Law Reviews & Publications on Misconduct

Prosecutorial overreaching and misconduct distort the truth-finding process and taint the credibility of the criminal justice system, including the outcomes they generate. NACDL is dedicated to attaining meaningful, systemic reform to help prevent the insidious harm caused when a prosecutor carelessly, or purposefully, fails in his or her duties to us all. This page contains law reviews and publications on the problem of prosecutorial misconduct and potential reform.

Kathleen Ridolfi, Tiffany M. Joslyn, & Todd H. Fries, Material Indifference: How Courts Are Impeding Fair Disclosure in Criminal Cases, NACDL and the VERITAS Initiative (2014)

Brady Issue, The Champion Magazine (May 2013)

National Institute of Justice, Predicting and Preventing Wrongful Convictions (2013)

Bennett L. Gershman, Subverting Brady v. Maryland and Denying a Fair Trial: Studying the Schuelke Report, 64 Mercer L. Rev. 683 (2013)

Peter A. Joy & Kevin C. McMunigal, Supervisors, Subordinates, and Sanctions, 28-FALL Crim. Just. 64 (2013)

Janet Moore, Democracy and Criminal Discovery Reform After Connick and Garcetti, 77 Brook. L. Rev. 1329 (2012)

Joel B. Rudin, Taking Prosecutorial Misconduct 'Unseriously': Brady Violations and The Myth of Professional Accountability, The Champion (December 2012)

Ellen Yaroshefsky, New Orleans Prosecutorial Disclosure In Practice After Connick v. Thompson, 25 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 913 (2012)

Continue reading below

Federal Judicial Center, A Summary of Responses to the National Survey of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Disclosure Practices in Criminal Cases (2011)

David Keenan, Deborah Jane Cooper, David Lebowitz, & Tamar Lerer, The Myth of Prosecutorial Accountability After Connock v. Thompson: Why Existing Professional Responsibility Measures Cannot Protect Against Prosecutorial Misconduct, 121 Yale L.J. Online 203 (2011)

George A. Weiss, Prosecutorial Accountability After Connick v. Thompson, 60 Drake L. Rev. 199 (2011)

"Prosecutors Seldom Punished for Misconduct," by John R. Emshwiller and Evan Perez, The Wall Street Journal (October 4, 2010)

Continue reading below

Featured Products

Daniel S. Medwed, Brady’s Bunch of Flaws, 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1533 (2010).

Cardozo Law Review Symposium, New Perspectives on Brady and Other Disclosure Obligations: What Really Works?, 31 Cardozo L. Rev. 1943-2256 (June 2010).

Judith B. Wish, The United States Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility 

Kathleen M. Ridolfi & Maurice Possley, Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct 1997-2009, Northern California Innocence Project, Santa Clara University School of Law (2010)

Malia Brink, A Pendulum Swung Too Far: Why the Supreme Court Must Place Limits on Prosecutorial Immunity, 4 Charleston L. Rev. 1 (2009)

Bruce A. Green, Regulating Federal Prosecutors: Let There Be Light, Yale Law Journal (2009)

American Bar Association, Crossing the Line: Responding to Prosecutorial Misconduct (2008)

James K. Robinson, Restoring Public Confidence in the Fairness of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Function, 2-2 Harv. L. Pol’y Rev. 237 (2008)

Robert P. Mosteller, Exculpatory Evidence, Ethics, and the Road to the Disbarment of Mike Nifong: The Critical Importance of Full Open-File Discovery (2008)

Federal Judicial Center, Brady v. Maryland Material in the United States District Courts: Rules, Orders, and Policies (2007)

Bennett L. Gershman, Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 13 (2007)

Jenny Roberts, Too Little, Too Late: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, The Duty to Investigate, And Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases, 31 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1097 (2003-2004).

Peter J. Henning, Prosecutorial Misconduct And Constitutional Remedies, 77-3 Wash. U. L.Q. 713 (1999)

Richard A. Rosen, Disciplinary Sanctions Against Prosecutors for Brady Violations: A Paper Tiger, N.C. L. Rev. (1987)