Comments from a guest attorney

The following text was sent to me in an email from criminal defense attorney Leonard Martinez in Austin, Texas.  I have his permission to share it here.

Among many factors that I have observed in the flaws of our ciminal justice system, is the factor of fraternization between prosecutors and police and between prosecutors and judges.
 
Given the working relationships between police and prosecutors and the friendships that develop, is it possible that the relationships between prosecutors and police can result in alliances and advocacy that hurts the objective, the fair, and the unbiased administration of justice?
 
Also, given the day to day relationships between judges and prosecutors assigned to their courts, and given the lunches, get-togethers, and other socializing that goes on with judges, their staffs, and prosecutors (seldom are defense lawyers invited except for certain events where everyone is invited) is there also the possibilty of bias towards the prosecution that effects the objective, the fair, and the unbiased administration of justice?
 
I believe these are fair questions that we jurists and practitioners need to consider along with all the other factors that contribute to injustice.  We have a high calling, and maybe we ought to start considering that higher calling, and not just focus on making money (I like making money too of course).
 
 
The politics of tough on crime, the politics of the crime victim groups, the tendency of police and prosecutors to become zealous advocates, the development of rigid mind sets, and just the desire to advance self-interests may be some of the factors in a criminal justice system that is becoming harder and harder to believe in.
 
We belong to some great organizations and I hope that we not only continue to advocate for justice in our courts, but also in our community, and also in our legislative political process.  We need to encourage dialogue and we need to make our view known to our elected officials.
 
One starting point needs to be reforms in our discovery process.  I know everyone has sympathy for victims of crime, but we have to be very sensitive to issues facing criminal defendants.  It is shameful that I would have more discovery with more available sanctions if I were defending someone who was being sued over property or money that someone who could possibly have their liberty, their families, and their reputations taken away from them for life.

He rasies some valid points.  I particularly like his point about civil defendants having more discovery privileges than criminal defendants who risk spending the rest of their life in prison.  Any thoughts?