- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Did Holder's "I'm a black man" comments arguably violate Ethics rules?
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:05 am
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:05 am
Prosecutors have to follow rules of ethics and professional conduct.
Here's what Rule 3.8 says about what a prosecutor needs to do/not do:
" (f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused . . . "
Holder's comments were definitely "extrajudicial" and definitely were not "necessary".
Did Holder violate the rules of ethics?
He said that his own experience of being victimized based on race impacted him. Did this create an inference that he believed that Officer Wilson's actions victimized Brown based upon race?
Arguably, yes, and creating that inference could create a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.
Can Officer Wilson get a fair Civil Rights trial once the Attorney General infers that the accused's actions were motivated by racial bias or prejudice? Officer Wilson's defense attorney may have an issue here.
Here's what Rule 3.8 says about what a prosecutor needs to do/not do:
" (f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused . . . "
Holder's comments were definitely "extrajudicial" and definitely were not "necessary".
Did Holder violate the rules of ethics?
He said that his own experience of being victimized based on race impacted him. Did this create an inference that he believed that Officer Wilson's actions victimized Brown based upon race?
Arguably, yes, and creating that inference could create a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.
Can Officer Wilson get a fair Civil Rights trial once the Attorney General infers that the accused's actions were motivated by racial bias or prejudice? Officer Wilson's defense attorney may have an issue here.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:13 am to Champagne
holder is a politician, not really a "prosecutor"
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:28 am to Champagne
quote:I'd bet Holder would claim to be drawing on his inner RFK.
Arguably, yes, and creating that inference could create a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.
As RFK was addressing the MLK murder:
quote:
For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:29 am to Champagne
quote:
Did Holder's "I'm a black man" comments arguably violate Ethics rules?
Why do you arguably add an unnecessary word to your sentence?
The AG heads the DOJ which has it's own ethics department and code. I haven't read the code but if you're concerned with possible ethics violations, you should concentrate on those and not the rules which don't apply.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:33 am to NC_Tigah
Robert Kennedy was not the AG when MLK was killed and hadn't been AG for 4 years. He was a US Senator running for president.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
holder is a politician, not really a "prosecutor"
Which means he is not fit to hold the Attorney General office. Thanks Obama....
Posted on 8/24/14 at 9:50 am to Champagne
You think this administration gives one solitary frick about ethics rules?
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:00 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
You think this administration gives one solitary frick about ethics rules?
....NO...they never have....they don't now.....and they NEVER will. This is the most embarrassing administration that has ever been in office...like ameteur hour....and it gets worse daily.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
holder is a politician, not really a "prosecutor"
Doesn't AG Holder supervise and manage those prosecutors that handle Civil Rights cases?
So, if the Boss infers that a particular case might involve a hate crime, or something like that, could this influence the prosecutorial discretion of the subordinate?
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:11 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
You think this administration gives one solitary frick about ethics rules?
IMHO, AG Holder can indeed handle this matter fairly and impartially.
This administration, however, plays very fast and loose with all ethics rules, not to mention "the law" in general. This administration is not the most law-abiding that we've seen, IMHO.
But, Holder's comments were careless and could create problems for any of his subordinates that might later be assigned to prosecute any case against the police officer.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:12 am to Champagne
The man provides weapons to drug cartels. He's not concerned about how his words are perceived
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:15 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
you should concentrate on those and not the rules which don't apply.
Let's assume that there is no controlling legal authority that would prohibit AG Holder from making extrajudicial comments that arguably infer that Officer Wilson was motivated by racial prejudice when he shot Brown.
Has AG Holder in any way made it more difficult to prosecute Wilson, because his comments may have created some legal issues for Wilson's defense attorney to exploit?
Why would the AG make a public extrajudicial pronouncement that creates a legal issue for a future defense attorney to exploit?
Would a thoughtful, wise, competent AG who possesses good judgment make such extrajudicial comments?
This post was edited on 8/24/14 at 10:18 am
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:29 am to Vegas Bengal
LINK
From the article above --
Here's a rule that applies to AG Holder:
" The issue in Ferguson is possible police misconduct. Investigating such misconduct is the responsibility of the Criminal Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The primary mission of this Section is to prosecute individual police officers under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. These criminal statutes prohibit officials who are acting under color of law from willfully depriving individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
If the manager and supervisor of the prosecuting attorney in a Civil Rights case makes a public statement that creates in inference that the accused was motivated by racial bias and prejudice, does this create a reasonable likelihood that the accused's right to a fair trial is adversely affected?
If your Boss tells you that he thinks a case on your desk involves racial prejudice, are you more or less likely to prosecute the case?
Did Holder affect the independent judgment that a US Attorney must have when exercising prosecutorial discretion?
Is it even ARGUABLE that he did?
Why would any competent US Attorney General generate such grist for the legal mill of the defense attorney?
From the article above --
Here's a rule that applies to AG Holder:
" The issue in Ferguson is possible police misconduct. Investigating such misconduct is the responsibility of the Criminal Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The primary mission of this Section is to prosecute individual police officers under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. These criminal statutes prohibit officials who are acting under color of law from willfully depriving individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
If the manager and supervisor of the prosecuting attorney in a Civil Rights case makes a public statement that creates in inference that the accused was motivated by racial bias and prejudice, does this create a reasonable likelihood that the accused's right to a fair trial is adversely affected?
If your Boss tells you that he thinks a case on your desk involves racial prejudice, are you more or less likely to prosecute the case?
Did Holder affect the independent judgment that a US Attorney must have when exercising prosecutorial discretion?
Is it even ARGUABLE that he did?
Why would any competent US Attorney General generate such grist for the legal mill of the defense attorney?
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:35 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
The AG heads the DOJ which has it's own ethics department and code.
So, the American Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct don't apply to AG Holder?
Here's what Rule 3.6 says:
" A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. "
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:50 am to Champagne
quote:
A Milwaukee County sheriff took aim at Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Missouri Democrats on Friday, accusing them of demonizing law enforcement officers and fanning the racial flames in Ferguson.
Sheriff David Clarke, who gained national attention last year for encouraging gun ownership, accused Mr. Holder, Gov. Jay Nixon and Sen. Claire McCaskill of making “irresponsible” and “inflammatory” comments about Ferguson’s police force and its purported race issues
quote:
Mr. Clarke said the three insinuated that law enforcement officers “engage in some nefarious or systematic and cultural attempts to violate people’s civil rights.”
“I thought that was a slap in the face to every law-enforcement officer in America who puts on the badge and the uniform everyday to go out and risk their lives in service to their community,” the sheriff said.
Mr. Clarke specifically called on Mr. Holder apologize.
“I think the attorney general needs to further explain his anecdotal references to being racially profiled as if officers across America do this thing,” he said.
Read more: LINK
Posted on 8/24/14 at 10:51 am to Alahunter
Holder should resign, he's been an absolute disaster.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 11:02 am to Champagne
I don't know much about judical matters but if I were Wilsons lawyers, I would LOUDLY demand that this holder immediately recuse himself from this investigation.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 11:03 am to Champagne
No. The AG is not a prosecutor.
Posted on 8/24/14 at 11:20 am to Champagne
Not the most egregious thing that he has done while serving as AG.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News