The existing system of justice heavily relies on the jury and the decision taken by the jury, to a significant extent, define the outcomes of the court trial. In such a situation both prosecutor and defense party naturally attempt to influence the jury in order to achieve a desirable outcome which differs consistently depending on whether the prosecutor or defense attempts to influence the jury’s decision. At the same time, it is obvious that often both prosecutors and defense tend to misconduct in order to sway the jury and meet the desirable ends. In such a situation, it is important to analyze in details how prosecutor or defense can change the position or opinion of the jury. In this respect, it is possible to refer to the omission of evidence by the prosecutor, which can sway the jury and influence the jury’s decision consistently.
On analyzing the possibility of misconduct from the part of the prosecutor to sway the jury by means of the omission of evidence, it should be said that one of the primary goals of a prosecutor is not only to win the case but also to establish or reestablish justice. In other words, the primary goal of a prosecutor should be the justice, while winning the case is apparently secondary goal for a prosecutor. However, in real life situations, prosecutors often view winning the case as their primary goal because it can define their future career. Obviously, prosecutors who can win any case is considered to be a good specialist in his field that increases his chance to get a higher position in the professional hierarchy. In such a context, many prosecutors naturally tend to misconduct in order to win a case.
In this respect, the omission of evidence can be a very effective tool to win a case. At the same time, it is quite difficult to prove the fact that a prosecutor omitted evidence intentionally. As the matter of fact, a prosecutor can argue that he informed defense and provide all evidences available to him, while it is the defense that failed to use the evidence which was at its disposition. In addition, it is possible to explain the omission of evidence by purely technical problems. For instance, a prosecutor can refer to the bureaucratic apparatus as the major cause of the omission of evidence. This means that a prosecutor can formally provide the defense with all evidences but some evidence can be omitted due to the complexity of bureaucratic relations within the justice system.
In addition, a prosecutor can argue that the defense intentionally pretends that a prosecutor omitted evidence because the defense needs a pretext to accuse the prosecutor in misconduct with the intention to sway the jury. Therefore, the prosecutor can insist that it is the defense’s fault that evidences were omitted, while the prosecutor performed his duties properly. In such a way, the prosecutor can manipulate the jury speculating on the intention of the defense to sway the jury, while, in actually, the prosecutor himself may misconduct to meet the same goal.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that a prosecutor’s misconduct can sway the jury, especially if a prosecutor uses such a tool as the omission of evidence, which is quite difficult to prove to be an intentional act.