District attorneys decide what unlawful indictments to bring, and where and when an individual will answer to those allegations. Courts hardly second-guess the judgments of a prosecuting attorney, and all courts deduce that a district attorney has acted applicably. Additionally, district attorneys enjoy complete protection from suit for their courtroom drudgery. Hence, they can abuse discretion resulting in injustices in the judicial system (Miller 56).
Under the confrontational legal structure in the United States, for instance, when civilians or law execution officers bring felonious complaints to a district attorney, the prosecutor assesses the evidence to decide if adequate material is available to make a case, and to make a judgment about the kinds of arraignments involved. The public prosecutor resolves on whether to take the case to court and makes a selection about the types of charges to be put on record. Effort from individuals involved may be taken into account, but eventually, it is the prosecuting attorney’s decision. This gives the prosecutor the supremacy to misrepresent information in the court thereby resulting in injustice prosecution (Press 43).
Appellate courts employ the standard of abuse of discretion to some types of legal matters. Matters of prosecutorial delinquency, acknowledging or discounting evidence, proposals for mistrial, a reward of attorney payments, and proposals for finding are all subject to an appraisal of possible abuse of discretion. In distinction, an appellate court will employ a de novo appraisal standard to matters of law. This denotes the lower court’s clarification of the law is not requisite on the appellate court (Miller 56).
There is no uncertainty that prosecutorial discretion is an essential and important part of any system of justice; it assigns sparse prosecutorial reserves, offers the basis for plea-bargaining, and permits for mercy and leniency in a felonious justice system that is regularly harsh and objective, but it also puts DAs in one of the utmost authoritative places in the criminal justice structure. They factually have unimpeded power to choose who will stand court-martial for criminalities. Nevertheless, most prosecuting attorneys use their discretion astutely and justly, that discretion can also be misrepresented to bring criminal allegations; or to deny bringing them grounded on a prosecuting attorney’s own individual political dogmas.