Failure to Investigate | Ignoring Evidence of Innocence

Failure to Investigate or Ignoring Evidence of Innocence occurs when a prosecutor, despite having knowledge of leads, witnesses, or evidence that could establish or strongly support a defendant’s innocence, neglects or refuses to pursue those avenues. This misconduct undermines the prosecutor’s duty to seek justice rather than convictions and can amount to a violation of due process.

Scope:

  • Neglecting Exculpatory Leads: Failing to follow up on credible evidence that points away from the defendant.

  • Disregarding Alternative Suspects: Ignoring evidence identifying another perpetrator or suppressing such information.

  • Omitting Witnesses: Refusing to interview or disclose witnesses who could provide exculpatory or mitigating testimony.

  • Withholding Scientific Inquiries: Declining to conduct or disclose forensic tests (e.g., DNA, fingerprints) that might exclude the defendant.

  • Minimizing or Concealing Evidence of Innocence: Downplaying or burying information in case files instead of fairly disclosing it to the defense.

Examples:

  • Refusing to test biological evidence that could exonerate the accused.

  • Ignoring credible third-party confessions implicating another suspect.

  • Suppressing alibi witness statements that were presented during investigation.

  • Choosing not to review surveillance video that could disprove the government’s theory.

Related Standards:

  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963): Requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

  • Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995): Obligation extends to evidence known to law enforcement and investigative agents.

  • ABA Model Rule 3.8(a) & (d): Prosecutors must refrain from prosecuting without probable cause and must disclose exculpatory evidence.

  • Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935): Establishes that the prosecutor’s role is to seek justice, not merely to win cases.

Consequences:
Failure to investigate or ignoring evidence of innocence can result in wrongful convictions, reversal on appeal, post-conviction relief, professional discipline, civil liability, and significant erosion of public trust in the justice system.