Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Plain Dealer)   If you're a prosecutor, don't log into Facebook as a murder suspect's girlfriend to get alibi witnesses to change their testimony   ( cleveland.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Facebook, Aaron Brockler, aggravated murder, Ohio Attorney General, eye surgery, prosecutors, girlfriend  
•       •       •

6762 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jun 2013 at 4:33 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-06 08:52:04 PM  
Sounds like he got them to admit they were lying by creating tension between them. His "unethical" behavior lost a guilty man an alibi.
 
2013-06-06 09:10:05 PM  

Mrbogey: Sounds like he got them to admit they were lying by creating tension between them. His "unethical" behavior lost a guilty man an alibi.


Which is now inadmissable in court.
 
2013-06-06 09:20:33 PM  

doglover: Mrbogey: Sounds like he got them to admit they were lying by creating tension between them. His "unethical" behavior lost a guilty man an alibi.

Which is now inadmissable in court.


What's worse is that the defense attorney might even call this ex-prosecutor as a witness, forcing him to tell the jury what he did.  Given that he lied about what the defendant had done (see this fictitious child he invented of the defendant's), the defense will be able to say the witnesses were lying because they felt betrayed.

He's GIVEN him an alibi.
 
2013-06-06 09:25:19 PM  

mattharvest: doglover: Mrbogey: Sounds like he got them to admit they were lying by creating tension between them. His "unethical" behavior lost a guilty man an alibi.

Which is now inadmissable in court.

What's worse is that the defense attorney might even call this ex-prosecutor as a witness, forcing him to tell the jury what he did.  Given that he lied about what the defendant had done (see this fictitious child he invented of the defendant's), the defense will be able to say the witnesses were lying because they felt betrayed.

He's GIVEN him an alibi.


I didn't read it that way. Sounds like they recanted. It seems at best they can go back to giving him an alibi. No other evidence seemed to be in play.
 
2013-06-06 10:08:02 PM  
It only sound like a problem if Brockler acted during trial which still has not occurred, so he should have been fine. He was just finishing the police work that in Cleveland with a high crime rate working with a greatly reduced police force just is not what it used to be.
 
2013-06-07 12:06:20 AM  
I wonder if the prosecutor goes online posing as a woman very often.
 
2013-06-07 01:27:35 AM  

Mrbogey: He's GIVEN him an alibi.

I didn't read it that way. Sounds like they recanted. It seems at best they can go back to giving him an alibi. No other evidence seemed to be in play.


I'm sure this will have no effect on their credibility with the jury.
 
2013-06-07 03:34:07 AM  
FTFA:  "Unless I could break this guy's alibi a murderer might be walking on the street."

FACE - farkING - PALM

It doesn't work that way, moron.
 
2013-06-07 04:35:23 AM  
Is it too soon to discuss prison terms for Prosecutorial Misconduct?
 
2013-06-07 04:40:14 AM  
Anyone but a prosecutor/judge/cop would be on their way to prison for this.
 
2013-06-07 04:43:18 AM  

generallyso: Anyone but a prosecutor/judge/cop would be on their way to prison for this.


For....?

My guess is the only people who could ever get in any type of trouble at all for this is a prosecutor/judge/cop. And no one would ever go to prison for it.
 
2013-06-07 04:45:21 AM  
He has been watching to many lawyer shows on TV.
 
2013-06-07 04:57:25 AM  

SpdrJay: Is it too soon to discuss prison terms for Prosecutorial Misconduct?


I suggest about 10 minutes in jail per offense. Oh, and sometimes before the 11th minute we double tap them in the head with a cow stunner and bury what's left in the prison boot hill.
 
2013-06-07 05:19:18 AM  
If he's called as a defense witness, he can always plead the 5th, can't he?  What a dumb thing to do.  Oh, and one more thing....

There are no girls on the enternet.  Everyone knows that.
 
2013-06-07 05:24:24 AM  
(pause) "mmm, I'll allow it, McCoy. But watch yourself!"
 
2013-06-07 05:47:42 AM  
He's on shaky ethical ground but he didn't ask a witness to lie, he told a witness a lie that was unrelated to the case which got the witness to recant their testimony. Like he said, this is something the cops should have been doing in their investigation (as cops can lie to people in order to get at the truth), not the prosecutor.
 
2013-06-07 06:00:33 AM  
This is what happens when your law studies consist mostly of watching Law & Order episodes.

/DUN DUN!
 
2013-06-07 06:15:19 AM  

Befuddled: He's on shaky ethical ground but he didn't ask a witness to lie, he told a witness a lie that was unrelated to the case which got the witness to recant their testimony. Like he said, this is something the cops should have been doing in their investigation (as cops can lie to people in order to get at the truth), not the prosecutor.


Sounds about right.  I also got the impression he's being fired for lying to his OWN boss about it; he might have just gotten a warning or something, except:

"We gave him a chance to make an explanation. He gave contradictory statements. We dismissed him," McGinty said."

If he'd come clean, or better yet, run his cunning plan past his boss first, he'd be in better shape.
 
2013-06-07 06:20:38 AM  

Bslim: This is what happens when your law studies consist mostly of watching Law & Order episodes.

/DUN DUN!


Did he  create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to See if he could track an IP address?
 
2013-06-07 06:21:57 AM  
Cops lie all the time, what's the difference?
 
2013-06-07 06:36:34 AM  
"Brockler said he was motivated by a sense of justice and sympathy for the victim's mother, whom he said he had developed a relationship with."

Go on . . .
 
2013-06-07 06:40:53 AM  

Befuddled: He's on shaky ethical ground but he didn't ask a witness to lie, he told a witness a lie that was unrelated to the case which got the witness to recant their testimony. Like he said, this is something the cops should have been doing in their investigation (as cops can lie to people in order to get at the truth), not the prosecutor.


Shakey ethical ground? The system is EXPLICITLY designed by people who would rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned.

Going that extra mile for the conviction isn't praiseworthy, it should be grounds for at least the death penalty.
 
2013-06-07 06:47:33 AM  

skwerl: Cops lie all the time, what's the difference?


Cops are specifically allowed to use deception, ie, undercover officers, etc.

Prosecutors, not so much.

Sure, there's flaws in the system...there's flaws in EVERY system...but it's not a completely arbitrary line to draw.

The underlying idea seems to be, drag the perps in by any means necessary, then give them a fair trial.

Works for me.
 
2013-06-07 06:47:40 AM  
Lawyer outrage! Shoot them, or something.
 
2013-06-07 06:48:54 AM  
This guy sees no problem with his conduct even though his own office facepalmed so hard that he's out of a job? Good luck with the Bar.
 
2013-06-07 06:51:10 AM  

you are a puppet: generallyso: Anyone but a prosecutor/judge/cop would be on their way to prison for this.

For....?


Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? I believe logging in to FB with someone else's ID would fall under that... (Not that they'd bother to actually pursue the case unless it was the account of someone important, or something...)
 
2013-06-07 06:55:16 AM  

RobSeace: you are a puppet: generallyso: Anyone but a prosecutor/judge/cop would be on their way to prison for this.

For....?

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? I believe logging in to FB with someone else's ID would fall under that... (Not that they'd bother to actually pursue the case unless it was the account of someone important, or something...)


Also, Aggravated Mopery, with Intent to Gawk.
 
2013-06-07 06:59:05 AM  
FTFA: " "I wasn't some rogue prosecutor sitting behind a computer trying to wrongfully convict someone."

Umm. YES YOU ARE YOU PIECE OF SHIAT!!! That's EXACTLY what you are!!!
 
2013-06-07 07:11:26 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: This guy sees no problem with his conduct even though his own office facepalmed so hard that he's out of a job? Good luck with the Bar.


Yeah, his troubles may not be over just yet...
 
2013-06-07 07:13:22 AM  
Why didn't he just get a cop to do it? Can't the cops continue investigating right up until a verdict is passed? I agree... this guy probably watches too much TV.
 
2013-06-07 07:16:20 AM  
I didn't share my technique with him, but we talked about the importance of breaking the alibis wearing people down until they'll say what ever you want so you can convict them regardless of guilt or innocence.

That's better
 
2013-06-07 07:19:23 AM  

generallyso: Anyone but a prosecutor/judge/cop would be on their way to prison for this.


You forgot to add Catfish to that list.
 
2013-06-07 07:27:24 AM  

SpdrJay: Is it too soon to discuss prison terms for Prosecutorial Misconduct?


Not if you're a moron.
 
2013-06-07 07:30:44 AM  

Mrbogey: Sounds like he got them to admit they were lying by creating tension between them. His "unethical" behavior lost a guilty man an alibi.


Or now they're lying about not being at the park with him because they were angry that this guy had a fictional baby with a fictional girlfriend.

He said he posed as a fictitious former girlfriend of Dunn's who had given birth to Dunn's child, which Brockler said caused the women "to go crazy".
 
2013-06-07 07:41:42 AM  
the problem is that he jumped on facebook with the exact intention to convince the witnesses to change their testimony regardless of the truth, and he lied to them in order to do it.  he didn't care about the truth, he cared about putting this guy in jail no matter what.  i'm glad he lost his job.

what if you were wrongly accused of murder but you had an alibi, and some lunatic prosecutor like this guy was so convinced you were guilty that he posed as someone on facebook in order to trick your witness into changing their story?
 
2013-06-07 07:49:26 AM  
Every prosecutor will tell you they do not work for law enforcement, and do not work with law enforcement. In most jurisdictions, prosecutors are supposed to be "ministers of justice" and not simply and extension of law enforcement. In other words, they are not to do their own investigations.

This, of course, is absolute horseshiat, and this article just shows and extreme example. Prosecutors frequently do their own investigations, and protect cops as if they were kin.

But in this case, the guy also violated several rules of ethics (presuming his state follows the ABA model rules), the biggest of which is that an attorney shall not engage in any kind of deceit, dishonesty or fraud. He better hope none of those witnesses had retained counsel to advise them on their testimony, or he's in even deeper doodoo.

If they want to "break" the alibi, they can do it on cross examination.
 
2013-06-07 07:52:55 AM  

enderthexenocide: the problem is that he jumped on facebook with the exact intention to convince the witnesses to change their testimony regardless of the truth, and he lied to them in order to do it.  he didn't care about the truth, he cared about putting this guy in jail no matter what.  i'm glad he lost his job.

what if you were wrongly accused of murder but you had an alibi, and some lunatic prosecutor like this guy was so convinced you were guilty that he posed as someone on facebook in order to trick your witness into changing their story?


Seems like you are exactly wrong.  He felt like they were lying due to loyalty to the defendant.  All he did was give them a reason to question why they were being loyal.  If their story was true, learning that he had a previous girlfriend and maybe a child shouldn't have any effect of their testimony.
 
2013-06-07 07:53:17 AM  

enderthexenocide: the problem is that he jumped on facebook with the exact intention to convince the witnesses to change their testimony regardless of the truth, and he lied to them in order to do it.  he didn't care about the truth, he cared about putting this guy in jail no matter what.  i'm glad he lost his job.

what if you were wrongly accused of murder but you had an alibi, and some lunatic prosecutor like this guy was so convinced you were guilty that he posed as someone on facebook in order to trick your witness into changing their story?


Happens all the time. Prosecutors regularly threaten witnesses with perjury convictions or threaten to bring up past encounters with law enforcement if they don't go along with their story. Thats how the whole "War on Drugs" is operated.
 
2013-06-07 07:54:30 AM  
The guy in charge of trying to get you put in jail shouldn't be allowed to do shiat like this. If he can't show you are guilty based on evidence at hand, then you're not guilty, are you? (well legaly, anyway)

Cops on the otherhand will lie their asses off.
*turns off tape recorder* "Okay, this is off the record, I understand why you killed that guy, it's cool, I just want to know how" (Even though he turned off his tape recorder, you are still talking to a cop. His tape recorder is just for his own use. The room has it's own mic which ISN'T off.)
"We found your DNA all over the scene" (Even though we never took a sample from you, we know it was yours! So just admit, ok!)
"Look, if you cooperate right now, everything will be easier for you" (Yeah, easier to stick your ass in prison)
"Your buddy just turned on you. He told us everything. So you might as well admit what you did" (If he turned on you, then they wouldn't need you to admit to a crime, now would they? They are going to tel him the same thing next)
"If you admit to the murder, we'll just give you a warning" (good, now I am warning you I am about to toss your sorry ass in prison)
 
2013-06-07 07:56:15 AM  

mattharvest: doglover: Mrbogey: Sounds like he got them to admit they were lying by creating tension between them. His "unethical" behavior lost a guilty man an alibi.

Which is now inadmissable in court.

What's worse is that the defense attorney might even call this ex-prosecutor as a witness, forcing him to tell the jury what he did.  Given that he lied about what the defendant had done (see this fictitious child he invented of the defendant's), the defense will be able to say the witnesses were lying because they felt betrayed.

He's GIVEN him an alibi.


I got news for you noob.  Police can lie all they want, prosecutors can lie all they want, as long as they are not under oath in a court room.  They can use any means they want to get someone to confess. The only question is, does that stuff hold up as evidence in court.

And, usually it does.

That's why 'dont talk to police' is a good policy.  They'll lie to you to manipulate a crime into existing.  Then arrest you for it.  If you don't talk, you can't be fooled by their BS.

Watch First 48 a couple of times and watch the deceit regularly used in the interrogation rooms.
 
2013-06-07 07:58:16 AM  
Well, someone's getting disbarred.
 
2013-06-07 08:01:02 AM  

MythDragon: The guy in charge of trying to get you put in jail shouldn't be allowed to do shiat like this. If he can't show you are guilty based on evidence at hand, then you're not guilty, are you? (well legaly, anyway)

Cops on the otherhand will lie their asses off.
*turns off tape recorder* "Okay, this is off the record, I understand why you killed that guy, it's cool, I just want to know how" (Even though he turned off his tape recorder, you are still talking to a cop. His tape recorder is just for his own use. The room has it's own mic which ISN'T off.)
"We found your DNA all over the scene" (Even though we never took a sample from you, we know it was yours! So just admit, ok!)
"Look, if you cooperate right now, everything will be easier for you" (Yeah, easier to stick your ass in prison)
"Your buddy just turned on you. He told us everything. So you might as well admit what you did" (If he turned on you, then they wouldn't need you to admit to a crime, now would they? They are going to tel him the same thing next)
"If you admit to the murder, we'll just give you a warning" (good, now I am warning you I am about to toss your sorry ass in prison)


The FBI is actually forbidden by law from using any recording device when questioning a suspect or a witness. Every word of testimony in court by an FBI agent is strictly taken from handwritten notes made during the interrogation. If that agent is out to get a conviction, is a pathological liar or has any reason to be prejudiced against a witness or a defendant, there is no actual record except that of his own word.
 
2013-06-07 08:11:34 AM  

jafiwam: I got news for you noob.  Police can lie all they want, prosecutors can lie all they want, as long as they are not under oath in a court room.  They can use any means they want to get someone to confess. The only question is, does that stuff hold up as evidence in court.


And I've got news for you too. There's this little thing called "The rules of ethics" that prosecutors (as lawyers) must follow or be disbarred. Key amongst those is Rule 8.4(c) (presuming that this state uses the Model Rules), which states:
"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; "

It's pretty clear that this guy's conduct was dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful,and involved misrepresentation.

IN ADDITION, this guy's conduct violates Rule 4.1(a):
"In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person"

AND FURTHERMORE, it violates Rule 4.3:

"In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. The lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client."


In addition, if his actions constituted witness tampering, he may have broken criminal law as well. Basically, you have no goddamn clue what you're talking about.
 
2013-06-07 08:11:40 AM  

Macinfarker: Every prosecutor will tell you they do not work for law enforcement, and do not work with law enforcement. In most jurisdictions, prosecutors are supposed to be "ministers of justice" and not simply and extension of law enforcement. In other words, they are not to do their own investigations.

This, of course, is absolute horseshiat, and this article just shows and extreme example. Prosecutors frequently do their own investigations, and protect cops as if they were kin.

But in this case, the guy also violated several rules of ethics (presuming his state follows the ABA model rules), the biggest of which is that an attorney shall not engage in any kind of deceit, dishonesty or fraud. He better hope none of those witnesses had retained counsel to advise them on their testimony, or he's in even deeper doodoo.

If they want to "break" the alibi, they can do it on cross examination.


No, we won't; we  are law enforcement, by definition.  Here in Maryland, it's literally in our statutes that we're law enforcement.  We're the prosecution, of course we're enforcing the law.

However, we're also officers of the court, and are obligated (ethically and legally) to proceed only when we ourselves are satisfied already that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.  We should never ask a jury/judge to believe something we ourselves do not.

We investigate all sorts of stuff - I just requested some financial records for a suspect yesterday - but that's normal.

Where this guy went wrong is he engaged with witnesses in a way that turned himself into a witness.  This would have been wrong whether or not a lie was involved, but the fact that he lied made it ever worse.  Officers are able to lie during interrogations, but that's among other things what they're trained to do.  We, on the other hand, are uniformly trained never to lie to witnesses or the court.
 
2013-06-07 08:12:28 AM  

Deathfrogg: The FBI is actually forbidden by law from using any recording device when questioning a suspect or a witness.


I've never heard of this, do you have a citation?
 
2013-06-07 08:15:18 AM  

The Muthaship: Seems like you are exactly wrong.  He felt like they were lying due to loyalty to the defendant.  All he did was give them a reason to question why they were being loyal.  If their story was true, learning that he had a previous girlfriend and maybe a child shouldn't have any effect of their testimony.


The problem is that as prosecutors, we don't lie to witnesses.  Officers can lie during interrogations, per numerous cases, but prosecutors cannot.  As Rincewind already posted, our rules of professional conduct simply don't permit it.

The reasoning is simple: we're still law enforcement, but we're a different part.  In the same way that different units of a police station have different roles, different offices of law enforcement have different roles.  The clear demarcation of our abilities and responsibilities are what let us do our job fairly.
 
2013-06-07 08:15:21 AM  

mattharvest: Deathfrogg: The FBI is actually forbidden by law from using any recording device when questioning a suspect or a witness.

I've never heard of this, do you have a citation?


Yeah, I highly doubt that.
 
2013-06-07 08:15:29 AM  
This is why I do not believe in Capital Punishment.

also-
"This office does not condone and will not tolerate such unethical behavior," McGinty said. "He disgraced this office and everyone who works here."
McGinty continued: "By creating false evidence, lying to witnesses as well as another prosecutor, Aaron Brockler has damaged the prosecution's chances in a murder case where a totally innocent man was killed at his work."


THAT person is a hero.  To take it on the chin like that is hard.  It's not always easy to do the honest thing.
 
2013-06-07 08:19:09 AM  

The Muthaship: enderthexenocide: the problem is that he jumped on facebook with the exact intention to convince the witnesses to change their testimony regardless of the truth, and he lied to them in order to do it.  he didn't care about the truth, he cared about putting this guy in jail no matter what.  i'm glad he lost his job.

what if you were wrongly accused of murder but you had an alibi, and some lunatic prosecutor like this guy was so convinced you were guilty that he posed as someone on facebook in order to trick your witness into changing their story?

Seems like you are exactly wrong.  He felt like they were lying due to loyalty to the defendant.  All he did was give them a reason to question why they were being loyal.   If their story was true, learning that he had a previous girlfriend and maybe a child shouldn't have any effect of their testimony.


Or again, maybe they are lying now to screw him over after being lied to by the prosecutor.

We'll never know, because he farked up.
 
2013-06-07 08:21:18 AM  

mattharvest: The problem is that as prosecutors, we don't lie to witnesses.


I agree completely.  I was taking issue with the descriptions of what the guy did here that some people,  What he did was wholly inappropriate behavior for a prosecutor, but would have been fine for a police officer.  I don't believe the guy wanted the alibi witnesses to lie, he wanted them to tell the truth.  He just gave them a reason not to lie.  Unfortunately, he chose a bad way to go about it.

The people in here saying that he just wants convictions regardless of guilt have no basis, and are just the usual anti-law enforcement rabble that is always all over these threads.

Rincewind53: mattharvest: Deathfrogg: The FBI is actually forbidden by law from using any recording device when questioning a suspect or a witness.

I've never heard of this, do you have a citation?

Yeah, I highly doubt that.


It is FBI policy not to record interrogations.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report