What’s most shocking about this story from the  ABA Journal is that there is any need for it.  The ABA House of Delegates this morning, by overwhelming voice vote, passed a measure (DOC), 105B, that would seek changes in state ethics rules for

prosecutors to disclose evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a defendant did not commit the crime for which he or she was convicted, and to take steps to remedy such convictions.

Imagine, prosecutors would be ethically required not to convict people knowing that they concealed evidence that the defendant was innocent, or keeping people they have reason to believe are innocent in prison just because they managed to get a conviction.  The ABA has gone radical.

Stephen Saltzburg, chair of the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section and a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., told the House, “The rules are very simple: if prosecutors have new, credible evidence of innocence, they have to do something about it. It’s not a big burden.”

Nor has it ever been that big a burden.  It’s just that some prosecutors do it, other don’t.  Some believe in their responsibility to disclose Brady, or worse yet, not convict people they believe may be innocent, others don’t.

That’s the problem with ethical precepts: They work best when people choose to comply.  The fact that the ABA feels compelled to spell this out is truly a shame.  But for those prosecutors who were a little unclear about their ethical responsibilities, I hope this clears things up.