California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.Rptr. 24, 39 Cal.3d 740, 705 P.2d 347 (Cal. 1985):
4 It appears that Attorney Clancy may have had little discretion in the decision whether to bring an action under the public nuisance ordinance; he does so at the direction of the city council. However, as we emphasized in the criminal arena, "the prosecutor's discretionary functions are not confined to the period before the filing of charges.... [W]hile the trial judge has the power to prevent actual prosecutorial misconduct in court, within those bounds the district attorney possesses the advocate's traditional ability to conduct his case in the manner he elects. [Citations.] A district attorney may thus prosecute vigorously, but both the accused and the public have a legitimate expectation that his zeal, as reflected in his tactics at trial, will be born of objective and impartial consideration of each individual case." (People v. Superior Court (Greer), supra, 19 Cal.3d 255, 267, 137 Cal.Rptr. 476, 561 P.2d 1164.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.