Defendant Darius was convicted of homicide five years ago in…
Questions
Defendаnt Dаrius wаs cоnvicted оf hоmicide five years ago in a county court and sentenced to life in prison. Petra, the chief county prosecutor, who had previously secured Defendant Darius’s conviction, recently learned of new forensic tests that provided clear and convincing evidence of Defendant Darius’s innocence. Prosecutor Petra disclosed this new evidence to the court, which appointed a lawyer to represent Defendant Darius. Prosecutor Petra also disclosed the new evidence to Defendant Darius’s lawyer. Defendant Darius’s lawyer moved to set aside the conviction under a new state law that requires the court to vacate a criminal conviction when newly discovered evidence or information establishes that a convicted defendant did not commit the crime of which he was convicted. However, Prosecutor Petra opposed the motion. Although Prosecutor Petra knew that there was clear and convincing evidence of Defendant Darius’s innocence, Prosecutor Petra believed that she had a professional obligation to advocate in favor of upholding Defendant Darius’s conviction. Although the court eventually ruled in Defendant Darius’s favor and ordered the state to release him from prison, Defendant Darius remained in prison for a substantial period of time while the motion was litigated. Was Prosecutor Petra’s conduct proper?