Adam Reeves is the latest edition to the Prosecutorial Misconduct Wall of Shame:
The record demonstrates that the prosecution [Adam Reeves] argued to the jury material facts that the prosecution knew were false, or at the very least had strong reason to doubt. Deliberate false statements by those privileged to represent the United States harm the trial process and the integrity of our prosecutorial system. We do not lightly tolerate a prosecutor asserting as a fact to the jury something known to be untrue or, at the very least, that the prosecution had very strong reason to doubt... There is no reason to tolerate such misconduct here.
The ABA Journal has this report. Unfortunately, even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a criminal conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct, AUSA Reeves was never identified by name in the opinion. Instead, he was referred to as "the prosecution."
With all due respect, your honors, "the prosecution" does not make decisions. People do. Unethical people like Adam Reeves. A man was wrongfully convicted because of Adam Reeves. Why spare Reeves the social sanction of being identified in the Federal Law Reports?
The staff at The Recorder, however, were able to identify the unethical prosecutor. We know how to use PACER, judges, and we will do the right thing by digging. Why should you do the right thing, too? Identifying prosecutors by name would send a message: There is no such thing as "the prosecution." When people make unethical decisions, those people will be identified and sanctioned.