Prosecutorial Misconduct In July 2003, Jay Lentz was convicted for kidnapping and murdering his ex-wife. The jury that was handling his case sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, later after the sentence, a US District judge called Gerald Lee established that there was insufficient evidence on the charge. Therefore, he ordered a new trial of the case because he felt that there was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor (OpenJurist, 2011). Further, it was argued in the case that the court ruling was based on evidence that was never presented in court. The inadmissible evidence was retrieved from the belongings of the deceased and included a list of calendar notes of threats by the victim’s ex-husband. In that effect, Judge Lee drew a conclusion that the chief prosecutor deliberately put the calendar in the evidence box taken to the jury. As a result, the jurors evaluated this evidence although they were not supposed to see it. Lee argued that putting this evidence in the jury room was not an innocent mistake. It was reckless misconduct by the prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecutors refused to concede the truth and consequently declined to apologize for their mistakes. Instead, they questioned the authority of the judge during the case proceedings asserting assumptions that they were above the law in that context. However, their thoughts were contrary to what the judge had in mind. This judge insisted that they ought to be answerable and fortifies his intuition with claims that Mellin was intensely involved in that case. He had requested to be the one to handle that particular case before it had begun. Mellin handled the case in court as if he had complete control of the case thereby ignoring the importance of the judiciary. The whole process of handling the case involved the judge and the prosecutor exchanging so many words in a way that no prosecutor could get away with. Later on, as a sign of guilt Mellin requested the Department of justice: the office of professional responsibility to handle the investigation against him. He did this with hopes that the office would clear his name since this was possible in the United States of America. This common practice is actually what provided the ‘immune feeling’ to the prosecutors because there were thousands of mishandled cases in the United States of America that were covered up in a similar fashion. Nonetheless, it has been found that most U.S prosecutors use team roles to immunize themselves against attacks on wrong charges that they give (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). They do so by defending one another when the need arises. There arouses a point of misunderstanding between the judges and prosecutors. Therefore, the law needs to be explicit on the respective duties of judges and prosecutors in the courtroom. This will bring a better understanding of how to handle cases than what is experienced in courts today. The prosecution needs to present all evidence to the court, and none should be taken lightly as they might all be very useful in handling cases. Ineffective assistance of criminal defense counsel A Californian jury convicted Mr. Pinholster of murder. It was reported that together with his friends, they robbed a drug dealer and killed him in the process. After e