criminal-law statutes
Texas District Attorneys - Law Is Merely A Suggestion?
<p><a href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.2.htm" rel="nofollow">Art. 2.01.</a> DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS of the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICERS states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including
  any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is
  done.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note that "shall" has specific meaning defined in <a href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.311.htm" rel="nofollow">Sec. 311.016</a> of the Texas Gov't Code as </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Shall" imposes a duty."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My question is:</p>

<p>Are Texas D.A.'s given independence from the law (aka statutes)?  Because, who knows what "justice" is?</p>

<p>They are not given independence from statute.</p>

<p>This clause just says that conviction is not the end goal of the prosecutor.</p>

<p>If in light of the evidence, the prosecutor comes to believe a person is not guilty, they are not to proceed with the prosecution.</p>

<p>They must not hide exculpatory or mitigating evidence in order to get a conviction.</p>

<p>As I understand it, the prosecutor's aim should be to serve justice as written in the law, that is, convict the right person. So, one shouldn't ignore evidence that would exonerate your suspect. In court, the prosecutor's aim is to present the truth, interpreting the evidence in an objective way, asking witnesses questions that help revealing what exactly happened, etc., instead of bending the interpretation in the worst possible way for the defendant, or asking questions meant to reinforce the idea of guilty.</p>

<p>So, if a witness brings up a piece of information that may exonerate the defendant, the prosecutor's duty is to examine this further, not to shut it off.</p>
