Abstract United States Attorney in the judicial practice there are some prosecution malpractice are extremely hazardous. United States Attorney to prosecute the misconduct reasons for diversification, one of the most prominent factors. Currently, the U.S. is actively promoting three aspects to curb the Prosecutors indictment misconduct. China there are some similar problems, carefully examine the United States can provide some ideas to solve the problem for the Chinese.

Key words prosecution improperly; due process; immunity; retaliatory prosecution; discretion

Foreword

The so-called prosecution is improper the prosecutors inappropriate or illegal, such as the prosecution tried to evade the requirements of one of the parties evidence show or try to convince the jury the defendant made a wrong conviction. Prosecutors indictment misconduct lead to miscarriage of justice is prohibited, according to prosecute the perpetrators after the ban on double jeopardy provisions. {1} the United States Attorney to prosecute misconduct external characterization of the diversity, summarized in the seven kinds. Prosecutors indictment improper great harm only violate the prosecutor supposed to abide by the objectivity of the obligation, contrary to procedural justice, but also easily lead to miscarriages of justice. American theoretical circles that the prosecutor improperly main factor is the code of ethics of the existing norms prosecutors flawed, difficult to play a substantial role in guiding the discretion enjoyed by prosecutors is too large to extremes, it is difficult to effectively constraints, as well as existing imputation mechanism is deficient, dysfunctional, it is difficult to prosecution misconduct of the prosecutor to play a real deterrent punishment effect. To this end, the United States is actively targeted to proceed from the above three aspects of institutional reforms to curb and reduce the occurrence of prosecutor misconduct. The other hand, our country, prosecutors also a number of improper prosecution, no small harm, should be taken seriously enough. Stones from other hills may serve to polish jade , I hope we can learn from the problems of the United States. Of course, since the author is limited, the inadequacies inevitable looking academic colleagues criticized the correction.

First, the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the type of misconduct and harm

Up to now, in judicial practice, the United States Attorney to prosecute misconduct diverse, difficult to enumerate in this article, I believe that the following performance, especially, need to be extra attention:

(A) the use of perjury

U.S. prosecutors to prosecute misconduct, the most important, was the first deliberate use to obtain the defendants conviction purpose as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court prosecutor knowingly perjury. The court held that the prosecutor deliberately using forged travel documents in order to achieve the purpose of a conviction deprived the defendants due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment gives. In many cases prosecutors deliberate use of perjury and accused the defendant, the case of the most famous and classic of the 1935 Mooney v. the Horrocks Khan (Mooneyv. ​​Holohan). [1] In that case, Thomas Mooney since 1916, murder has been sentenced to death. During the trial, prosecutors presented the testimony of alleged perjury. The defendant is therefore put forward the motion of a retrial in the case, the California court rejected the request of the defendant. Mooney tried to seek to obtain judicial review of the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court finally upheld. Mooney turned to federal court to seek relief in federal court to obtain relief willingness blocked the defendant to the U.S. Supreme Court writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the defendants demands. In the beginning stage, the U.S. Attorney General on behalf of national interests recognized in the trial, prosecutors submitted and for the testimony of witnesses, convicted the defendant Mooney is perjury. However, since the representative of national interests, the chief prosecutor pointed out that knowingly and willfully using forged travel documents and no violation of due process, and its advocates to explain, he pointed out that prosecutors prosecute misconduct does not automatically own the deprivation of the defendant enjoy the right to due process, unless the defendant is deprived of the right to be informed and hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with the Chief Prosecutor of the understanding and interpretation of the due process rights, the Federal Supreme Court held that the right to court trial itself contains the right to trial from knowing perjury and intentional use of undue influence, this U.S. Supreme Court further stated that we can not agree with the chief prosecutor to make such a narrow understanding of due process in the maintenance of civil liberties against the government on the legal rights of citizens deprived of due process embodies the basic concept of justice and due process requirements not just the citizens the right to inform and obtain a hearing, if the government tried the name of the so-called trial, and actually intentionally submitted using forged travel documents to deceive the court and jury conviction in order to achieve the citizens, to deprive the defendant of personal freedom purposes. such way the accused conviction to imprisonment with completely contrary to the basic requirements of justice and out of place, this is tantamount to intimidation and threats of the prosecutor is the representative of the interests of the government to prosecute the perpetrators, such as administrative officials the same law enforcement constitute government action, of course, should be classified as the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Federal, subject to regulation. This amendment applies to any act of government, whether legislative, judicial behavior, or administrative action.  can be seen by the Mooney case, the practice of the Supreme Court of the United States Federal prosecutors in the prosecution of cases submitted to the perjury is a negative attitude that it violated the requirements of the Due Process Clause, deprives the defendant of the right to a fair trial rights.

(B) of the Brady obligations in violation of

Such prosecution of misconduct is the intentional possession of the Prosecutor will be in favor of the defendants evidence in the evidence to show but not exposed, designed to achieve the purpose of the conviction of the defendant. Case in 1963, the Brady v. Maryland (Brady v. Maryland) [2], Maryland prosecutors charged Brandi and their associates suspected of murder. Before the trial, the prosecutor should be Brandi defense counsel upon request shows the part of Brandy associates outside the court statement. But prosecutor Brandi associates murder confession implicit in the trial, without hair, Brandi knew nothing about until the first instance was sentenced to death behind the wake. Brandi so prosecutors hide evidence of acts of appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision, only to the sentencing problem remand. Federal Supreme Court in its judgment that the prosecutor whether it is in good faith or will maliciously issued contrary to the evidence hidden in favor of the defendant rather than due process, even if the defendant does not put forward evidence to show the request, the prosecutor should continue to be its duty-bound to show any possible documentary evidence to justify crime. an evidence to prove that the defendant not guilty or mitigate his punishment, under the request of the defendant, prosecutors refused to produce, which will to enable the Prosecutor to play a role does not follow the standards of fairness ... Jige Rio in 1972, v. United States (Giglio v. United Sates) case [3], the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the United States bears the aforementioned Brady evidence discovery obligations (the defendants evidence) to expand extended to the reliability of the impeachment of the prosecution witnesses can be used as evidence, although the evidence does not lead to the acquittal of the accused. More importantly, in the case of the 1976 United States v. Argus (United States v. Agurs) [4] The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in its judgment, the prosecution has an obligation to their hands held favor of the defendant importance (materiali-ty) evidence to take the initiative to show to the defense rather than negative should the latter requires a passive display. Of course, the obligation is not of prosecution which bears of Brandi evidence show there is no boundary, there are some restrictions, for example, the prosecution has no obligation to find the evidence in favor of the defendant, even after the discovery of such evidence does not violate the cloth Randy obligations. In addition, prosecutors have no obligation to show those for which it knows or held against their own evidence to the defendant. Of course, for Brandi evidence to show the obligation of the most important limitation is the prosecutions evidence disclosure obligation is limited evidence, the importance of the so-called importance (materiality) not only refers to the relevance of the evidence, but also refers to those people that the outcome of the case will produce the evidence of the pivotal role. After a lapse of more than 30 years, the spirit of the above Brandy case judgment in the case of the 1995 Kells v. Whitley (Kyles V.Whitley) [5] continue to be carried forward, and will contribute to the direct evidence and cross-examination of the defendants The evidence also satisfied that the person the evidence of the scope of discovery. The Federal Supreme Court is that the key issue is whether a defendant has a different judgment of evidence, whether in its understanding of the lack of such evidence can produce reliable judgment.

(C) the jury selection

In the jury selection issue, the U.S. prosecutors are often inappropriate behavior. Although since 1879 the United States, have developed the law explicitly require all U.S. citizens eligible to have the qualifications to act as jurors, regardless of race and other. In judicial practice, the U.S. Attorney there are still a number of ways based on factors of race of people excluded in order to achieve the purpose of the conviction of the accused. Specifically, in the juror selection process, the prosecutor and the defense are entitled to choose to challenge jurors based on a certain subject matter, and sometimes can be applied for the right to be avoided (Peremptory challen-ges), especially persons. Both sides can use this right based on racial considerations about jurors excluded. In practice, prosecutors often use this strategy to exclude some people from outside the jury. Case in order to confront the prosecution of these abuses, in 1965, Batson v. Kentucky (Batson v. Kentucky) [6], the defendant is an African-American, is accused of committing burglary, the crime of receiving stolen goods. In the process of selection of jurors, prosecutors evade the right to use their no to the exclusion of all four African-American people on the list of candidates. The defendant objected to this, the judge ruling that each party can use to evade the right to exclude anyone they want to exclude. Finally, the defendant is convicted by an all-white composition of the jury trial. The case was finally submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the defendant and for the first time allowed the defendant challenges the prosecution to use the jury selection due to withdrawal. Under the Batson ruling on the case when the defendant grounds to challenge the prosecutor to rule out jurors, the defendant must first establish a prima facie proof, indicating that enough to cause the Prosecutor based on race based on race or gender discrimination in exercising its a result of the withdrawal of the right inference. Once the defendant has established a prima facie proof, responsibility shifts to the prosecution, prosecutors must be his or her behalf to evade the right to propose a neutral explanation. Once the Prosecutor provides a neutral reason, the trial judge must determine whether the defendant on all matters related to fulfill the responsibility to prove intentional discrimination. If the trial court found that prosecutors illegal, often give the defendant to appropriate relief, such as prosecutors improperly excluded jurors recovery to the candidates on the list, or start again with a new list of candidates. Of course, in the Batson case to give the defendant the procedural rights, but without the existence of a result of the withdrawal is still unscrupulous morality of prosecution based on race or gender factors considerations related jurors removed the outer opening to facilitate the door.

(D) selective prosecution or retaliatory prosecution

Case in the United States 1986 United States v. Armstrong (UnitedStates v. Armstrong) [7] establishes the prohibition of unreasonable selective prosecution, the court in its decision that the prosecutors decision whether to prosecute is not based on race, beliefs or other arbitrary classification such unreasonable standards. in 1985, Wayte v. UnitedStates case [8], the Court pointed out in its judgment can not be made a party to exercise a statutory or constitutional rights protected by the prosecution or exacerbated by the decision of the indictment. The reason why the U.S. Supreme Court so to prohibit the prosecution of the provisions made for the need to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause; in the case involving the federal government, the provisions of this prohibition for the maintenance of five amendments due process clause of the inner needs. Unfortunately, the claims of selective prosecution is difficult to prove, that the statutory standard of proof is too high, the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. American-ArabAnti-Discrimination Comn case [9] pointed out that the claims of selective prosecution is a very rare ... we have already emphasized, requiring a criminal defendant to present clear evidence to replace the presumption of the legal act of the Prosecutor to prove the standards of this proposition is very difficult to achieve. Prosecutor retaliatory prosecution in violation of the due process of the inherent requirements should be banned . Relative to the processing of selective prosecution, given advocated retaliatory prosecution of a defendant retaliation presumption the interests of the United States Supreme Court in certain circumstances, accordingly, the effective burden of proof shifted to the prosecution, prosecutors must prove that their own lack of retaliatory motive. The classic case of vindictive prosecution the Prosecutor of the United States is the 1974 Black governance v. Bury (Blackledge v. Perry) case [10]. In that case, the defendant was carrying a deadly weapon attacks have been convicted of a misdemeanor. The defendant under state law to apply for a new trial in the court of the higher level. Before the second trial, the prosecutor to investigate and obtain a new indictment accused the defendant of murder for the purpose of carrying deadly weapons to carry out attacks, which is a felony. The defendant advocated the Prosecutor of the felony charges to punish him in the exercise of legitimate rights, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the defendant, even though the defendant is no direct evidence to prove that the prosecutor asked the more serious allegations because of his exercise to a new trial on punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that, based on the consolidated cases of all kinds of circumstances, finds that the prosecutor realistic possibility of retaliation. The Supreme Court stated that its reasons for so ruling is not a retaliatory motivation must inevitably exist, but worried that the motive may be unconstitutional manner to deter the defendant to exercise his right to statutory law.

(E) does not allow comments or inappropriate to attempt to guide people in the trial evidence

External characterization of the diversity of the U.S. prosecutor misconduct, one of the most visibility to the number of prosecutors in the formal court improper remarks, the move seriously damaged due process. Worth noting, however, the prosecutors improper remarks is the broadest, most difficult to define the most difficult to enumerate, as well as the most difficult evaluation. U.S. court has struggled trying to make a ruling the prosecutors remarks in violation of the due process. In some other cases, U.S. courts also found that the prosecutor there another prosecution of misconduct, that the Prosecutor to submit some do not have the admissibility of evidence in the trial or the evidence does not exist, for example, Attorney officer deliberately to those who pre-trial motions in the pretrial stage of the excluded evidence submitted in a formal court. United States Attorney above improper practices have negative impact on free evaluation of evidence the jury may make the wrong identification of the facts of the case. [11] Another example is the establishment of the prosecutor for the authenticity of the testimony of witnesses and the defendant the offense or not the mere expression of personal subjective views and perspectives and lack the support of certain documentary evidence.

(F) to prosecute violations of the principle of speedy trial

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives the accused the right to a speedy trial, a timely and effective manner to play the deterrent effect of the penalty means the criminals, the two can make the defendant as soon as possible to get rid of tired of the litigation, On the one hand in a timely manner to bring offenders to justice of law, arising from the penalty deterrence, on the other innocent defendants, their early to wash the accusations, but also his innocence. {2} the United States Attorney also may be because of unnecessary delay in prosecution prosecution of misconduct, which violate or deprivation of constitutional rights enjoyed by the defendant to a speedy trial. The defendant of the rights established in 1967 the the Colao Buddha v. North Carolina (Klopfer v. North Carolina) case. [12] measure the defendant of the constitutional rights suffered a violation of the prosecutors, judges typically consider four factors, this is a case in 1972, Bako v. warm fruit (Barker v. Wingo) well established [13], they are the length of the delay time, which part of the delay is caused by the fault of the prosecutor, because the above-mentioned delay the damage caused to the defendant, and the defendant in the extent to which advocates own right to a speedy trial. Of course, in spite of this, whether the prosecutors delay is necessary and reasonable or will improperly taken by the judge is a measure of the test, itself full of variables and uncertainties, which prosecutors intentionally delayed the prosecution without being noticed or to escape punishment sanctions provide a certain amount of space.

In addition, the prosecutor in his final statement (closing statement) or opening (opening statement) may resort to emotion caused by the resonance of the jury to win the sympathy of the jury, and sometimes the prosecutors statement was far from the system settings The original intention, for instance, some prosecutors, the jury should put yourself in the relatively broad topic for the sake of the victim or talk at length about the crime control problem in the community is not allowed to belong to the prosecution of misconduct.

Above the U.S. Attorney to prosecute misconduct harm is great, mainly the following aspects:

First, to the detriment of objectivity obligation of the prosecutor. Taiwan, China scholar Professor Lin Yuxiong objectivity obligation of what is meant by the Prosecutor had made a more comprehensive and image elaboration: The prosecutor for the conducive and not conducive to the defendant of the things to always pay attention to ... the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge with faithful servant of objective legal standards and achieve true justice, not vertical, but also not unjust, Riot and also pay Anliang not is not the one-sided pursuit of the fanatics of the attack the defendant. {3} the United States as early as 1816 Tennessee, a courts ruling on prosecutors to decide between the people and the Government is the protector of rights, he should not make the innocent tortured or harassed, should not be should be able to escape prosecution; he investigated the crime; him to protect the innocent; his judgment the situation, and in accordance with the actual situation in the case to protect the public welfare and safety of its citizens from injury; is not in the public interest, should be avoided use of personal passion and malicious; he will use reasonable discretion when needed to achieve social justice. [14] In 1935, Berg v. United States (Berger v. U. S) case in [15] What is the United States objectivity obligation of the prosecutor to make the most classic interpretation and discourse: the U.S. Attorney does not represent a litigation ordinary party, but state power, he should be fair to fulfill its responsibilities; sought by the prosecutor in a criminal prosecution interests are not successful, but to achieve justice in a special and limited sense, the prosecutor is a servant of the law, neither indulgence crime, also can not be wronged innocent is duty-bound duty-bound to the dual goals of prosecutors can and complaint should be firm and active. even though he can strike out, but not at liberty to foul punches, avoid the use of improper means to prosecute a suspect may have wrongly convicted, exhausted all legal means to achieve justice and justice is to belong to the Role of Prosecutors where judicial practice, the reason why the U.S. Attorney to take the direct purpose of prosecution misconduct only one that is a conviction, evidence in favor of the defendant is usually closed without talking about all sorts of cover up is not conducive to the defendants evidence unscrupulous, sometimes hidden in evidence show up to the game effect, and so the defendant the reasonable demands of the fight against retaliation, and the threat of perjury showing a strong tendency of the prosecution of U.S. prosecutors, the home the truth of the case and the defendants human rights safeguard the expense of fully equivalent civil party, the prosecutors objectivity obligation requires completely contrary.

Second, to the detriment of the authority of the Governments credibility and the rule of law. Prosecutors indictment improper problems also undermines the public trust in government. Behalf of the Government of the Public Prosecution Service in order to win the means in terms of the case, the Public Prosecution Service may be the winner, but in the long run, it is the biggest loser, because it has lost the public trust in the justice system, lost people to the Government trust. In addition, the Government plays the role of educational National Public Prosecution Service in order to win and to do anything very wrong to boot people imitated cause serious harm to the rule of law in a country, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brady (Justice Louis Brandeis) has pointed out: Our government is an influential and omnipresent teacher. whether it is good, he is a role model of the whole people. crime has to pass emotional, if the Government itself to defy the law, it will breeding of public contempt for the law, is equivalent to encourage every person is no law-abiding, advocating lawlessness. This is tantamount to announcing in the implementation of criminal law purpose so that means the reasonable and justified, it means that clear to people, to the fact that the guilty to justice. law, the Government can do whatever they want and even criminal, which will bring extremely dangerous and dire consequences. [16] There is nothing more than the government itself ignoring the existence of the law deliberately to defy the law can quickly destroy the government. [ 17]

Again, resulting in the emergence of miscarriages of justice. As early as the 13th century, the famous British jurist William Blackstone, once pointed out: ten guilty escape is also better than to let an innocent be punished. U.S. Supreme Court in 1970, Winship case, pointed out that: the basic values ​​of our system that erred in finding that an innocent person guilty than the error to release a guilty of much worse. Nevertheless, because the prosecutors improper prosecution in criminal proceedings which led to injustice false erroneous cases are still a minority. Since the 1935 U.S. Berg (Berger), a case, the Prosecutors indictment misconduct is considered to lead to miscarriages of justice occurred in the most common one of the dominant factors. According to a study in the United States in 2000, 62 people benefited from the use of DNA technology, and acquitted, of which 26 cases a certain extent, prosecutors to prosecute misconduct. In the subsequent acquittal due to the use of DNA technology in 70 cases, of which 34 cases to prosecutors in the prosecution of improper behavior {4} 403.

Finally, to the detriment of procedural justice. The United States Attorney to prosecute misconduct to cause serious injury due process, such as prosecutors is not conducive to the defendants testimony in order to achieve the purpose of the conviction of the defendant on the legitimacy of the program and causing injury threat for the prosecutor in violation of Evidence show the obligations to a surprise attack to damage the spirit of the Public Prosecution and the defense arms length competition and rational confrontation intend to above in court, prosecutors in order to win a big fuss in the jurys choice of a negative impact on the accused has the right to a fair trial and so on.

Second, the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the causes and correction of misconduct

From the above visible Prosecutors indictment misconduct outward manifestation of morphological diversity, with serious social harm. So what is causing the United States Attorney so to do? I believe that the defective code of ethics regulating the professional behavior of the Prosecutor, the Prosecutors discretion is too large as well as factors of less than three for prosecutor misconduct attributable to mechanisms [18]:

First, the prosecutors discretion is too large, the lack of transparency and effective constraint. American scholar Jean Jacoby on U.S. prosecutors enormous discretion that: The discretion of the United States Attorney in three areas has become an indisputable of a: he has the right to individually decide whether to institute criminal proceedings; he alone determines accused someone of the extent to which others can not be discouraged; he thinks should or must terminate the litigation, {5} Another example is the American scholar Burton Atkins enjoyed talking about the United States Attorney not to prosecute any discretionary pointed out: However, I would like to know why an American prosecutor - for example, a county prosecutor has the discretion to decide not to prosecute, even if there is clear evidence of guilt to a certain extent by the political the impact and he do not have to explain to any person has been identified in the case and the evidence has been collected, there is no need to explain to anyone why he is the law to make such explanation, let alone explain to anyone why in this difficult to take such a stance on policy issues. {6} prosecutors discretion too much like a sword two-edged, prosecutors have a flexible right of disposal, contribute to the achievement of social policy and litigation efficiency, but it also brings a series of negative effects, such as caused by the misconduct of the prosecutors selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution prosecution. To this end, the United States to take some measures to increase its transparency to the discretion of the Prosecutor of the specification, there are the following two points: First, it is recommended that the Office of the Prosecutor Prosecutor manual, the manual contains two aspects: on the one hand, the general social policies to guide its discretion; the other hand, the prosecutors workflow. The prosecutor manual designed to guide the Prosecutor discretion science fair use in order to achieve justice. In addition, the American Bar Association also recommends that the contents of the manual should be open to the public unless the matters which are confidential. Second, the U.S. Department of Justice has also issued the guidance of the American Bar Manual (USAM) to prosecutors the discretion to use the manual open to the public. The manual states that the prosecutors general principle is as long as he believed the defendants conduct constitutes a crime, and with the admissibility of evidence will be sufficient to be a conviction, the prosecutor should be prosecuted, unless the Prosecutor believes that: 1. Prosecution does not meet the established social policy; The defendant has received in other jurisdictions, effective prosecution; Appropriate non-criminal alternative measures does not currently exist. In addition to the above, the American Bar Manual returned to the U.S. Attorney for the following seven reference factors to guide the prosecution: 1. What is the federal law enforcement priority. Two. Crimes committed by the defendant how to line the nature and severity of. (3) the deterrent effect of prosecution. 4. Crimes committed by the defendant of accountability. 5 Defendants whether the criminal record. 6. Whether the defendant is willing to cooperate with law enforcement officers or prosecutors. 7. Possible sentencing or other of the consequences if the defendant is convicted. 8. The accused individuals specific circumstances. In addition, the American Bar manual also provides the following three factors considerations as a prosecutor, whether the defendant public prosecution reference standards: 1. A persons race, religion, gender, nationality, political affiliation, personal activities and beliefs. Two. Prosecutor personal feelings for the defendant, the defendants social relations and factors of the victim. 3. May affect the personal career of the Prosecutor or the personal circumstances of the potential.

Second, the specification code of ethics of the Prosecutors flawed. From an historical perspective, the norms of professional conduct of the Prosecutors Code of Ethics through a historical evolution. Promulgated the first code of ethics for regulating the professional behavior of the Prosecutor in 1908, the American Bar Association (Ameri-can Bar Association) (ABA), the specification states that the main responsibilities of the United States Attorney is not to the conviction of the accused, but rather to achieve justice. In addition, the specification states that the prosecutors intentionally concealed the facts of the case the truth and for those who contribute to the defendant exculpatory evidence hidden but should be condemned. Unfortunately, 1908 specification and prosecutors how to achieve justice through specific initiatives to be clearly defined. In addition, the specification is too vague and difficult for the prosecutors professional behavior, especially to prosecute the perpetrators to provide effective guidance and effective regulatory system, some scholars have criticized this, the code of ethics is so vague, so ambiguous that almost without any effect. to solve practical problems, as a response to the above criticisms, the American Bar Association in 1969 promulgated a model of Codex, after an exemplary Code was promulgated in 1983. A model Code of 1983 to the Prosecutors some code of ethics to make a more precise provisions, content than before the expansion, five points more specific and clear provisions on the moral obligations of the prosecutor. [19] In 1990, the American Bar Association and the prosecutors ethical obligation to attach a. [20] the United States in 1994 enacted specification prosecutors exemplary Code, subject to the Prosecutors ethical obligations to increase to seven. [21] specification of Professional Conduct of the Prosecutors code of ethics evolved after so many years of development, despite some progress, but in general it is still difficult to meet the objective needs of the judicial practice, difficult for prosecutors to prosecute the perpetrators to provide more comprehensive guidance to achieve justice. To this end, the United States regardless of the theoretical community or will the practice is still tireless efforts to explore and improve.

Finally, the prosecutor misconduct attributable mechanism deficiencies. In the U.S., the prosecutors improper prosecution and punishment very few, even resulting in miscarriages of justice, the reason for the above situation, there are two reasons: First, the prosecutor is usually entitled to a civil action exemption right, this greatly limits the possibility of the Prosecutor of its wrongful acts of responsibility. Second, the U.S. Court of Appeals for such appeals has taken a very strict standard of review, rarely based Prosecutors indictment of misconduct against the original judgment, usually owned by the misconduct of the Prosecutors indictment harmless error (harmless error ) [22], which also contributed to the arrogance of the prosecutor, so that it have nothing to fear in the prosecution, prosecution misconduct frequent. Academia, the United States is in favor of prosecution misconduct of the prosecutor should take a more proactive approach, rather than with the status quo or blindly to avoid. Some scholars have suggested that once the Judge or the Court of Appeals found that prosecutors exist prosecution misconduct deal with prosecutors conduct an independent investigation, if it determines misconduct exist, the responsible person to implement the necessary penalties {4} 427. On the contrary, if the prosecutors to prosecute improper turn a blind eye to sit idly by, left unchecked, does not impose any punishment above the prosecutor to prosecute misconduct will continue to increase and continue to continue.

Third, the U.S. Attorney appliance prosecution of the revelation of the misconduct

Misconduct by U.S. prosecutors in the judicial practice of the majority of the prosecution have happened in our practice are bound to be of Prosecutors indictment is improper mainly the following aspects: First, using forged travel documents . Second, retaliatory prosecution. Third, the improper import of illegally obtained evidence. Fourth, the trial inappropriate remarks. I believe that any public power agencies shall benefit from their own illegal or inappropriate behavior, especially in the prosecutor responsible for the prosecution to solve the above problem in China can learn from some of the practices in the United States, mainly start from the following:

First, to develop and improve our prosecutors Code of Ethics. It is worth mentioning is that the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate in 2010, formulated and promulgated the Prosecutor of Professional Conduct basic norms (Trial) to guide the normative behavior of the Prosecutor. From a longitudinal perspective, this is the historical progress, it helps to standardize the daily work of the prosecutors. Its own drawbacks is obvious, compared to the phase of the United States, can be seen that the specification does not highlight the following characteristics: First, the prosecutor of Professional Conduct Code of Professional Conduct character is the procuratorial The officer asked the political quality requirements, the political smell too thick, more like a political education materials to prosecutors or file. Second, the overwhelming theme is not prominent. Since the guidance norms of professional conduct of the Prosecutor should focus on positioning the prosecutors professional attributes and how the Prosecutor above, especially the work of the prosecution. By comparison, China promulgated the basic norms of putting the cart before the horse too. Third, the relevant provisions of the high level of abstraction, too empty, not operable, little significance for guiding the practice of prosecutors specific prosecution. In short, enacted in 2010, the Prosecutor of Professional Conduct basic specification has little role in the specification of Professional Conduct of the Prosecutor need to reshape the prosecution of misconduct to the norms of practice to ensure the prosecution of the normal orderly manner. To this end, I propose the Basic Standards of Professional Conduct of the Prosecutor should be specific to guide the professional behavior of the prosecutors, in particular, how specific guidance to lift the prosecution aspects should be and some make clear rules as a content focus and the efficacy of killing two birds with one stone This can be achieved either constraint prosecutors discretion to exercise, can also be effective in preventing the occurrence of improper prosecution of the above types of behavior.

Second, we should improve the imputation mechanism for prosecutors all kinds of prosecution misconduct. Simultaneously inside and outside for the Prosecutors indictment of misconduct may be considered for the Prosecutors indictment misconduct by the independent investigative body to investigate, on this basis for punishment, for the prosecution misconduct of the prosecutor can not good.  an excuse to indulge in pampering.

Finally, we can learn from the practice of the United States, developed by the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate of the Prosecutor the indictment guide, and open to the public, the manual should focus on the prosecutors in the decisions to prosecute should focus on specific factors, and not consideration of specific factors, allowing the prosecutor to be sued for and do certain things.