Bad prosecutor spanked by Idaho Supremes

I don't follow the slip opinions from home as closely as I used to, now that I'm an affiliate member of the Idaho bar. This news, thanks to Crime and Federalism (link via CrimLaw), made me dance a merry jig... figuratively:

You Mean I Can't Lie in the Name of Justice?

A recent Supreme Court decision in Idaho suggests a new line of attack on prosecutorial misconduct.

At an ex parte probable cause hearing a prosecutor named Shari Dodge told a judge that a defendant had once "pulled a shotgun" on a cop. It turns out that wasn't true.

I had my own exposure to this prosecutor during the months I was a p.d. in her county. She struck me as a member of the "let's see how much I can get away with" school of D.A.'s. The niftiest thing was that she had the stones to run against the sitting elected prosecuting attorney (my classmate Dave Young) in last year's Republican primary, while this ethics complaint against her was still pending. That's self-confidence! Better still, the defendant about whom she made her material misrepresentation ran ads against her calling her a liar.

Well, it looks like he was right. When the Supreme Court opinion came down last month, my old co-workers Klaus, Scott, Tom, Dayo et al. probably celebrated with cigars and mariachis. The opinion is Idaho State Bar vs. Dodge, available from the Idaho Supreme Court for the next few months here (PDF file):

Dodge argues that if she is disciplined in this matter it will have a chilling effect on prosecutors, discouraging them from providing relevant information to judges unless every detail can be exhaustively checked...

In response, the ISB argues that as long as there are ethical rules directing lawyers on how to conduct themselves, there will be a chilling effect from those rules. The argument continues that a ruling that one lawyer violated two rules under the particular facts of this case should not, any more than the rules already do, have a chilling effect on prosecutors....

Ultimately, the rules of professional conduct are designed to have a chilling effect, specifically on those types of behavior the rules seek to proscribe. Enforcing those rules may chill desirable behavior in some cases, but the consequences of not enforcing the rules must weigh heavily as well. It is not unrealistic to expect an attorney making a representation to the court purporting to come from personal knowledge to take reasonable steps to assure she is speaking truthfully. It is also not unrealistic to expect an attorney at an ex parte hearing to lay out all material facts, including those that are adverse to the attorney’s position.

This Court declines Dodge’s suggestion that prosecutors be held to a lower standard in providing complete and truthful information to the courts.

As Dave Young said:

"I used to always tell my attorneys 'integrity is easy to lose and impossible to regain' and I think she is experiencing that right now."

Who's schadenfreude-ing now?