NCJ Number
178495
Journal
Prosecutor Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: July/August 1999 Pages: 28-30-32,34-35
Date Published
1999
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article describes the history and policy supporting the involvement of victims in criminal investigations, focusing on the insurance industry's historic and consistent support for victim involvement.
Abstract
Prosecutors have wide discretion in determining what crimes should be prosecuted, and victim cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of crimes is often a key element of analysis in prosecutor decisions. Moreover, a victim's cooperation often results in the prosecutor's exercise of discretion in favor of criminal prosecution. The basis for prosecutor discretion rests on the nature of the prosecutorial function, and prosecutors often rely on victims as crucial sources of information and may choose to use victim information and resources in making prosecutorial decisions. As white-collar crimes have become a more significant component of the law enforcement agenda, the insurance industry has a played a leading role in helping prosecutors investigate and prosecute schemes to defraud insurance companies and their customers. In People v. Eubanks, the California Supreme Court addressed a challenge by a criminal defendant to the prosecutor's neutrality in a case in which the victim paid significant expenses already incurred by the prosecutor in connection with an insurance-related criminal investigation. The court held that victim assistance to the prosecution could warrant the prosecutor's disqualification if the involvement were so grave as to render fair treatment of the defendant unlikely and that victim financial assistance to a criminal investigation may create a conflict of interest sufficient to warrant prosecutor disqualification. This case raises several important issues about how public-private cooperation in the prosecution of insurance crimes will be affected in the future. In cases in which direct financial assistance is provided to a prosecutor, insurers and prosecutors should be aware of the boundaries stipulated by Eubanks but these boundaries should not present undue concerns. In particular, if a prosecutor needs certain information that only an independent expert can provide, the victim can retain the expert directly to provide the information. 45 endnotes