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: 23A 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)