Above Contempt?: The Attorney General, the Courts, and Informational Overreaching in Terrorism Prosecutions

Citation data:

Law Faculty Scholarship

Publication Year:
Usage 2486
Downloads 1926
Abstract Views 560
Repository URL:
http://lsr.nellco.org/rwu_fp/2; https://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fs/84; https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=law_fac_fs
Margulies, Peter
prosecutorial misconduct in terrorism cases; prosecutorial discretion; insuring judicial integrity in terrorism cases; Terrorism; Prosecutorial Discretion; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Law
article description
Prosecutors face the continual temptation to overreach in decisions about the control of information. At each phase of a criminal proceeding, from investigation through trial, prosecutors make crucial decisions about information to disclose and highlight with courts, juries, and the public. In ordinary times, courts, defense counsel, the media, and internal sources of oversight can place some constraints, however tenuous, on the prosecutor’s efforts to monopolize the management of information. However, external events, such as the attacks of September 11, 2001, can weaken these constraints, producing alarming spikes in prosecutorial power.