Closely watched discipline case against California prosecutor yields a reproval

Troy Benson, a prosecutor in Santa Clara County, was publicly reproved in a closely watched discipline case in California arising out of an alleged failure to turn over key evidence to a defendent in a sexual abuse case. The opinion is below. The defense counsel at trial was the experienced and able Jonathan Arons (San Francisco). From the Oakland Tribune:

In a victory for an embattled Santa Clara County prosecutor accused of professional misconduct, a state bar court judge on Friday recommended he be allowed to continue practicing law.

But State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy found Troy Benson should face public reproval for one misstep -- failing to disclose evidence to the defendant in a child sex-abuse case.

McElroy's ruling was a defeat for the state agency that licenses California lawyers, which urged her to strip Benson on his right to practice law for two years, and a relief for the career prosecutor and his many supporters.

"I didn't do anything on purpose,'' Benson said in a brief phone interview after the opinion was released. "There was no intention to hide any evidence. Once I learned of the tape, I turned it over.''

Download Benson Decision

Comments

[David Cameron Carr]

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel will almost certainly appeal this decision.

[John Steele]

David, interesting, thanks. I will follow that closely. Although it's my county, I have no particular insights about the matter or the prosecutor, except that he used a peremptory challenge to ding me off a jury in the only time I've ever been called to jury duty -- an act which I don't take personally, of course.

I didn't want to come out in the title of the post and claim it was a defense victory, but that was the sense I got, and your comment that the OCTC will appeal tends to confirm that.

[Nicole Hyland]

Fascinating story. Talk about Rashomon. I suppose it's possible that both lawyers independently discovered the existence of the tape and thought they were the one who told the other about it. But I can certainly see why one would think the prosecutor was covering up.

Having said that, I wish the decision had offered a bit more support for the idea that discovering a certain type of evidence in once case imposes an obligation to look for the same type of evidence in all of your other cases. It doesn't seem that Benson was accused of actually knowing about the videotape in the Uribe case - but that, because he learned of the videotape in the other case, he had a duty to investigate whether there was a tape in Uribe. I guess I'm having trouble understanding how that violates the Brady rule. How can you suppress evidence you don't know exists? Besides, the defense counsel could have subpoenaed the hospital for evidence, couldn't he? I kind of feel the defense counsel is getting off the hook a bit for not digging up the evidence himself.

[John Steele]

Nicole, I have no special insights on this case, but your explanation resonates with me. There seem to be multiple ways of understanding not just the facts but also the proper interpretation of them.

[mt45]

"I kind of feel the defense counsel is getting off the hook a bit for not digging up the evidence himself."

Nicole, I'll never understand why ineffective assistance of counsel is not sanctionable except in extreme cases. It is at least as damaging to a defendant's rights as the negligent/incompetent types of "prosecutorial misconduct". And it's probably worse because it implicates more rights - the right to effective counsel, AND whatever other right the defense attorney is compromising due to his or her poor performance.

[Thalia]

You really can't read this case without reading the Mercury News' excellent reportage on this prosecutor, and why he was pulled up for discipline: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_20646441/state-bar-charges-santa-clara-county-prosecutor-misconduct

Had this been an isolated case, I'm sure no one would have tried to disbar him over it. But it looked to be a systemic problem with the SCCounty Prosecutors. Thousands of tapes were not disclosed.