Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17645House OversightOther

Academic analysis of prosecutorial bias and under‑enforcement in U.S. criminal justice

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #016517
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage discusses scholarly perspectives on conflicts of interest, racial bias, and under‑enforcement in police and prosecutorial contexts. It does not provide concrete new allegations, names, tra Highlights conflict‑of‑interest concerns when prosecutors evaluate police misconduct. Notes historical patterns of bias against minorities, undocumented immigrants, sex workers, and LGBT Cites propos

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

police-misconductbias-investigationunderenforcementracial-disparitypolicy-recommendationprosecutorial-biaslegal-exposurecriminal-justice-reformhouse-oversight
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Page 8 of 42 103 Minn. L. Rev. 844, *856 group), and favoritism toward the class of perpetrators, law enforcement officers. 4° In the ordinary organization of criminal justice systems, those cases call on officials from one law enforcement agency to assess the evidence against officials from another, even when the agencies regularly work together. +! As in the context of local public corruption, conflict-of-interest rules 42 are far from adequate to prevent prosecutors from making judgments in light of such professional relationships and circumstances. 43 The possibility of partiality is inevitable. When [*857] that possibility combines with the long history of racial disparities in U.S. criminal justice administration, widespread suspicion of non-prosecution decisions in cases of police violence against minority civilians is hardly surprising, as the Black Lives Matter movement demonstrates. “4 4. Other Underenforcement Contexts Corruption, sexual assaults, and police violence illustrate the key causes and effects of failures to enforce criminal law, but the same forces are recognizably at work in other social contexts. Scholars and advocates have pointed to biases as explanations for inadequate law enforcement responses to offenses against undocumented aliens, sex workers, institutionalized persons, and targets of anti-LGBT hate crimes. * Complaints that police ignored wrongdoing against racial-minority victims in minority communities were prominent in the 1970s and 1980s. 4° Some of [*858] the remedies, however - which included harsher drug laws adopted with substantial support from African American politicians and communities - have proven deeply problematic for those same communities. 47 Finally, less pernicious biases and favoritism are suspected explanations for lenient enforcement patterns in lower-visibility contexts, such as bicyclists killed by motor vehicle drivers, ** employees injured on the job due to workplace safety violations, and bystanders shot by recreational hunters. +? Even critics of those enforcement decisions in those settings view them as products of subtle or unconscious empathy with vehicle drivers, employers, and recreational gun users, which incline officials 40 Prison guard assaults on inmates raise the same concerns, although they get less public attention. For a notorious failure to prosecute prison guards and law enforcement officials for unjustified lethal force, see generally Heather Ann Thompson, Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy (2016). 41 Cf. Paul Cassell, Who Prosecutes the Police? Perceptions of Bias in Police Misconduct Investigations and a Possible Remedy, Wash. Post: Vololkh Conspiracy Blog (Dec. 5, 2014), Attps:/Awww.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh -conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/Awho-prosecutes-the- police-perceptions-of-bias-in-police-misconduct-investigations-and-a-possible-remedy (describing the problem of local prosecutors! handling police cases as a "perception of bias" rather than a "conflict of interest" and recommending state attorneys general handle police cases). One solution, followed in Wisconsin, is to assign investigation of deaths involving law enforcement officers to a state-level investigative agency unconnected to the local agency of the officer under investigation. Vis. Stat.§ $175.47, 950.04(1v) (do), 950.0822) (h) (2014). # E.g., Criminal Justice Standards 3-1.3 (A.B.A. 2015); ef. Braman v. Corbett, 19 A.3d 1151, 1154 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (describing a situation where a district attorney's office recused itself from decision to prosecute on a private complaint alleging the district attorney committed rape, and the state attorney general investigated and made the decision not to prosecute). 8 For a disturbing account of prosecutorial deference to police, see Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve, Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America's Largest Criminal Court 127-56 (2016); David A. Harris, The Interaction and Relationship Between Prosecutors and Police Officers in the United States, and How This Affects Police Reform Efforts, in The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective 54, 55, 60-63 (Erik Luna & Marianne Wade eds., 2012) (describing reasons why the prospect of police reform through the efforts of state prosecutors is "bleak"); Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve, Chicago's Racist Cops and Racist Courts, N.Y. Times (Apr. 14, = 2016), https ://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/opinion/chicagos-racist-cops-and-racist-courts.html; see also Kate Levine, The Ultimate Conflict, Slate (Sept. 11, 2014), Attp:/Avww.slate.com/articles/news and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/09/local_prosecutor_bob_meculloch_should_ not_be_the_one_to_decide_whether_to.html. For a harrowing account of a federal prosecutor who did not show deference to fellow law enforcement officials and faced apparent retaliation for it, see Paul Butler, Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice 1-21 (2009). DAVID SCHOEN

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Law Review Article Discusses Enforcement Redundancy and Under‑enforcement in U.S. Criminal Justice

The passage is a scholarly analysis of prosecutorial discretion, under‑enforcement, and the role of federal‑state redundancy. It contains no specific allegations, transactions, dates, or names of indi Identifies ‘enforcement redundancy’ (federal‑state overlap, private prosecution, judicial review) as Notes that federal prosecutors often step in when state prosecutors decline to charge, especially

111p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Proposal to Require Victim Input on Nolo Contendere Pleas Cited in CVRA Subcommittee Discussion

The passage outlines a procedural reform suggestion for federal criminal sentencing and notes an apparent oversight by the Advisory Committee. While it mentions Senator Feinstein, it does not provide Advocates amending Rule 11(a)(3) to require courts to consider victims' views before accepting a nol Senator Dianne Feinstein is quoted supporting broader victim rights under the Crime Victims' Right

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subjec

Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message along with any/all attachments is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' (USAFLS)" To: >, ' (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:38:15 +0000 Importance: Normal Hi I.— You can get me on the line once calls in. I will be at my desk — 41047 A. Vi&faller Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:11 PM To:a (USAFLS) < Cc:a MI I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Motion to Compel and Si. Briefing Schedule I am out of class at 5:15 pm. What number shall I call? Sent from my iPhone c On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:56, a, (USAFLS) > wrote: Can we talk later this afternoon? Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Cassell <a> Date: March 8, 2017 at 8:51:03 AM EST To: "Brad Edwards (USAFLS)" Cc: " I. (USAFLS)" '`= > (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule Dear I'm writing to express some concerns about the Government's recent response to our most recent discovery requests and to request a stipulated bri

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

To: Paul Cassell <[email protected]>, Brad Edwards <[email protected]>

To: Paul Cassell <[email protected]>, Brad Edwards <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Proposed email to Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:57:54 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Paul and Brad: As I promised, since returning to work on Tuesday, I have been working diligently on trying to provide you with the answers that you have requested in connection with the Jane Doe I. United States lawsuit. Both the referral of your allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility and the request for our Office to "step aside" in the Jane Doe litigation are not insignificant matters. As you doubtless are aware, the position that you are asking us to adopt, simply by "stepping aside," will have repercussions for every U.S. Attorney's Office throughout the country, and, therefore, requires approval from the Department in Washington, D.C. We also are trying to balance our obligations to with our obligations to the other identified victims in the Epstein ma

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.