Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
I think you're referring to the difference between Independent Counsel and Special Counsel.
|
No, I was exactly making the point: There is a distinction between "Counsel" and "Prosecutor" .... and let's just say I heard Ken Starr discussing the often confusion over the authority of the two not too long ago. It has to do with their appointed duties and authorities.
The practical (and due process) reasons have to do with one person gathering the evidence surrounding a matter for which they have a duty to obtain "all" the FACTS/EVIDENCE that is "inculpatory" AND "exculpatory" then turn it over to THE PROSECUTOR to review and make prosecutorial decisions as to what offense, if any, arises from the facts mustered by the special counsel who managed the investigation.
By having a bifurcated process it reduces the risks of a "focused investigation" (sound familiar) that ignores exculpatory facts and evidence and seeks to preserve only those facts and evidence that supports the investigators preconceived notions as to what happened and who was responsible for the activity sought to be investigated.
There is an ethical reason to keep the two separated: An investigating prosecutor can actually conflict themselves out of the case by becoming a witness when they discovered FACTS and EVIDENCE the existence and source of which ONLY came to the attention of the PROSECUTOR during the investigation so the PROSECUTOR is the only witness who can testify as to the knowledge and source of the evidence/facts.
You see the latter situation frequently in government cases ... not the creation of an ethical conflict, but the risk of one. So a "special prosecutor" is appointed.
BTW: There is no "independent" counsel or "independent prosecutor" associated with the U.S. Department of Justice based upon the DOJ prosecutorial guidelines that are applicable to U.S. Attorneys, who are prohibited from making "prosecutorial decisions" without the review and approval of the AG. Can you say "Loretta Lynch"?
