- The role of prosecutors in the criminal justice system is often overlooked in discussions about reform.
- Prosecutors have significant influence in determining charges and sentences, with 95% of cases resulting in guilty pleas instead of trials.
- Innocent people may plead guilty due to the threat of harsher charges and sentences if they go to trial.
- Prosecutors can manipulate jury selection and withhold evidence, with little accountability for misconduct.
- Only one prosecutor has ever served time for misconduct resulting in a wrongful conviction.

- A study of 5 states found that few prosecutors are disciplined for confirmed misconduct
- Some prosecutors are rewarded for high conviction rates, creating a win-at-all-costs culture
- Examples of prosecutorial misconduct include sliding up behind defendants and buzzing in their ears and deliberately excluding African-American jurors
- Many men sentenced to death during one prosecutor's tenure had their convictions overturned due to withheld evidence
- Accountability for prosecutors is lacking, with no professional sanctions for their actions
- Citizens can effect change by electing reform-minded district attorneys
- Prosecutors have significant power and can ruin lives, so it is important to be aware of their policies and priorities

John Oliver explains how prosecutors use, or in some cases misuse, their power within our criminal justice system and why it’s important to know whether or not your district attorney is a dog.

Connect with Last Week Tonight online...

Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Criminal justice, the process by which you are arrested, charged, and eventually go before a jury who render their verdict.

We find the defendant, Robert Brooks, not guilty.

-♪ ♪ -♪ I mean, That is just objectively charming, although all these years later, I still can't believe those penguins wrongfully convicted the Central Park 5.

Now, whenever we talk about criminal justice reform, we tend to just talk about policing, public defenders, judges, and prisons, and skip over a crucial element there, prosecutors, the attorneys who work for the federal, state, and local government and bring cases to trial.

There are roughly 2,500 DA's offices all around the country, and they have a surprising amount of influence at almost every single stage of the criminal justice system.

Because prosecutors decide whether you get charged and what you get charged with, and therefore, heavily influence what kind of sentence you could face.

And you sort of know deep down how important they are because of a little phrase that crops up constantly in local news crime stories.

Ultimately, it'll be prosecutors who decide whether charges will be filed.

Prosecutors will decide whether to file criminal charges.

Prosecutors will decide what happens next.

It's 1 of those three-word phrases that you hear so often, you don't even think about what it means anymore, like, user agreement update, or some restrictions apply, or Tyler Perry presents, you know?

At this point, I'm just gonna assume that he presents everything.

I technically think he presents this show.

I wouldn't be completely surprised about that.

And look, we tend not to think about that power very much, except when there is a high-profile controversy concerning prosecutors' failure to exercise it, as has happened in numerous police shootings of unarmed black men, or when Manhattan DA Cy Vance declined to prosecute Harvey Weinstein in 2015, citing insufficient evidence, despite police officials insisting that they had plenty of evidence, including exhibit A, his face.

But, but it is worth talking about what happens when prosecutors do decide to exercise that power.

Because while many try to do their jobs honorably, that power can be misused or amplify the inequities inherent in the system.

And let's start with a truly incredible fact here.

The vast majority of the time, your fate is not decided by a judge or a jury of your peers, because nearly 95 percent of the cases prosecutors decide to bring end up with the defendant pleading guilty.

Now, what that means is, no trial, no innocent until proven guilty, just a prosecutor striking a deal behind closed doors.

And many judges are resigned to that fact, because at least plea bargains keep the system moving.

If every case that was filed in the criminal justice system were to be set for trial, the system would just entirely collapse.

It's an inadequate system that only functions if people constantly give up.

It's built on the exact same model as AT&T's customer service hotline.

That's right, AT&T, new owners of HBO, long-time owners of an unforgivably dog-shit customer service hotline.

And if you are thinking, well, look, if somebody pleads guilty, they must have done it.

In Houston, testing of samples in drug cases have exonerated 133 people since 2014.

And those people had pled guilty in every single case, which is messed up.

The only people who should be claiming to have used drugs when they haven't are awkward teenagers at high school parties.

So, so why do innocent people plead guilty?

Well, prosecutors will often offer a deal while threatening that if you go to trial, they will stack charges against you and pursue a much harsher sentence.

It's something commonly referred to as a trial penalty.

He was accused of a sexual assault that DNA evidence later proved he did not commit.

And I'll let him explain why he took a deal.

When I finally got to the court, this attorney, he came in and told me that the prosecutor's office had a plea agreement for me.

He was like this urgent, he was this pressure.

And he was like, if you don't take this deal, they only offer you 2 years.

And if not, they're going to take it off the trial, and the judge is ready to give you life sentence if you get found guilty, and I think you're going to get found guilty.

This is the 1 person I had that was there to help me.

So I thought that to get home to my son, then my family, and to salvage my life, that the best thing I could do for myself was to plead guilty and fight it once I got home.

And as crazy as it sounds to hear that, it kind of makes sense.

2 years in prison is terrible, but a life sentence is absolutely terrifying.

The only way it would make sense for a defendant to risk that is if they're a gerbil, because 2 years and life are basically the same thing to those little shits.

But let's say you're 1 of the 5 percent of people who risk going to trial.

Prosecutors still have lots of ways to try and gain an advantage.

For instance, prosecutors are not allowed to discriminate by race during jury selection.

And if it's suspected that they are, the Supreme Court has said that they could be required to provide race-neutral explanations for striking jurors, which sounds like a good rule.

But, it has been laughably easy for them to get around, because judges will accept just about any reason.

In Texas, a training document for prosecutors even conveniently listed examples of race-neutral reasons that judges had accepted, including...

Having a 1970s hairdo, being a very pretty girl who might be attracted to the defendant or the defense counsel, wearing a Malcolm X hat, agreeing with the O.J.

Simpson verdict, being a male wearing earrings in both ears, and my personal favorite, for wearing a Bad Boys Club jacket, pink hat, and snakeskin belt.

Which is just insulting, because That look does not make you untrustworthy, it makes you awesome.

--LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE --I like the way I look.

But perhaps the area where prosecutors can exert the most influence concerns evidence, because they control the case files.

Things like police reports, witness information, and physical evidence.

And while they are required to hand over anything that is exculpatory, or that might be useful in your defense, in some states, including New York, they can do that at the very last minute.

Something incredible happens on the day of trial.

Suddenly a case file that for a year was this thick, suddenly now becomes this thick.

And so in our most serious cases, in the cases where we have clients who are looking at incredible amounts of potential jail time, even life in jail, this is what we are given when DAs answer ready for trial.

And the reality is, is that in Manhattan, too often, it is trial by ambush.

And they can then have to argue a case without having read all the important material.

It's basically a much higher stakes version of a kid giving a presentation in English class without having read the book.

In conclusion, throughout Wuthering Heights, the heights are Wuthering.

But by the end, the heights wuther much more than they wuthered at the beginning of the book.

Just a quick, but important message for English teachers.

No 1 has ever read a single book you have ever assigned.

And look, sometimes defense attorneys may not be given exculpatory evidence at all.

In fact, among exoneration cases, around a quarter of them involve prosecutors concealing exculpatory evidence.

And that is because prosecutors typically get to decide whether something is relevant to the defense, which seems inherently flawed.

You can't just count on an adversary to voluntarily expose all of their weaknesses.

In Star Wars, The rebels had to steal the Death Star plans.

The Empire didn't just email it to them with a subject line, forward, gigantic, stupid weak spot, parentheses, very dumb, go to town.

-♪ ♪ -♪ And when prosecutors do withhold evidence, there is very little accountability for them.

Like, in 1987, he was wrongfully convicted of his wife's murder after the prosecutor in that case withheld crucial pieces of exculpatory evidence.

Now, the good news is that prosecutor, Ken Anderson, was held to account for that misconduct.

The bad news is There was a slight discrepancy between the 2 men's sentences.

Morton served nearly 25 years in prison, 8,995 days.

And now the sentence for the prosecutor, just 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

10 days, and he served less than half that.

Although, before you get too mad, he did also have to pay a $500 fine.

Which isn't really the penalty you'd expect for wiping out 25 years of someone's life.

It's close to what you'd expect for fucking a cantaloupe at Whole Foods.

10 days for the public indecency, $500 for the cantaloupe.

And to make it even worse, Anderson is actually the only prosecutor to ever serve any time for misconduct resulting in a wrongful conviction ever.

Because the truth is, prosecutors rarely face any sort of consequences for misconduct.

State bars are supposed to hold them accountable, but a study of 5 states found that in 660 cases where courts had confirmed prosecutorial misconduct, The number of prosecutors disciplined in those cases was 1.

And that lack of accountability can fuel a dangerous culture where wins are already prioritized to a disturbing degree.

In fact, in 1 DA's office In Colorado, prosecutors were paid bonuses for achieving a high conviction rate.

And in Texas, a DA rewarded convictions in misdemeanor cases with a prize that they called the Trial Dog Award.

And let me just say, as the proud, proud owner of 9 trial dogs...

...How important it is for you to hang in there.

And there was the notoriously aggressive office, also, of New Orleans DA Harry Connick Sr., who is, yes, Harry Connick Jr.'s dad.

In fact, here they are on Harry Jr.'s short-lived talk show singing a weirdly inappropriate duet.

Now, if you didn't see any problem with that, here's just a fun experiment for you to try at home.

Tell him that the heavenly blisses of his kisses fill you with ecstasy and just see how that goes.

My prediction is your next fishing trip is going to be extra quiet.

But during his time as New Orleans DA, lots of people were wild about Harry Connick Sr.

Because his office was famously ruthless.

He was very aggressive and he wanted to lock them all up forever.

Connick's lead prosecutor was Jim Williams.

Jim took great pride in his numerous death penalty convictions.

He even kept a miniature electric chair on his desk.

Jim was regarded as 1 of the most aggressive prosecutors in the district attorney's office.

He described sliding up behind defendants in the courtroom and buzzing in their ears to mimic the buzz of electricity.

Although there was also literally no scenario in which sliding up behind someone and saying, -"Buzz!" in their ear is acceptable.

Not even if you are Neil Armstrong on the moon and you need to get Buzz Aldrin's attention.

-♪ Buzz ♪ -♪ Buzz ♪ But that office's win-at-all-costs culture resulted in some serious mistakes.

As it turns out, fully a quarter of the men sentenced to death during Connick's tenure had their convictions overturned because of improperly withheld evidence.

And remember that little electric chair 1 of the prosecutors had on his desk?

In the photo of Jim Williams with the electric chair, of the 5 faces visible, all of them were released from death row.

The thing he kept as a token of his success is now a monument to poor decision-making.

It is the prosecutorial equivalent of Cuba Gooding Jr.'s Oscar.

Why did that joke upset you more than anything else tonight?

You might care about Q, but you care about him too much in this context.

And look, if you want to see all the problems that I've described tonight in action, just take a look at the case of Glenn Ford, who was on death row for 30 years after being wrongfully convicted.

Now, the prosecutor on his case, Marty Stroud, says that he got caught up in an aggressive, hard-charging culture, and admits to, among other things, deliberately excluding African-American jurors and overlooking evidence that would have cleared Glenn Ford.

And what happened clearly still haunts him.

Without anybody else's help, putting a man on death row who didn't belong there.

I mean, at the end of the day, beginning, end, middle, whatever you want to call it...

The problem is, though, while he is clearly remorseful, in terms of accountability, there were no professional sanctions for his actions.

In fact, the acting DA after Ford was released, Dale Cox, doesn't even believe that Stroud should have apologized.

Because he's not on death row, and that's how I can say it.

Getting out of prison after 30 years is justice?

Well, it's better than dying there, and it's better than being executed.

Yeah, I guess that's true, but listen to how low he's setting the bar there.

Better than being executed or dying in prison.

Taco Bell, better than being executed or dying in prison.

Between 2010 and 2014, that man's office was responsible for sending more prisoners to death row than anywhere else in the country.

And if you think the Glenn Ford debacle may have made him more cautious, you would be wrong.

I think society should be employing the death penalty more rather than less.

But there have been 10 other inmates on death row in Louisiana who have been exonerated.

Are you sure that you've gotten it right all the time?

I'm reasonably confident that I've gotten it right.

Oh, you're reasonably confident, are you?

That does not seem like it should be the standard to send someone to death row.

I was reasonably confident I could pull off bangs.

And if someone's life had depended on it, I might have given it a little more thought.

And look, at this point, you may well be wondering, how can we fix some of what we've seen tonight?

Well, clearly, permanent legislative fixes are badly needed, from requiring greater transparency from prosecutors about sharing evidence through so-called open file laws, to ideally establishing independent commissions to investigate misconduct.

But depending on where you live, there may actually be a more direct way for you to effect change, because DAs are usually elected.

It's something you might sometimes forget until you see aggressive campaign attack ads like this 1, which ends in a bizarre turn of phrase.

This is How many child molesters the Calcasieu Parish DA has prosecuted as lead counsel?

Meanwhile, our sheriff reports crime is on the rise in Calcasieu Parish.

Steve Street for District Attorney, Calcasieu Parish.

Nathan Hamilton, justice on Mondays and Wednesdays unless something comes up or it seems like it's gonna be a whole thing.

But look, the fact prosecutors are elected means that you can change them.

The problem is around 85% of prosecutors actually run unopposed in both primary and general elections.

It's gotten so bad that in 1 county in Washington State, their prosecutor had run for 10 terms without any opposition.

So, 4 years ago, in frustration, someone ran their dog against him.

And I know what you're thinking, oh great, another white dog prosecutor.

And I'm not saying you're wrong, but let's go 1 step at a time here.

Look, clearly, we need more reform-minded DAs to run, because thanks to the extreme breadth of power they have, that could actually be a backdoor way to affect change on a whole host of issues, from bail, to the misuse of forensic science, to the enforcement of marijuana laws.

And maybe you are 1 of the lucky ones here.

Or, maybe they're a win-obsessed asshole whose heavenly blisses of their kisses fill their adult sons with ecstasy.

Or maybe you live in Washington State and for the past 4 years, your district attorney has been this fucking dog, and you didn't even realize it, because can you honestly say, with 100% certainty, that your district attorney is not a dog?

You probably can't, and that's kind of the problem here.

Most people know as much about their local DA as they know about their local Cheesecake Factory manager.

Chances are, you don't know who they are, and if you do, it's probably because something truly terrible has happened.

But the truth is, like the Cheesecake Factory, prosecutors have the ability to ruin lives in a second.

So, we need to find out who our DAs are, and get a sense of the policies and priorities that they're carrying out where we live.

Because if we do not decide ourselves what we want the criminal justice system to look like, deep down, you know who will.


Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Criminal justice, the process by which you are arrested, charged, and eventually go before a jury who render their verdict.

Speaker 1: We find the defendant, Robert Brooks, not guilty.

Speaker 2: We find Randall Bailey guilty.

Speaker 1: We find the defendant not guilty.

Speaker 0: Have you reached a verdict? -♪ ♪ -♪ Guilty or not guilty? -♪ ♪ -♪ I mean, That is just objectively charming, although all these years later, I still can't believe those penguins wrongfully convicted the Central Park 5. Now, whenever we talk about criminal justice reform, we tend to just talk about policing, public defenders, judges, and prisons, and skip over a crucial element there, prosecutors, the attorneys who work for the federal, state, and local government and bring cases to trial. There are roughly 2,500 DA's offices all around the country, and they have a surprising amount of influence at almost every single stage of the criminal justice system.

Because prosecutors decide whether you get charged and what you get charged with, and therefore, heavily influence what kind of sentence you could face. And you sort of know deep down how important they are because of a little phrase that crops up constantly in local news crime stories.

Speaker 3: Ultimately, it'll be prosecutors who decide whether charges will be filed.

Speaker 4: Prosecutors will decide whether to file criminal charges. Prosecutors will decide what happens next. Prosecutors will decide. Prosecutors will decide.

Speaker 5: Prosecutors will decide. Prosecutors will decide. Prosecutors will decide. Prosecutors will decide.

Speaker 0: Exactly. Prosecutors will decide. It's 1 of those three-word phrases that you hear so often, you don't even think about what it means anymore, like, user agreement update, or some restrictions apply, or Tyler Perry presents, you know? At this point, I'm just gonna assume that he presents everything. It's safer that way.

I technically think he presents this show. I wouldn't be completely surprised about that. And look, we tend not to think about that power very much, except when there is a high-profile controversy concerning prosecutors' failure to exercise it, as has happened in numerous police shootings of unarmed black men, or when Manhattan DA Cy Vance declined to prosecute Harvey Weinstein in 2015, citing insufficient evidence, despite police officials insisting that they had plenty of evidence, including exhibit A, his face. But, but it is worth talking about what happens when prosecutors do decide to exercise that power. Because while many try to do their jobs honorably, that power can be misused or amplify the inequities inherent in the system.

And let's start with a truly incredible fact here. The vast majority of the time, your fate is not decided by a judge or a jury of your peers, because nearly 95 percent of the cases prosecutors decide to bring end up with the defendant pleading guilty. Now, what that means is, no trial, no innocent until proven guilty, just a prosecutor striking a deal behind closed doors. And many judges are resigned to that fact, because at least plea bargains keep the system moving.

Speaker 1: The system would collapse. If every case that was filed in the criminal justice system were to be set for trial, the system would just entirely collapse.

Speaker 0: Exactly. It's an inadequate system that only functions if people constantly give up. It's built on the exact same model as AT&T's customer service hotline. That's right, AT&T, new owners of HBO, long-time owners of an unforgivably dog-shit customer service hotline. And, And look, if you are thinking...

And if you are thinking, well, look, if somebody pleads guilty, they must have done it. That's not necessarily the case. In Houston, testing of samples in drug cases have exonerated 133 people since 2014. And those people had pled guilty in every single case, which is messed up. The only people who should be claiming to have used drugs when they haven't are awkward teenagers at high school parties.

Oh, I'm totally a weeder. I'm into all the weeds. I'm stoning right now. That's how potted I am. So, so why do innocent people plead guilty?

Well, prosecutors will often offer a deal while threatening that if you go to trial, they will stack charges against you and pursue a much harsher sentence. It's something commonly referred to as a trial penalty. Just listen to Rodney Roberts. He was accused of a sexual assault that DNA evidence later proved he did not commit. And I'll let him explain why he took a deal.

Speaker 6: When I finally got to the court, this attorney, he came in and told me that the prosecutor's office had a plea agreement for me. I'm like, plea agreement? I didn't even do it. I pled not guilty. I'm innocent.

He was like this urgent, he was this pressure. And he was like, if you don't take this deal, they only offer you 2 years. You'll be

Speaker 7: home in 2

Speaker 6: years. And if not, they're going to take it off the trial, and the judge is ready to give you life sentence if you get found guilty, and I think you're going to get found guilty. And this is my attorney telling me. This is the 1 person I had that was there to help me. So I thought that to get home to my son, then my family, and to salvage my life, that the best thing I could do for myself was to plead guilty and fight it once I got home.

Speaker 0: And as crazy as it sounds to hear that, it kind of makes sense. 2 years in prison is terrible, but a life sentence is absolutely terrifying. The only way it would make sense for a defendant to risk that is if they're a gerbil, because 2 years and life are basically the same thing to those little shits. But let's say you're 1 of the 5 percent of people who risk going to trial. Prosecutors still have lots of ways to try and gain an advantage.

For instance, prosecutors are not allowed to discriminate by race during jury selection. And if it's suspected that they are, the Supreme Court has said that they could be required to provide race-neutral explanations for striking jurors, which sounds like a good rule. But, it has been laughably easy for them to get around, because judges will accept just about any reason. In Texas, a training document for prosecutors even conveniently listed examples of race-neutral reasons that judges had accepted, including... Having a 1970s hairdo, being a very pretty girl who might be attracted to the defendant or the defense counsel, wearing a Malcolm X hat, agreeing with the O.J.

Simpson verdict, being a male wearing earrings in both ears, and my personal favorite, for wearing a Bad Boys Club jacket, pink hat, and snakeskin belt. Which is just insulting, because That look does not make you untrustworthy, it makes you awesome. --LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE --I like the way I look. I guarantee it. But...

But perhaps... But perhaps the area where prosecutors can exert the most influence concerns evidence, because they control the case files. Things like police reports, witness information, and physical evidence. And while they are required to hand over anything that is exculpatory, or that might be useful in your defense, in some states, including New York, they can do that at the very last minute.

Speaker 5: Something incredible happens on the day of trial. Suddenly a case file that for a year was this thick, suddenly now becomes this thick. And so in our most serious cases, in the cases where we have clients who are looking at incredible amounts of potential jail time, even life in jail, this is what we are given when DAs answer ready for trial. And the reality is, is that in Manhattan, too often, it is trial by ambush.

Speaker 0: It's true. And they can then have to argue a case without having read all the important material. It's basically a much higher stakes version of a kid giving a presentation in English class without having read the book. In conclusion, throughout Wuthering Heights, the heights are Wuthering. But by the end, the heights wuther much more than they wuthered at the beginning of the book.

Thank you for your time. Just a quick, but important message for English teachers. No 1 has ever read a single book you have ever assigned. It has never happened, not once, ever. And look, sometimes defense attorneys may not be given exculpatory evidence at all.

In fact, among exoneration cases, around a quarter of them involve prosecutors concealing exculpatory evidence. And that is because prosecutors typically get to decide whether something is relevant to the defense, which seems inherently flawed. You can't just count on an adversary to voluntarily expose all of their weaknesses. In Star Wars, The rebels had to steal the Death Star plans. The Empire didn't just email it to them with a subject line, forward, gigantic, stupid weak spot, parentheses, very dumb, go to town.

-♪ ♪ -♪ And when prosecutors do withhold evidence, there is very little accountability for them. Take Michael Morton. Like, in 1987, he was wrongfully convicted of his wife's murder after the prosecutor in that case withheld crucial pieces of exculpatory evidence. Now, the good news is that prosecutor, Ken Anderson, was held to account for that misconduct. The bad news is There was a slight discrepancy between the 2 men's sentences.

Speaker 2: Morton served nearly 25 years in prison, 8,995 days. And now the sentence for the prosecutor, just 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

Speaker 0: 10 days, and he served less than half that. Although, before you get too mad, he did also have to pay a $500 fine. Which isn't really the penalty you'd expect for wiping out 25 years of someone's life. It's close to what you'd expect for fucking a cantaloupe at Whole Foods. 10 days for the public indecency, $500 for the cantaloupe.

And... And to make it even worse, Anderson is actually the only prosecutor to ever serve any time for misconduct resulting in a wrongful conviction ever. Because the truth is, prosecutors rarely face any sort of consequences for misconduct. State bars are supposed to hold them accountable, but a study of 5 states found that in 660 cases where courts had confirmed prosecutorial misconduct, The number of prosecutors disciplined in those cases was 1. And that lack of accountability can fuel a dangerous culture where wins are already prioritized to a disturbing degree.

In fact, in 1 DA's office In Colorado, prosecutors were paid bonuses for achieving a high conviction rate. And in Texas, a DA rewarded convictions in misdemeanor cases with a prize that they called the Trial Dog Award. And let me just say, as the proud, proud owner of 9 trial dogs... -...my award goes to this 1. -$5,000.

Please don't die. Please... -$5,000. Please don't die. -$5,000.

I cannot stress enough... -$5,000. ...How important it is for you to hang in there. And... And there was the notoriously aggressive office, also, of New Orleans DA Harry Connick Sr., who is, yes, Harry Connick Jr.'s dad.

In fact, here they are on Harry Jr.'s short-lived talk show singing a weirdly inappropriate duet. ♪

Speaker 8: I'm just wild about Harry.

Speaker 0: -♪

Speaker 8: Harry's wild about me.

Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪

Speaker 8: The heavenly blisses of his kisses.

Speaker 0: -♪ -♪

Speaker 8: Fill them with ecstasy. -♪ -♪ Harry's wild about me.

Speaker 0: -♪ I... Ah... Now, if you didn't see any problem with that, here's just a fun experiment for you to try at home. Call your own father right now. Tell him that the heavenly blisses of his kisses fill you with ecstasy and just see how that goes.

My prediction is your next fishing trip is going to be extra quiet. But during his time as New Orleans DA, lots of people were wild about Harry Connick Sr. Because his office was famously ruthless.

Speaker 4: Harry Connick was tough on crime. He was very aggressive and he wanted to lock them all up forever.

Speaker 3: Connick's lead prosecutor was Jim Williams. Jim took great pride in his numerous death penalty convictions. He even kept a miniature electric chair on his desk.

Speaker 2: Jim was regarded as 1 of the most aggressive prosecutors in the district attorney's office. He described sliding up behind defendants in the courtroom and buzzing in their ears to mimic the buzz of electricity.

Speaker 0: Holy shit! That is just not okay! Although there was also literally no scenario in which sliding up behind someone and saying, -"Buzz!" in their ear is acceptable. -$30,000. Not even if you are Neil Armstrong on the moon and you need to get Buzz Aldrin's attention.

Hey, Buzz. Buzz. Buzz. Buzz. We're on the moon, Buzz.

Buzz. Buzz. Buzz. Are you mad I was first? Buzz.

Buzz. -♪ Buzz ♪ -♪ Buzz ♪ But that office's win-at-all-costs culture resulted in some serious mistakes. As it turns out, fully a quarter of the men sentenced to death during Connick's tenure had their convictions overturned because of improperly withheld evidence. And remember that little electric chair 1 of the prosecutors had on his desk? Here's a fun fact.

Speaker 3: In the photo of Jim Williams with the electric chair, of the 5 faces visible, all of them were released from death row.

Speaker 0: Yup. The thing he kept as a token of his success is now a monument to poor decision-making. It is the prosecutorial equivalent of Cuba Gooding Jr.'s Oscar. And... And look, if you want to see...

Why did that joke upset you more than anything else tonight? You have got to be consistent. You've got to be. You might care about Q, but you care about him too much in this context. And look, if you want to see all the problems that I've described tonight in action, just take a look at the case of Glenn Ford, who was on death row for 30 years after being wrongfully convicted.

Now, the prosecutor on his case, Marty Stroud, says that he got caught up in an aggressive, hard-charging culture, and admits to, among other things, deliberately excluding African-American jurors and overlooking evidence that would have cleared Glenn Ford. And what happened clearly still haunts him.

Speaker 9: I ended up... Without anybody else's help, putting a man on death row who didn't belong there. I mean, at the end of the day, beginning, end, middle, whatever you want to call it... I did something that was very, very bad.

Speaker 0: Yeah. It was. It was very, very, very bad, in fact. The problem is, though, while he is clearly remorseful, in terms of accountability, there were no professional sanctions for his actions. In fact, the acting DA after Ford was released, Dale Cox, doesn't even believe that Stroud should have apologized.

Speaker 7: Did Mr. Ford get justice in this case?

Speaker 10: I think he has gotten delayed justice. The system did not fail Mr. Ford. It did not? It did not.

In fact, the system... How can you say that? Because he's not on death row, and that's how I can say it.

Speaker 7: Getting out of prison after 30 years is justice?

Speaker 10: Well, it's better than dying there, and it's better than being executed.

Speaker 0: Yeah, I guess that's true, but listen to how low he's setting the bar there. Better than being executed or dying in prison. By that measure, anything succeeds. Taco Bell, better than being executed or dying in prison. Although when you think about it, is it?

Is it definitely? Between 2010 and 2014, that man's office was responsible for sending more prisoners to death row than anywhere else in the country. And if you think the Glenn Ford debacle may have made him more cautious, you would be wrong.

Speaker 10: I think society should be employing the death penalty more rather than less.

Speaker 7: But there have been 10 other inmates on death row in Louisiana who have been exonerated. Clearly the system is not flawless. Are you sure that you've gotten it right all the time?

Speaker 10: I'm reasonably confident that I've gotten it right.

Speaker 0: Oh, you're reasonably confident, are you? That does not seem like it should be the standard to send someone to death row. I was reasonably confident I could pull off bangs. I was fucking wrong about that. And if someone's life had depended on it, I might have given it a little more thought.

And look, at this point, you may well be wondering, how can we fix some of what we've seen tonight? Well, clearly, permanent legislative fixes are badly needed, from requiring greater transparency from prosecutors about sharing evidence through so-called open file laws, to ideally establishing independent commissions to investigate misconduct. But depending on where you live, there may actually be a more direct way for you to effect change, because DAs are usually elected. It's something you might sometimes forget until you see aggressive campaign attack ads like this 1, which ends in a bizarre turn of phrase.

Speaker 4: This is How many child molesters the Calcasieu Parish DA has prosecuted as lead counsel? How many murders? How many rapes? Robberies? Meanwhile, our sheriff reports crime is on the rise in Calcasieu Parish.

Steve Street for District Attorney, Calcasieu Parish. He'll try harder, and a lot more often.

Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ What? He'll try harder and a lot more often? That's a pretty weak promise, Steve. The fuck was your opponent's slogan? Nathan Hamilton, justice on Mondays and Wednesdays unless something comes up or it seems like it's gonna be a whole thing.

But look, the fact prosecutors are elected means that you can change them. The problem is around 85% of prosecutors actually run unopposed in both primary and general elections. It's gotten so bad that in 1 county in Washington State, their prosecutor had run for 10 terms without any opposition. So, 4 years ago, in frustration, someone ran their dog against him. And I know what you're thinking, oh great, another white dog prosecutor.

And I'm not saying you're wrong, but let's go 1 step at a time here. Look, clearly, we need more reform-minded DAs to run, because thanks to the extreme breadth of power they have, that could actually be a backdoor way to affect change on a whole host of issues, from bail, to the misuse of forensic science, to the enforcement of marijuana laws. And maybe you are 1 of the lucky ones here. Maybe your local DA is great. Or, maybe they're a win-obsessed asshole whose heavenly blisses of their kisses fill their adult sons with ecstasy.

Or maybe you live in Washington State and for the past 4 years, your district attorney has been this fucking dog, and you didn't even realize it, because can you honestly say, with 100% certainty, that your district attorney is not a dog? You probably can't, and that's kind of the problem here. Most people know as much about their local DA as they know about their local Cheesecake Factory manager. Chances are, you don't know who they are, and if you do, it's probably because something truly terrible has happened. But the truth is, like the Cheesecake Factory, prosecutors have the ability to ruin lives in a second.

So, we need to find out who our DAs are, and get a sense of the policies and priorities that they're carrying out where we live. Because if we do not decide ourselves what we want the criminal justice system to look like, deep down, you know who will.

Speaker 5: Cops are gonna pull the sighthead.

Speaker 0: Exactly. They fucking will.

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

Prosecutors: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)