Willard Anthony V. Louisiana: Case Analysis

The complexities of the criminal justice system are compensated by models and processes for increasing speed and efficiency while maintaining protection of individual rights and delivery of justice. The crime control and due process models were created by Herbert L. Packer, a legal scholar, in order to describe the increasing expectations of the criminal justice system (Burke et al., 2019). The crime control model emphasizes the importance of system efficiency, with the most crucial functions being to reduce and control crime, through which public order and society safety are reached. Thus, within the model, the focus is placed on preventing crime, which is considered more critical to individual freedom. The justice process can resemble an “assembly line,” in which a suspect is apprehended, guilt is determined, with the guilty individual receiving appropriate punishment through the system of corrections. In general, the crime control model may increase the number of plea bargains because trials take a lot of time.

The due process model underlines the necessity of a fair criminal justice system for everyone while also ensuring a system that does not infringe upon individuals’ rights granted by the Constitution. In contrast to the “assembly line” comparison for the crime control model, the due process model should instead be an “obstacle course” (Burke et al., 2019). Protecting individual rights and freedoms is the most essential aspect of the model, which has been attributed to a more liberal perspective. Since the two models have their advantages and disadvantages and do not address every problem independently, combining them may be the most effective approach in the long run.

Willard Anthony V. Louisiana is a criminal court case involving the defendant, Willard Anthony, who, in 2016, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated battery, human trafficking, and sexual battery. Anthony was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, with the sentencing appearing to be proportionate to the extent of the crimes committed by the defendant (Nanos, 2022). As reported by Hunter (2019), the defendant’s victim, a Florida woman, told law enforcement that she was drugged and taken at gunpoint to metro New Orleans where she was forced to engage in prostitution. She also reported being beaten by a pistol and a chair, and when she tried to escape, the captor chased her and brutally beat the victim. As the woman identified several of her captors, an investigation ensued, soon capturing Anthony, who was initially charged with rape and human trafficking. While the case and the charges against the defendant appear clear and reasonable, the trial and the events after it allows looking at an important criminal law issue associated with prosecutorial misconduct and its resolution.

After the sentencing, Anthony’s lawyers issued a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. They questioned the “departure from ordinary trial practice” and referred to the prosecutor’s actions in the case as not only “blatant and egregious, but a clear due process violation” (Legal Information Institute, 2022, para. 2). A writ of certiorari is made when a party is dissatisfied with the decision of a lower court and petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. However, there is no obligation of the higher Court to hear the case that was petitioned. It only hears cases if they have the potential to gain national significance, may lead to a harmonization of conflicting decisions in federal Circuit courts, or could have precedential value in the future (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, n.d.). The Court usually accepts less than 1% of cases that it is asked to review in a year.

In the writ of certiorari, Anthony’s defense team claimed that departure in trial practice occurred when the State was allowed to call the grand jury prosecutor to the stand in order to testify in his official capacity. The prosecutor was allowed to provide a lengthy testimony despite the repeated objections and the mistrial motions made by the defense (“Willard Anthony, petitioner, v. State of Louisiana, respondent,” 2019). The testimony of the grand jury prosecutor was instrumental in influencing the decision of the Court as he expressed a firm belief in the victims’ credibility, the defendant’s guilt, and the strength of the evidence provided by the State. Besides, the prosecutor was free to share his professional opinion about the law that was applied to the case, which the defense considered incorrect at times. As a result of the testimony, the jury resolved the disputes regarding witness credibility in favor of the State’s position.

Thus, in the petition, the defense raised three issues pertinent to the defendant’s trial. First, they questioned whether the “presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to confrontation allow” for the grand jury prosecutor to stand as a witness and provide testimony (“Willard Anthony, petitioner, v. State of Louisiana, respondent,” 2019). Second, they asked whether the admission of a prosecutor’s testimony represents structural error or is subjected to the review of a harmless error. Third, the defense questioned whether the burden of the State to prove harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt aligns with the review of the Court’s conclusion that the evidence is supportive of the defendant’s conviction even when the prosecutor’s testimony is excluded.

The issue of authority is highly relevant in this case because the authority of the grand jury prosecutor was used against the defendant. The testimony was detrimental to convicting the defendant because in it, the prosecutor “used the weight of his office to vouch for and validate the State’s evidence, and by opining on the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence, the testimony created a legitimating lens through which the jury was invited to view the entirety of the State’s case” (Nanos, 2022, para. 14). Therefore, it is nearly impossible to argue beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony of the prosecutor had no impact on the verdict made by the jury. The grand jury prosecutor is an individual with considerable authority, especially in the eyes of the jury, responsible for making a conclusion regarding the defendant’s conviction. It remains to be resolved whether the issue was a harmless error, and the same conclusion could have been reached had the grand jury prosecutor not testified regarding witness credibility.

The case involving the alleged prosecutorial misconduct warrants the discussion of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the rights of criminal defendants. Their rights include the ability to have a public trial without avoidable delays, the right to a lawyer, the right to know the accusers, as well as the knowledge of the charges. Besides, the right to a fair trial is protected by Articles 14 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The philosophical underpinnings of the case are concerned with the question of whether a defendant was denied fundamental justice in light of including a testimony made by a grand jury prosecutor. Those siding with the defendant on the issue said that prosecutorial misconduct took place during the trial, which is why the conviction could not stand. The public policy impact is rather moderate because the evidence against the defendant was extensive, and the appeal of the defense did not lead to the result they intended. Nevertheless, the principles of evidence inclusion and exclusion should always be a priority while the reliability of witness testimony must be evaluated.

It is important to conduct case analysis when preparing for a career in criminal justice because such an activity enables one to synthesize information from different sources on a particular case, which is conducive to the development of such skills as analysis and reasoning. Law enforcement agencies tend to require their staff with a diverse set of skills that exceed common knowledge. In addition, case analysis enables doing independent research, with the researcher applying methods in criminology and statistics in order to make conclusions regarding the application to policy and practice. Finally, as cases that are being analyzed are often finalized, they allow looking at problems from a different perspective, which may lead to new applications in future practice and implications for criminal justice. The case explored in this analysis warrants a further exploration of the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and the overuse of authority to potentially impact the decision of the jury even when evidence of guilt is available.

References

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (n.d.). Supreme court procedures. Web.

Burke, A. S., Carter, D. E., Fedorek, B., Morey, T. L., Rutz-Burri, L., & Sanchez, S. (2019). Introduction to the American criminal justice system. Open Oregon Educational Resources.

Hunter, M. (2019). Florida woman drugged, beaten and forced into prostitution in Harvey, JPSO says. The Times-Picayune. Web.

Nanos, E. (2022). Sotomayor and Jackson dissent in denial of convicted sex trafficker’s appeal: A ‘most egregious’ case of ‘prosecutorial misconduct’. Law & Crime. Web.

Willard Anthony, petitioner, v. State of Louisiana, respondent. (2019). Web.