NCJ Number
112481
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 136 Issue: 6 Dated: (June 1988) Pages: 1879-1901
Date Published
1988
Length
23 pages
Annotation
In its decision in United States vs. Ofshe, the court of appeals included a footnote suggesting that the prosecutor, Scott F. Turow, had engaged in reprehensible conduct that might warrant disciplinary action.
Abstract
Turow filed a motion to have the opinion amended by deleting the footnote. He argued that his ethical responsibilities were not at issue in that case and that public censure with neither prior notice nor opportunity to be heard violated his due process rights. The motion was supported by a memorandum filed by the United States stating that the conduct in question had been approved by the Department of Justice. The court not only denied Turow's motion, but expanded its prior recommendation to suggest criminal prosecution of Turow. Unless Turow is indicted or censured by the grievance machinery (which has not yet occurred), he is without recourse. On the basis of his prior experience, he is unlikely to petition the same court for reargument, and en banc review seems highly unlikely. So without notice and with no opportunity to be heard, Turow has had his professional reputation impugned for lawful behavior undertaken in accord with the policy of his office and the Department of Justice and in the interests of law enforcement. In effect, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sat as a grand jury; and Turow, without a trial forum, will be forever presumed guilty. 65 footnotes.