Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan
From: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Criminal Prosecution
Message-ID: <1238@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 12:14:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1238
Posted: Tue Aug  7 12:14:06 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Aug-84 02:21:46 EDT
Reply-To: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak)
Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica
Lines: 23




A friend of mine recently told me that, altho a citizen can initiate
civil legal action, the executive branch of govn is the only one
which can handle criminal legal action. Is this true?

He says that the DA's office is the only one that can take someone
to trial and prosecute him on a criminal charge.  He claims that at
least one reason for not allowing anyone to go to a lawyer for
criminal action is to prevent innocent people from being harassed
to death by court proceedings.  He didn't explain what the difference
between criminal and civil court action is in this respect.

The reason i bring this up is this:  If what he says is true, what's
to prevent a breakdown of the system when the DA's office becomes
corrupt? Is voting in a new DA the only recourse? Where are the checks
and balances?  And what happens when a good DA makes what is known to
be a mistake in not prosecuting a particular case?  Can the legis-
lature assign a special prosecutor?

	Alan Algustyniak   (ihnp4!sdcrdcf!alan)
        (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)