Book Review: Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration

• Author: Jaeyong Choi
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419892672
• Subject Matter: Book Review

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(4) 631 –633

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Book Review

Book Review

Bazelon, E. (2019). Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass

Incarceration. New York, NY: Random House. 448 pp. $28.00. ISBN-13: 978-0399590016.

Reviewed by: Jaeyong Choi , Angelo State University, San Angelo, TX, USA

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419892672

Prosecutorial misconduct has emerged as an important topic of inquiry in criminal

justice due to its relation to mass incarceration. Prosecutors have enormous powers

because they can decide whether to charge a defendant and what to charge that person

with, among many other discretions. While it is not the duty of prosecutors to seek

convictions, because constituents elect most prosecutors in the United States, having

high conviction rates is regarded as a step toward reelection. Unfortunately, when

prosecutors focus on winning, prosecutorial misconduct can take place. In Charged,

Emily Bazelon explores innovative ways to transform American prosecution to end

mass incarceration. In this book, Bazelon illustrates the cases of two individuals whose

stories reveal some fundamental issues involving prosecutors. In one case, Noura

Jackson was accused of murdering her mother and was found guilty solely based on

circumstantial evidence.

Moreover, her prosecutor neglected to share potentially exculpatory information

with the defense, thus violating a duty to disclose. The prosecutor also made an illegal

speech regarding Noura’s decision not to testify to the jury at the trial, violating her

Fifth Amendment right to not testify in her defense. Specifically, the prosecutor insinu-

ated to the jury that Noura decided not to testify and that such silence was evidence of

guilt. In Griffin v. California (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court, however, handed down a

ruling that prosecutors should not suggest that defendants admit guilt just because they

decide not to testify. The prosecutor, thus, violated Noura’s Fifth Amendment rights by

commenting to the jury on her refusal to testify.

Although the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned her previous conviction after

serving her 9 years in institutional corrections, Noura took an Alford plea that involves

a guilty plea of a defendant who does not admit the guilt of the crime. In North

Carolina v. Alford (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants can plead

guilty to something they say they did not do if the defendants think entering the plea

can serve their best interest because there is a chance that they get convicted and

receive more time if they decide to take it to trial. Noura thought that she might be

convicted if she decided to go to trial, so she chose to plead guilty under Alford. Her

892672CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419892672Criminal Justice Policy ReviewBook Review

book-review2019