A well known public advocacy project, ProPublica, wrote about the problem of "who will prosecute the prosecutor" who commits misconduct in criminal cases - with an indication that, basically, nobody would.
In 2010, California tried to pay lip service to discipline of rogue prosecutors - by claiming it was reviewing files of 130 prosecutors to figure out whether to subject them to discipline.
Some of those prosecutors were actually prosecuted and one (!), reportedly, suspended.
In New York, the bill to create a Commission for Prosecutorial Misconduct was introduced in 2013, and was, and, I am sure, still is, the subject of aggressive hostile lobbying against the bill by the State District Attorneys' Association described in the transcript of a public hearing on attorney discipline in August of 2015, p. 25-27,
see also an article by the Rockland County District Attorney Thomas Zugibe.
Nevertheless, the bill so far has passed both chambers of the New York Legislature - the House and the Senate - and is close to approval by the New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo
- unless, of course, Cuomo's friend, the Chief Judge of the State of New York (a former lifetime career prosecutor) and her friends will not persuade him to veto the bill.
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs not only in criminal proceedings, but also in "civil" disciplinary actions against public employees and holders of occupational licenses.
And, many attorneys pointed out that disciplinary prosecutors should themselves be not immune from discipline - which, at this time, never happens, no matter what disciplinary prosecutors do.
That is one of the problems of occupational regulation - creating classes of nobility who are above the law, people connected to the government, or those who handle disciplinary prosecutions themselves.
An unusual case necessitating to prosecute the prosecutors was reported out of Texas.
In Texas, as in every other state, liquor sales are regulated by the states.
And in Texas, as in each state, there are enforcement and prosecuting authorities for violators of liquor regulations who sell liquor without a license.
And, when the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission hosted the National Convention of Liquor Administration, and wanted to serve alcohol to the "liquor administrators" for some unknown reason, the National Convention of Liquor Administration was supposed to follow the law its participants are enforcing - and obtain a liquor license.
And - reportedly, it didn't.
Now, the Commission is going to investigate and prosecute itself, with predictable results.
Like judges are investigating and prosecuting judges.
Like attorneys are investigating and prosecuting attorneys - eliminating those disciplinary attorneys do not like, and keeping their friends in business, no matter what the record and the law is.
Like social services investigating foster parents for child neglect (while being the agency that placed children with those foster parents and is responsible for that same child neglect).
There should be mechanisms provided for in every prosecutorial office for prosecutions of their own members - and, as of now, such mechanisms either do not exist, or do not work, judging by the number of conflicts of interest reported by the public, and dismissed by federal courts on prosecutorial immunity grounds.
The "do what I say, not what I do" principle of our law enforcement is simply not acceptable.
And yes, there must be stricter discipline for liquor authorities who violate their own laws than for everybody else, and stricter discipline for prosecutors who violate criminal laws than for everybody else - after all, prosecutors know exactly what they are doing.
Otherwise, the claim that this country is based on the "rule of law" will remain what it is now - a mockery.