Thank you questfortrue.
Respectfully, the cases that you refer to (from the paper) involve prosecutors deceiving the court. This is not what we are talking about and not the relevant parts of the paper. Please re-read the following (from the paper) and tell me what you think is being said.
BBM. I might have missed some snips. Here’s the paper:
http://tinyurl.com/krhse8s
At the same time, however, prosecutors are "regulated
less restrictively than other lawyers." '
24 This divergent treatment
is not seen in ethics rules, but rather in the
absence of rules
addressing much of prosecutors' conduct and in the
absence of
cases where disciplinary authorities have sanctioned prosecutors. 25
The cases that do address prosecutorial deceit
make it clear that,
regardless of what the Colorado authorities may have said in
Pautler,
the context of the perpetrated deceit does count. 26 There
are two main lines of case law dealing with prosecutorial deceit.
The cases that find deceit impermissible are those in which prosecutors
deceive the courts in some way, while the
cases which find
deceit permissible deal with prosecutors instructing law enforcement
officers to use deceit during investigations.
..
Both Pautler opinions rely mainly on three cases, Friedman,l2 8
Malone,'129 and Reichman,13 ° in which laudable motive is found not
to excuse deceit.
All of these cases, however, have to do with deceit
perpetrated on a court.
<snip>
Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors'
use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. 138
Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and
direct investigations involving deceit. 39 Law enforcement officers
regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative
technique. 4 Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory
practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so
courts have determined that public policy favors deception over
unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing
investigations. 141
When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical
standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics
opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question.
<snip>
In 2002, a
Utah ethics opinion stated
that "
as long as a prosecutor's. . .conduct employing dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful
government operation, the prosecutor... does not violate [the ethics]
Rule.'14 The Committee further stated that there should be
no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it.145 [yes, I understand Utah is not Co. ]
<end>
I would agree with everything you said about Haney, Levin, and the fibers if the questions had been asked during a deposition. But, they were asked during informal interviews where deceptions is accepted and is the norm.
...
AK