right experts, evaluate their credentials, and/or assess the admissibility of their testimony.

The purpose of this article is to suggest various online resources that can be used to find experts, gather information about them (whether your own or the opposing party’s) and assess the admissibility of their testimony—as well as tips on how the information uncovered might be utilized. In addition, to assist in research efforts, some potentially relevant websites have been included. However, note that because many of the resources noted (e.g., agency opinions, verdict reports, etc.) are available from commercial vendors, such as LexisNexis® (see, e.g., LexisNexis Total Litigator, a task-based research platform that includes an entire subpage devoted solely to researching experts2), such full-service providers are not repeatedly listed as possible sources of information.3

One final note of caution: be wary of outrageous marketing claims. Some vendors will tout that they can provide you all of the information you need to identify, select or impeach an expert. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, some products marketed through such claims actually miss relevant, and relatively easy-to-find, information about many experts—providing you with far less than what is promised. The simple upshot is that, although there are several fairly comprehensive products, platforms and services, we have yet to find one that does it all. So when evaluating resources, adhere to the well-known maxim: “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

Article can be found here.

Too Many Teeth?

Police Guild’s Unfair Labor Practice complaint slams city for giving ombudsman independent investigatory and reporting powers.

The Spokane Police Guild’s filing with the state’s Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) alleges that the new powers of independence added to the city’s two year old Office of Police Ombudsman violate state labor law. A copy of the filing was obtained earlier today.

The August 20th complaint filed with the PERC specifically accuses the city of interfering with guild members’ collective bargaining rights and for refusing to engage in collective bargaining on a subject the Guild asserts is a mandatory matter of collective bargaining.

But this is where the three page complaint gets interesting because the subject matter that the Guild believes the recently adopted ordinance infringes upon is officer discipline–a function that under the literal terms of the offending ordinance is directly precluded with the following language: “The OPO [Office of Police Ombudsman] shall not have a role in any disciplinary matter.”

Apparently, the Guild believes the new powers given the office to initiate investigations independent of the police department, and issue reports on specific complaints independent of the police department, among to giving the office a role in officer discipline.

Indeed, there is much in the Guild’s complaint that drafters of the new ordinance and the citizen organizations who supported it, accept as true, including:

“Disciplinary procedures are a mandatory subject of bargaining,” and that: “Disciplinary procedures impact mandatory subjects of bargaining.”

But the allegations encompass, as a settled fact, that giving the OPO powers beyond the mere certification of internal police department investigations, goes over the line into officer discipline.

“The City made a unilateral change in its disciplinary procedures,” the complaint alleges, “by expanding the powers of the OPO and changing the requirements to which the OPO was subject, without providing the Guild an opportunity to bargain the change or the effects of the change, which constitutes a refusal to bargain with the Guild in violation of [state law.]”

In its complaint, the Guild asserts that “on or about June 14, 2010″–two weeks before the new ordinance was adopted–”the Guild demanded to bargain the changes in the ordinance that constituted mandatory subjects of bargaining and that impacted (sic) mandatory subjects of bargaining.”

In retrospect, though, the ordinance as it existed on June 14th was quite a bit weaker in terms of the OPO’s investigative powers, than the version of the ordinance that was adopted two weeks later. But, still, there were at least three clear clauses in the new ordinance that make clear that the chief, not the OPO, is solely in charge of discipline.

In many respects, the litany of the offending changes cited by the Guild could be taken from the literature of those who advocated for those changes, in that they reveal just how dominated the original ordinance was with language that rendered the OPO a mere bystander to the police department’s internal affairs (IA)investigations.

For example, the complaint charges: The [June 28th] ordinance permits the OPO to conduct an independent investigation if the OPO “is not satisfied with the decision of the mayor” [to accept an IA investigation as adequate]. Previously, the decision of the mayor was final and the OPO did not have authority to conduct an independent investigation.”

Although the complaint asserts that the OPO now has a role in officer discipline, it does not describe what that role is. Proponents of the new ordinance, including the Center for Justice, maintain that the independent reporting powers the office now has are duties that can be assigned to the office within the city’s managerial discretion, and because the OPO is directly precluded from being involved in officer discipline, there has been no infringement upon the collective bargaining agreement and/or state rules.

–CFJ

So You Want to Go to Law School

Supreme Court Preview 924(c) Except Clause

An important case was heard on October 6, 2010 by the Supreme Court that will have ramifications for many that practice in the federal criminal context. In Abbott v. United States and Gould v. United States, the Court heard argument on whether two defendants were improperly sentenced to consecutive five-year prison terms under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when they were subject to a greater minimum sentence on a different count of conviction. The "except clause" mandates a five-year consecutive sentence for 924 Section (c)(1)(A), but exempts defendants “to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or any other law." Some courts have interpreted the clause to mean that if a longer mandatory minimum applies (e.g. 10 years for a narcotics offense) the 5 year count can run concurrently. Gonzaga's own Brooks Holland wrote this excellent piece for the ABA-previewing the argument, and laying out the four ways the Court could decide the issue. Here is an excerpt from the full article that provides clarity on at least the options if not yet the answers. Stay tuned: (full article here):

The Supreme Court will need to decide between two competing understandings of § 924(c)(1)(A). Petitioners present this provision as a true minimum sentence, ensuring that defendants subject to it serve at least five years in prison. If another statute does this job, § 924(c)(1)(A) is obviated and no longer applies. The government, by contrast, treats the provision as a sentencing bonus, ensuring that defendants subject to it receive at least five additional years in prison, cumulative to any other sentence. The “except” clause applies only if another statute more severely punishes that § 924(c) offense.
The parties’ briefs thus present the Supreme Court with four potential constructions of § 924(c)(1)(A)’s except clause. The Court could construe the “except” clause narrowly, as the government advocates, exempting defendants from a mandatory consecutive sentence only if a minimum sentence outside of § 924(c) more severely punishes that § 924(c) offense. According to the parties’ briefs, this construction likely would bring only one current law outside of § 924(c) into its except clause: 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), which provides a life sentence for certain repeat offenders who violate § 924(c). This construction consequently would impact very few cases, and would exclude both Abbott and Gould. Although an aggressively narrow construction of § 924(c)(1)(A), the government’s position has been embraced by several circuit courts.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Supreme Court could adopt Gould’s broad reading of § 924(c)(1)(A) and hold that any greater minimum sentence applicable to a defendant at sentencing triggers the except clause. This position has not been adopted explicitly in the circuit courts, but it is supported in amicus briefs filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
In between these constructions, the Supreme Court could limit the “except” clause, as Abbott argues, to any greater minimum sentence arising from the same criminal transaction as the § 924(c) offense, including any predicate drug trafficking or violent crime, such as a CSA conviction. A majority of circuit courts have rejected this approach. The second circuit, however, recently embraced this construction, see United States v. Williams, 558 F.3d 166 (2nd Cir. 2009), as did the Sixth Circuit. See United States v. Almany, 598 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2009). This position also is supported by the American Bar Association’s amicus brief, which argues against the government practice of “stacking” mandatory minimum sentences against defendants. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could read the “except” clause to include greater minimum sentences for any firearm offense involving the same firearm as the § 924(c) offense. Abbott offers this construction as a backstop to prevent what he terms “double counting” of firearms between § 924(c) offenses and other firearm offenses with greater minimum sentences. This question has split the circuit courts fairly evenly. This narrower construction of § 924(c) would favor only Abbott, however, whose § 924(c) sentence ran consecutively to an ACCA sentence for firearm possession. Gould’s § 924(c) sentence ran consecutively to a predicate drug trafficking crime under the CSA. Gould thus does not advocate Abbott’s alternative construction.

Counselor Rapes 3 Girls, Merely Sentenced To Probation

(Jezebel) - A New York City juvenile justice counselor raped at least three teenagers in his custody. His sentence? Probation. Meanwhile, one of his victims was sentenced to 12 months on a minor charge. How could something like this happen?

Tony Simmons is also known to have raped at 13-year-old in a holding area, as well as a 15-year-old who was sodomized behind a locker, which The New York Daily News says was "stocked with condoms and cookies."

His third victim was Ashley, who posed for the picture above (she said "I'm only scared of one man, and he already knows what I look like," and declined to give her last name, which she changed with marriage.) She was fifteen, on her way into court and being escorted by Simmons, when he took her to the basement and raped her. He placed finger over his lips to demand her silence.

She said, "I knew I was just raped. I knew it wasn't supposed to happen. I didn't think anybody would believe me."

Her 12-month sentence, she told The Daily News, was for filing a false report by telling the police she did not know the person who had attacked her on the way to school.

Ashley had hope that her attacker would be apprehended, and even named her child after the prosecutor, but he only managed to get probation for Simmons — from a female judge, no less — despite the fact that the original charges carried a maximum sentence of eight years. Why?

Partly, it's a systemic problem. As Lindsay Beyerstein points out, [Prosecutor Amir] Vonsover faced a strategic dilemma. If he offered a plea deal that carried serious jail time, Simmons and his lawyer might have preferred to take their chances in court. Vonsover probably agreed to a watered-down punishment because he wasn't sure he could get a conviction of the case went to trial.

That might have been a good call on Vonsover's part. Realistically, a jury might not have believed a black teen prisoner accusing a white court officer of rape with no witnesses and (as far as I can tell from media reports) no physical evidence. Simmons could easily have walked. He might even have gotten his job back. If Vonsover hadn't struck some kind of plea deal, Simmons could still be out there raping girls.

There is strangely little reporting on this topic besides The Daily News, though the district attorney has lambasted the verdict, calling it "an egregious breach of the public's trust. While a judge has the responsibility to decide what he or she thinks is a fair sentence, in our view today's sentence of probation is outrageously lenient given the admitted conduct."

Also of that opinion is New York City's branch of NOW, which has started a petition on the victims' behalf, asking, "If we cannot deliver justice for these three teen victims who were assaulted on the premises of the Manhattan Family Court building by an employee assigned to protect them, how can we expect justice for any women victims of violence?"

Tight Budgets Lead to More Civilians Used for Policing

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Police agencies across the country are recruiting thousands of civilians for a growing number of duties previously performed by uniformed cops, in an unusual concession to local budget cuts.

The positions — some paid and others volunteer — are transforming every-day citizens into crime-scene investigators, evidence gatherers and photographers in what some analysts suggest is a striking new trend in American policing.

"It's all being driven by the economy and we should expect to see more of it," says University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris, who analyzes law enforcement practices. "As budgets are squeezed, an increasing number of duties are going to be moved off officers' plates."

The chief opponents of the movement are police union leaders who believe cash-strapped agencies are lowering standards and undermining professionalism in the ranks. In some cases, the civilian positions circumvent pay and benefit obligations outlined in hard-fought labor contracts, says Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO).

"The economy ought not to be pushing this," Johnson says. "You want the real deal when you call 911."

Among the agencies expanding civilians' roles:

• San Francisco. Police officials plan to hire 16 civilians to investigate burglaries and other property crimes. The $1 million pilot program and others like it are being designed to allow dwindling numbers of uniform officers to focus on more serious violent crime.

San Francisco Assistant Chief Thomas Shawyer says the civilians will save up to $40,000 per person in training, equipment and benefit costs required to hire an officer.

• Mesa, Ariz. Eight civilian investigators hit the streets in June 2009 when the department could not afford to hire uniformed police. The unit's members— some drawn from the customer service ranks of Southwest Airlines, Costco and Barnes & Noble, where they are accustomed to dealing with the public — respond to property-related offenses, including burglary, fraud and vehicle theft.

All eight, says Sgt. Stephanie Derivan, have been trained to lift fingerprints, photograph crime scenes, interview witnesses and victims. They do not carry guns.

Derivan says the department is saving an estimated $15,000 per investigator in salary.

"It's an efficient way to do business," Derivan says.

• Durham, N.C.: Teams of civilian volunteers help police canvass neighborhoods immediately after murders and other violent crimes to aid responding units and put potential witnesses at ease.

Durham Chief Jose Lopez says other volunteers in city-issued cars patrol shopping centers during the busy holiday seasons and conduct property checks for residents who are away from home.

"They are additional eyes and ears for us," Lopez says. "It effectively puts more people on the street."

Not everyone is so enthusiastic.

"For most people, the only contact they have with local government is the police department," says NAPO's Johnson. "At that point of contact, we want a full-fledged police officer dealing with the public."

Brady Discussion Friday in San Francisco

Public Defender Jeff Adachi To Join Brady Discussion Friday

October 13th, 2010 | Category: Press Releases

WHO: San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Assistant Public Defender Phoenix Streets will join defense attorneys, prosecutors, law professors and judges for a panel discussion devoted to Brady disclosure—the law at the heart of the citywide scandal involving dozens of SFPD employees with criminal records or misconduct allegations.

WHAT: The panel, Pretrial Discovery of Evidence and Brady Disclosure, is part of a daylong symposium, “Navigating Prosecutorial Ethics: A Roundtable Discussion of the ABA’s Standards for Criminal Litigation.” The symposium, which brings together the preeminent attorneys and scholars, is put on by the American Bar Association, Hastings Law Journal and the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.

WHEN Friday, October 15

Pretrial Discovery of Evidence and Brady Disclosure Panel

10 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

WHERE: Hastings College of the Law, Kane Building

200 McAllister Street, San Francisco

WHY: Earlier this year, two scandals in San Francisco thrust Brady issues into the spotlight: A massive breakdown of the SFPD crime lab and the revelation that San Franciscans may have been illegally convicted based on the testimony of officers with hidden criminal violations. The District Attorney has since implemented a Brady policy, but has not provided defense attorneys with a list of officers with criminal pasts.

Goodnight John Clark

Spokane says goodbye to John Clark, a local defense attorney, always willing to stop and help a young public defender navigate the choppy waters of municipal court. I tried my first felony case with him (not guilty on first degree burglary and firearms charges), and he was someone who was never to busy to answer a question or give a word of advice. He was a fearless and honorable advocate for the underdog and believed in never letting them see you sweat. He will be missed.

Getting to FIve: New Book about Justice Brennan

The New York Times ran a book review of a book just released about Justice William Brennan, titled "Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion". The book, authored by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel, details the life behind the scenes of "getting to five", an expression the Justice used to explain the process of getting enough votes for some critical decisions. The authors were permitted hours of chambers interviews with Justice Brennan, who passed away in 1997, and granted exclusive access to tens of thousands of pages of materials in preparation for the book. An except from the review (full article here):

The burning question has always been whether Brennan’s influence on the Warren court — which engendered a revolution that has yet to be fully reversed all these years later — was as dramatic and outsized as we’ve been led to believe. In “The Brethren,” Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong described Brennan glad-handing and horse-trading his way to one victory after another, a depiction Brennan resented for portraying him as the archetypal “Irish ward boss.”

In the decades since, Brennan has come to be seen as an epic strategist and deal-maker who coordinated many of the Warren court’s major decisions behind the scenes. Where this book truly soars is in its account of Brennan’s skills at — as he always described it to his clerks — getting to five: finding a way to string together five fractious votes for some new principle or doctrine, or seeding some future principle or doctrine between the lines. It’s clear from this biography that what Brennan did wasn’t alchemy, even when it wasn’t always perfectly principled. He emerges as so carefully attuned to the concerns and passions of his colleagues that he was able, time after time, to draft opinions, or help them draft opinions, in ways that could achieve five votes.

New Blog "Intersection Between Criminal Law and Emerging Technology

Sentencing Law and Policy drew attention to "Stockycat", a strange name for a cool blog on the intersection between criminal law and emerging technology. Recent posts include Fourth Amendment implications of cell phone searches and GPS trackers on cars. The GPS post discusses the recent DC Circuit case of United States v. Maynard in which the DC Circuit held that GPS trackers could violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. Contrast with the Ninth Circuit's holding on the topic of GPS trackers in United States v. Pinedo-Moreno. (blogged about here). Given the focus on emerging technology, whether it be in the Fourth Amendment context or in data collection and analysis, a good resource is helpful to keep track of technology and its implications in criminal investigations.

National White Collar Crime Center

Need to brush up on your cell phone data collection? preserve electronic data for court presentation? collecting and analyzing data for financial crime case? A good source of training and information is the National White Collar Crime Center. They offer on-line courses that look to be offered to law enforcement and defense investigators alike.

Job

First Monday

The Fourth of October, 2010, marks the new term of the United States Supreme Court. For following the Supreme Court term, SCOTUSblog is always a good choice. The Court opens its term with a new Justice, and a host of cases on its menu including free speech, immigration, criminal cases and even a case on violent video games. For the first time, the high court will have three women on the bench — justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and the newly confirmed Elena Kagan, who replaces the retired leader of the court's liberal bloc, John Paul Stevens.

New Post on Prosecutorial Misconduct

According to a new article by the National Law Journal highlighted at Sentencing Law and Policy. This article comes on the heels of the article in the USA Today also discussing the most serious issues associated with prosecutorial misconduct (blogged about here). Among the highlights of the report noted by Professor Bergman:

Only a tiny percentage of prosecutors who engaged in misconduct were disciplined by the State Bar of California during a 12-year period, according to a report released Monday.

The report, issued by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law, found 707 cases between 1997 and 2009 in which courts explicitly determined that prosecutors had committed misconduct. It examined more than 4,000 cases.

Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors -- 0.8% -- were disciplined by the State Bar of California. Only 10 of the 4,741 disciplinary actions by the state bar during the same period involved prosecutors....

The project found that judges often failed to report misconduct to the state bar despite having a legal obligation to do so. Sixty-seven prosecutors committed misconduct more than once and some as many as five times. The majority of those prosecutors were never publicly disciplined, the project said....

The report included recommendations for reform. It called for district attorneys to adopt internal policies that do not tolerate misconduct. It also called for the state bar to increase disciplinary transparency.