> need to at least understand the basic details in order to maintain their ethical obligations to their position, the court, and the defendant.
So, if he didn't do this, and knew he didn't do it, couldn't one argue that he should be disbarred, or at least be subjected to some sort of professional sanction?
Disbarment? No. Sanctions? maybe. It depends on how relevant the misunderstanding was to the actual prosecution of the case. While the prosecutor was very technically illiterate, based on available records that illiteracy wasn't relevant to the elements of the crime itself, namely that he "impersonated" (within the meaning of the law) someone else's identity to access protected information.
The id theft charge is the biggie here--it actually imposes more criminal time than the underlying offense itself, because as other posters have noted it changed a misdemeanor to a felony.
I'd argue that it becomes a pretty relevant misunderstanding when an innocent man (as far as the accusations go) sits in prison for a year. If someone can't practice law effectively (such as if they erroneously prosecute people for crimes they did not commit), then their ability to practice becomes a danger to society.
