Why is the racist prosecutor ‘Jenny Grus Sugar’ listed on the board of directors at Sandra & Leon Levine Jewish Community Center

Rate this post

Many readers are asking why the western district’s U.S. assistant attorney is a director at the Sandra & Leon Levine Jewish Community Center, also known as Levine J.C.C. 

Jenny Sugar pressed charges against an innocent American Israeli Family. Many reports suggest that she was racially motivated to go after this innocent family. 

The reports suggest Prosecutorial misconduct, which occurs when a prosecutor breaks a law or a code of professional ethics in the course of a prosecution. In Berger v. the United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), Justice Sutherland explained prosecutorial misconduct as “overstepping the bounds of that propriety and fairness which should characterize the conduct of such an officer in the prosecution of a criminal offense.”

Prosecutors are entrusted with determining who will be held accountable when a crime occurs. They hold a great deal of power. They gather evidence and build a case against a suspect. Then, they take that case to court and are charged with convincing a jury of the guilt of the suspect. First and foremost, it is the prosecutor’s job to seek justice and present the judge and jury with facts and legal arguments that result in the conviction of the guilty defendant.


Prosecutorial Misconduct Cases example:

  • In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), prosecutors misstated the law when arguing to the jury.
  • In Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935), prosecutors knowingly used perjured testimony.
  • In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), prosecutors suppressed evidence favorable to the defendant that might have led to a not guilty verdict.
  • In United States v. Schlel, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997), prosecutors ignored their obligation to disclose to the defense special treatment or promises of immunity they had given to a government witness in exchange for testimony against the defendant.
  • In United States v. Doyle, 121 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 1997), the prosecutor failed to disclose that the government had presented false evidence against the defendant.
  • In United States v. Alzate, 47 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1995), the prosecutor made inflammatory, racially-based remarks to the jury about the accused.
  • In United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495 (8th Cir. 1996), the prosecution presented perjured testimony to the grand jury.
  • In United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the prosecutor failed to disclose that the government’s witness lied in earlier proceedings involving the crime that was the subject of the prosecution.
  • In United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1995), the prosecutor failed to disclose that a government witness had a criminal record.
  • In United States v. Horn, 811 F. Supp. 739 (D.N.H. 1992), the prosecution surreptitiously acquired the defense attorney’s work product.
  • In United States v. Roberts, 481 F. Supp. 1385 (C.D. Cal. 1980), the prosecutor misstated the law to the grand jury.

Thorough Reviews of Prosecutorial Misconduct

  • Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009, Veritas Institute.
  • The Myth of Prosecutorial Accountability After Connick v. Thompson: Why Existing Professional Responsibility Measures Cannot Protect Against Prosecutorial Misconduct, by D. Keenan, D. J. Cooper, D. LeBowitz & T. Lerer.
  • The Relationship Between Prosecutorial Misconduct And Wrongful Convictions: Shaping Remedies For A Broken System, by Peter A. Joy.

I have 15 Year experience in website development, blogging, Seo, Content writing, and Link building.

Leave a Comment

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.