Profman

When an innocent person is wrongly accused and then wrongly convicted, we shake our collective heads and say “that’s a shame, someone should really do something about that”. Diffusion of responsibility and lack of accountability are the hallmarks of injustice. Motivational in the sense that some prosecutors believe that their role in the criminal justice system is to win cases, not seek the truth. However, this frame of mind in fact are in conflict with their oath to office and violation of California and State Laws. However, NO ONE does anything about this issues. What are the remedies and or solution ??
Prosecutors put up with perjury because they need a good working relationship with the police to make their cases. Additionally, at bottom, they probably agree with the police that the end justifies the means. Judicial acquiescence to perjury can be explained to some extent by prosecutorial failure to make the case for it and or Prosecutors need police to lie in order to obtain a "guilty verdict at any cost". This issue and circumstance can cause increase burden on some ones' life, and an "innocent" Defendant, i.e. "victim" in the hands to the Prosecutor, most likely will be found guilty especially when the Defense Counsel does not provide legal "effective assistance of counsel". To the extent judges ignore obvious perjury, it is probably for the same reasons attributable to the prosecutor: sympathy for the police officer's ultimate goal — the fact that "[j]udges simply do not like to call other government officials liars — especially those who appear regularly in court.
The most frequent deficiency in Defense Attorney performance was the failure to conduct an adequate investigation with respect to guilt or innocence. Contributing to this and other “IAC” – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - failures, however, were systemic factors that obstructed effective representation and a glaring disparity between funding for the prosecution and indigent defense system in most California counties.
Despite the intentional lack of interest for Defense Counsel to assist the Defendant, the “accused”, the following are only a few reasons for the high conviction rate of the “innocent” Defendant who is usually found “guilty”, and or is forced to take a plea bargain for many reasons. Defense Counsel do not get paid enough, so why should they be forced to provide “effective assistance of counsel” ?? The Court System and or even the Bar surly is not going to “ENSURE QUALITY” of “Effective Assistance of Counsel” as defined by the U.S. Constitution, remember no Attorney will go against the “brother hood”.
At present, the requirement under California law that a Plaintiff in an action against an Attorney, i.e. “Legal Malpractice”, who represented the Plaintiff in a criminal case must prove his or her actual innocence in the underlying criminal case. This hurdle is very difficult, if not impossible and the Attorney’s take great advantage of such deficiency in the Leal System. This allows the Attorney to exploit and charge large sums of money, with little supervised, and or “quality” or “effective” performance and with no liability and or accountability. Our Supreme Court has made it clear that a legal malpractice action against a former criminal attorney requires a showing of actual innocence. (See also Mahoney v. Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon (1999) 143 N.H. 491, 498.
The issues of guilt and innocence would arise in the context of determining whether Defendant, Defense Counsel, was negligent. In addition, as noted in Wiley, the jury would be faced with applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to issues involving a reasonable doubt standard.
The system for delivering indigent defense services is facing a crisis in many counties due to:
• Excessive attorney caseloads
• Excessive defense investigator caseloads
• Inability to interview prosecution witnesses
• Failure of prosecutors to turn over favorable (Brady) evidence
• Difficulty obtaining DNA testing
• Difficulty in obtaining expert assistance
• Judicial pressure to expedite cases
• County board pressure to keep costs down
• Lack of independence
This compounded with the fact that the Prosecutor's Investigator gave false, misleading, and "perjury" testimony to the Jury allowed the Prosecution to obtain a "guilty verdict". Another "innocent victim" of crime found "guilty" by the Jury, due the hand of the Prosecution.
Defense Lawyers do not have interest and are not at all motivated to “perform for their clients” in any Criminal Cases, especially Public Defenders and or Court Appointed Counsel, despite its “Conflict of their Professional Ethics”, primarily due to the fact that there are NO adverse consequences, in using falsifies evidence, fraud, perjury, and or misrepresentation to win their cases. With this knowledge and enjoyment of absolute immunity even the Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco proudly bragged: "Good prosecutors win their cases, but it takes a great prosecutor to put an innocent man in prison".
A criminal trial is stacked against the accused. The State, led by a zealous prosecutor blinded by a moral superiority complex is pitted against the accused, whose only hope for an acquittal is a skilled, committed criminal Defense lawyer. I am not sure which is worse: zealotry, idiocy or greed.
If prosecutor’s are now getting bonuses for convictions, as the ABA Journal reports, the criminal justice system is broken.
Many studies revealed that the overwhelming majority of felony defendants (85%) in California are unable to afford a lawyer and must rely upon a public system for providing indigent defense services that is organized and funded at the county level. Yet for every dollar spent on prosecution, California counties spend on average statewide only 0.53 cents on indigent defense. Indeed one rural county spent more on its county fair than on indigent defense. This lack of parity between the prosecution and defense functions has created a gap in resources that continues to widen, and questions the assumption that such a system can provide equal justice. When the “Innocent” accused Defendant is found “guilty” from the Prosecution because of Police Perjury, Prosecutor’s conduct, and or Lack of any effort by the Defense Counsel, Public Defender or Private Counsel, there is very little remedy to cure this miscarriage of injustice. The Appeal system has very little success and once the Defendant is found “guilty” now one want to provide assistance, and even the Civil Remedies are blocked from the “lack of innocence” regardless, if the Police, witnesses, and or Defense Counsel has in fact violated State and or Federal Laws. Who will prosecute the “DA” Office, for DA misconduct ?? Which DA will prosecute the Police and or Defense Counsel for violation State and or Federal Law ??
Thus due to lack of funds, especially of an indigent Defendant, there is very littler resources and options in order to allowed one to pursue a timely Procedural reversal of an “conviction”, i.e. State and Federal Habeas.
So why you say are our "Jail" and "Prison" System Crowded, we cannot balance our deficit and (State and Federal ) Funds cannot be adequately pay for our Kids in both health and Education. What are the remedies you should ask ?? We need answers ??
This is important stuff. Not only recognizing it exists but understanding the reasons behind it. Face it, the police and prosecutors want to win, and when they loose they not only loose funding, grants, but will tarnish their careers. Especially when prosecuting someone they believe is a "scumbag" and guilty of something anyway. However, what if the Defendant was in fact innocent, and due to Police Perjury coupled with "ineffective assistance of counsel" the Defendant was found guilty. This Defendant(s), could not have much recourse and his life would be damaged forever. Having a "felony" on the record is not a small matter. In most states over 30% of people have a "Criminal Record", many are not because they were in fact guilty but could not fight the system, especially when there is very poor support from the Defense Counsels, especially with a congested court system. Plea bargains, here I come.....most people cannot afford being locked up and have to be patience until the Defense Counsel provide effective assistance of Counsel as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
When this takes place, who will be willing to file "Criminal" Charges and "investigates" the matter. Now a "innocent" person is found guilty and the system is used for illegal means, just to obtain a "conviction". Who has the "guts" to challenge the system ??

What about the onerous burden of an unjust conviction obtained because a police officer made something up to provide justification for his behavior? The pressure to lie comes at the police from all sides. Peers routinely engage in deceit, supervisors stress quotas, and the public wants criminals behind bars without having to hear too much about how they got there.
Most importantly, police lying intended to convict someone, whether thought to be guilty or innocent. Face it, the police and prosecutors want to win. A related reason for police dissembling is the institutional pressure to produce "results," which can lead police to cut corners in an effort to secure convictions. Peer practice may also play a role. A systemic problem in the criminal justice system which criminal defense attorneys must continually combat. Judges let it slide. Prosecutors often encourage it.
Even prosecutors — or at least former prosecutors — use terms like "routine," "commonplace," and "prevalent" to describe the phenomenon. Few knowledgeable persons are willing to say that police perjury about investigative matters is sporadic or rare, except perhaps the police, and, as noted above, even many of them believe it is common enough to merit a label all its own.

Most importantly, police lying intended to convict someone, whether thought to be guilty or innocent, is wrong because once it is discovered, it diminishes one of our most crucial "social goods" — trust in government. Police perjury can cause other systemic damage as well. Presumably, for instance, the loss of police credibility on the stand diminishes law enforcement's effectiveness in the streets. Most significantly, to the extent other actors, such as prosecutors and judges, are perceived to be ignoring or condoning police perjury, the loss of public trust may extend beyond law enforcement to the criminal justice system generally.
Strong measures are needed to reduce the powerful incentives to practice such testifying and the reluctance of prosecutors and judges to do anything about it.