NONPROFITS AND TIME SEND LETTER TO WHITE HOUSE ON JENNY GRUS

NONPROFITS AND TIME SEND LETTER TO WHITE HOUSE ON JENNY GRUS

Time Magazine and many other nonprofits sent a joint message to the White House on Wednesday regarding the innocent American Israeli Family. The letter urges the Department of Justice to fully examine the investigation of Assistant US attorney Jenny Grus Sugar in the Western District of North Carolina. Mrs. Sugar is also a director at The Sandra and Leon Levine Jewish Community Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Read the joint letter here. Also last week, The Christian Mail sent a joint letter to the White House, which can be read below.

Robert H. Jackson, former U.S. Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice: “The prosecutor has greater control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.”
Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in whether to file criminal charges against someone and what those charges should be.

Various SBA programs were available to the American Israeli family, who owns many succeful businesses. There is no doubt that the family hired and paid a company that submitted wrong tax documents without their permission. There are hundreds of examples of this. Despite knowing that the family is innocent and that her investigation was mishandled and tainted, Jenny Sugar chose to pursue the innocent family. In an attempt to prevent the facts from being exposed, she continues to use her tools to block a fair jury trial. To coerce a plea bargain, Mrs. Sugar has threatened to press charges again against the innocent Israeli American family members.

During the course of prosecuting a case, a prosecutor may intentionally violate a law or a code of professional ethics. Although prosecutors are responsible for following the law themselves and ensuring that those in law enforcement who work on an investigation or prosecution do the same, “prosecutorial misconduct” is a term usually reserved for deliberate and serious violations.
Partly due to the fact that prosecutors are often the ones who control access to evidence, it is difficult to know the full extent of the problem. We do know, though, that some prosecutors care more about securing a conviction than complying with their constitutional obligations, resulting in error and, in some cases, intentional misconduct. In spite of this, prosecutors are not held accountable for their missteps. According to the United States Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors are granted immunity from civil lawsuits (meaning they cannot be sued by a wrongly charged individual) even when they intentionally violate the law, which makes oversight by public agencies and the courts all the more significant.

 

Partly due to the fact that prosecutors are often the ones who control access to evidence, it is difficult to know the full extent of the problem. We do know, though, that some prosecutors care more about securing a conviction than complying with their constitutional obligations, resulting in error and, in some cases, intentional misconduct. In spite of this, prosecutors are not held accountable for their missteps. According to the United States Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors are granted immunity from civil lawsuits (meaning they cannot be sued by a wrongly charged individual) even when they intentionally violate the law, which makes oversight by public agencies and the courts all the more significant.