The mission of the Phelps County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is to seek and serve justice.
The Prosecuting Attorney as viewed by the Courts:
” A fearless and earnest prosecuting attorney… is a bulwark to the peace, safety and happiness of the people. ….it is the duty of the prosecuting attorney, who represents all the people and has no responsibility except fairly to discharge his duty, to hold himself under proper restraint and avoid violent partisanship, partiality, and misconduct which may tend to deprive the defendant of the fair trial to which he is entitled, …. It is the duty of the prosecutor to see that nothing but competent evidence is submitted to the jury.…” Hosford v. State, 525 So.2d 789, 792 (Miss. 1988).
“In this jurisdiction it is recognized that this public office is one of consequence and responsibility. That status of the prosecuting attorney as a public office is given dignity and importance by our statutes. With every other attorney at law a prosecuting attorney is, of course, an officer of the court in a larger sense; but he is not a mere lackey of the court nor are his conclusions in the discharge of his official duties and responsibilites, in anywise subservient to the views of the judge as to the handling of the State’s cases. A public prosecutor is a responsible officer chosen for his office by the suffrage of the people. He is accountable to the law, and to the people. He is vested with personal discretion entrusted to him as a minister of justice, and not as a mere legal attorney. He is disqualified from becoming in any way entangled with private interests or grievances in any way connected with charges of crime. He is expected to be impartial in abstaining from prosecuting as well as in prosecuting, and to guard the real interests of public justice in favor of all concerned.” State v. Smith, 258 S.W.2d 590 (1953).
” The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
From a letter read at the retirement dinner of Manhattan District Attorney William Travers Jerome, New York Times, May 8, 1909, p.2.
“ [T]he prosecuting officer occupies a semi-judicial position; that he is charged with a large discretion, and that, while it is his duty to bring to justice those whom he believed to be guilty, it is equally his duty to protect the innocent and to refrain from prosecuting those against whom no sufficient or reasonable proofs can be found. In the course of his duties he sometimes has to stand between an incensed public sentiment, voiced by a clamorous press, and suspected persons against whom no proofs of crime can be produced.”