On the prosecutorial duty to disclose information--is it right to unethically withhold information even though technically permissible under case law??

American Bar Association's Rule 3.8(d) is more demanding than the constitutional case law in that it requires the disclosure of evidence or information favorable to the defense without regard to the anticipated impact of the evidence or information on a trial's outcome.  ABA Rule 3.8(d) requires prosecutors to disclose favorable evidence so that the defense can decide on its utility. The ethical duty of disclosure is not limited to just admissible 'evidence' [but] it also disclosure of favorable 'information'. Though possibly inadmissible itself, favorable information may lead a defendant's lawyer to admissible testimony or other evidence or assist him [sic] in other ways, such as in plea negotiations.For the disclosure to be timely, it must be made early enough that the information can be used effectively. . . . Once known to the prosecutor, [evidence and information] must be disclosed under Rule 3.8(d) as soon as reasonably practical.  Among the most significant purposes for which disclosure must be made under Rule 3.8(d) is to enable defense counsel to advise the defendant regarding whether to plead guilty. 

Attorney General Eric Holder recently threw out the corruption case against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens because Holder concluded that DOJ lawyers violated their obligation to disclose information to the defense.

We need to make sure the notch-on-the-gun hunger some prosecutors embrace for visibility, promotion and/or re-electability is not satiated by unethical non-disclosure.

Full Text of Rule 3.8 @ http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor.html