Beebs52 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 7:36 pm
Sss, how is quantum leap defined legally?
The case this comes from, Williams v. State, is the governing case on the issue of prosecutorial disqualification in Georgia. It was a murder case in which the defendant was convicted twice and both convictions were overturned by the appellate courts. A third trial ended in a mistrial after an 11-1 vote for conviction. The defense at this point appealed and claimed that another trial would be barred because of Double Jeopardy and in a separate motion, that the district attorney should be barred because of prosecutorial misconduct as a result of various errors that resulted in reversal of the first two convictions and some improper statements to the press. The trial court denied both motions.
The Georgia Supreme Court addressed the double jeopardy issue first, saying "Under both state and federal criminal law, it is a quantum leap from a conclusion that the reversal of a criminal conviction is necessary, to a holding that, as a result of the error or errors upon which the reversal is predicated, the Double Jeopardy Clause erects a constitutional barrier to further prosecution of the defendant. In this regard, it is a well-established tenet underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause that to bar retrial of a criminal defendant, on the sole ground that trial error necessitates reversal of the conviction, is far too high a price for society to pay for the vindication of the rights of criminal defendants under our scheme of government, and was never intended by the Double Jeopardy Clause."
To try to disqualify the district attorney, the defense pointed to comments he made to the media after the mistrial in the third trial. He said: "So far as I see it, the score is 35-to-1 for conviction, and I'm confident that if we bring it back and get a jury that is willing and able to decide, then we'll get the right result. Two juries have voted unanimously for conviction. Another has voted 11-to-1 for conviction. In my opinion, therefore, there is substantial reason to believe Mr. Williams is guilty of the offense charged."
The Georgia Supreme Court said that the errors the prosecution made in the first two trials were not intentional and then went on to say that the comments to the press about the "right result" were improper. Then they went on to say: "The defendant argues that the impropriety chargeable to the prosecutor as a result of his statements, when combined with other alleged incidence of prosecutorial misconduct in this case, establishes an inability on the part of the prosecutor and his staff to perform their prosecutorial duties, thereby requiring the grant of the appellant's disqualification motion.... The defendant's disqualification motion is similar to his double jeopardy plea, in that here, as there, it is a quantum leap from any conclusion that extrajudicial statements made by the prosecutor were improper, to the holding that disqualification of the prosecutor is required as a result thereof. The prosecutor's comment concerning the 'right result' can be said to have constituted an impermissible expression by the prosecutor of his opinion concerning the merits of the case. A conflict of interest has been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged, or has consulted with the defendant in a professional capacity with regard thereto; such conflict also has been held to arise where the prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction. In determining whether an improper statement of the prosecutor as to the defendant's guilt requires his disqualification, the courts have taken into consideration whether such remarks were part of a calculated plan evincing a design to prejudice the defendant in the minds of the jurors, or whether such remarks were inadvertent, albeit improper, utterances. Here, it is quite clear that any improper remarks made by the prosecutor were not of such egregious nature as to require his disqualification."
The implication of the comment about "quantum leap" (this case was decided in 1988, before the original TV series aired) is that a much higher level of prosecutorial misconduct must be shown to disqualify the prosecuting attorney than to reverse a conviction. (Otherwise, you'd have motions to disqualify every time a case got reversed on appeal.)
