—Barrington Williams, B1Daily

America spends enormous resources policing criminals, building prisons, and expanding prosecutorial authority. Yet one of the most consequential threats to the integrity of the justice system can emerge from inside the courthouse itself.

A prosecutor can pursue charges that should never have been filed, withhold evidence that could establish innocence, pressure defendants into guilty pleas, or allow unreliable testimony to influence a jury.

When these actions produce wrongful convictions, the consequences can be devastating. Innocent people lose years of freedom, families are destroyed, and the actual perpetrators may remain free.

The disturbing reality is that prosecutors often enjoy substantial legal protections when performing their official duties.

For Black Americans, whose communities have experienced disproportionate incarceration and longstanding disparities in criminal justice enforcement, prosecutorial accountability is not some abstract legal debate.

It is a question of who gets to exercise the government’s power to take away someone’s freedom and what happens when that power is abused.

The Power to Prosecute Is the Power to Destroy

Police officers make arrests, but prosecutors determine whether many criminal cases move forward.

They select charges, negotiate plea agreements, present evidence, and recommend sentences. These decisions can influence whether a defendant spends months awaiting trial, accepts a plea bargain, or risks decades in prison.

That discretion is necessary for an effective justice system. Prosecutors must evaluate evidence, prioritize cases, and decide when criminal charges are justified.

But discretion without meaningful oversight creates opportunities for abuse.

A prosecutor who knowingly conceals favorable evidence can undermine an entire trial. One who pursues unsupported charges can impose enormous financial and emotional costs even when a defendant is eventually acquitted.

The damage is not limited to individual defendants. Every wrongful conviction weakens public confidence in the justice system and can leave the actual offender unpunished.

When Prosecutors Break the Rules, Who Holds Them Accountable?

The National Registry of Exonerations documented 97 exonerations in 2025. At least 70 involved official misconduct, meaning misconduct by police officers, prosecutors, or other government officials.

Even more troubling, 59 of those exonerated were Black, representing approximately 61% of the total.

Collectively, the 97 individuals lost 1,373 years to wrongful imprisonment. These figures describe known exonerations, not every wrongful conviction, and official misconduct does not necessarily mean a prosecutor personally committed wrongdoing. National Registry of Exonerations

Wrongful convictions overturned in 2025

97

People exonerated

70

Cases involving official misconduct

59

Black people exonerated

1,373

Total years wrongfully imprisoned

Source: National Registry of Exonerations, 2025 Annual Report.

These statistics expose a fundamental problem: the justice system can identify catastrophic errors without necessarily establishing personal accountability for everyone responsible.

A wrongful conviction may be overturned, but that does not automatically result in professional discipline, criminal charges, or civil liability against the prosecutor involved.

Absolute Immunity: The Legal Shield Around Prosecutors

In 1976, the Supreme Court decided Imbler v. Pachtman, establishing that prosecutors possess absolute immunity from federal civil damages lawsuits for actions intimately connected to initiating prosecutions and presenting the state’s case.

The justification was that prosecutors must be able to perform their duties without constant fear of retaliatory litigation.

But the protection has a troubling consequence. Even serious misconduct within those protected functions may leave victims unable to sue the individual prosecutor for damages.

Absolute immunity is not universal. Prosecutors may receive different protections when acting as investigators or administrators, and immunity does not prevent criminal prosecution or professional discipline.

Still, the legal barrier can make personal civil accountability exceptionally difficult. LII / Legal Information Institute

In a 2024 Supreme Court statement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether immunity protections had expanded too far, emphasizing that professional and criminal safeguards are meaningful only when authorities actually use them. Supreme Court

The Brady Problem: When Evidence Disappears

Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose material evidence favorable to defendants.

This constitutional obligation exists because a fair trial requires more than allowing the government to present evidence supporting guilt. Defendants must also have access to evidence that could undermine the prosecution’s case.

When favorable evidence is concealed, innocent defendants may be convicted while juries remain unaware of facts that could change their verdict.

The consequences are particularly serious in death penalty cases.

The Death Penalty Information Center reports that official misconduct contributed to 79% of wrongful capital convictions involving Black defendants who were later exonerated, compared with 58% involving white exonerees.

These numbers do not establish that every prosecutor involved acted deliberately, but they reveal how profoundly government misconduct can undermine the administration of justice. Death Penalty Information Center

Conviction Rates Should Never Become a Substitute for Justice

Prosecutors are frequently judged by their ability to secure convictions, maintain public confidence, and demonstrate toughness on crime.

But a prosecutor’s ethical responsibility is not simply to win cases. It is to seek justice.

An office that measures success primarily through conviction statistics risks rewarding aggressive prosecution rather than careful evaluation of evidence.

This does not mean prosecutors should hesitate to pursue serious criminal offenses. Communities, including Black neighborhoods disproportionately affected by violence, have a legitimate interest in effective prosecution.

It means that protecting the public and protecting constitutional rights must be treated as complementary responsibilities.

A wrongful conviction does not make a community safer. It punishes an innocent person while potentially allowing the actual offender to escape accountability.

America Needs Prosecutorial Accountability With Teeth

Meaningful reform should begin with independent oversight capable of investigating credible allegations of misconduct.

States could establish independent review commissions with authority to examine withheld evidence, improper witness practices, and repeated ethical violations. Prosecutors’ offices could also be required to publish disciplinary findings and maintain transparent procedures for reviewing questionable convictions.

Legislatures could strengthen evidence-disclosure requirements, establish consequences for intentional violations, and improve access to compensation for people wrongfully imprisoned.

Any reconsideration of prosecutorial immunity would need to preserve protection for legitimate discretionary decisions while examining whether existing safeguards adequately address deliberate constitutional violations.

The goal should not be to intimidate ethical prosecutors or weaken the prosecution of serious crimes. It should be to ensure that prosecutors who knowingly abuse public authority cannot depend on institutional silence.

The Most Dangerous Abuse of Power Wears a Badge of Legitimacy

The question of whether prosecutors are more dangerous than criminals cannot be answered with a simple comparison. Violent offenders can cause immense harm, and the overwhelming majority of criminal cases do not result in documented prosecutorial misconduct.

But prosecutors possess something ordinary criminals do not: the legal authority to mobilize the government against another person.

That authority makes abuses of prosecutorial power uniquely consequential.

When a prosecutor violates constitutional protections, the resulting harm carries the apparent legitimacy of the state. A wrongful conviction can transform official misconduct into years or decades of imprisonment.

A justice system that demands accountability from defendants must demand equally serious accountability from the officials entrusted with prosecuting them.

Otherwise, the courthouse risks becoming a place where the government enforces laws against citizens while struggling to enforce standards against itself.

—Barrington Williams, B1Daily