prosecutor's role

When I was a teenager, I wasn't much impressed by lawyers who were often portrayed as sleazes in the movies and on TV and, for that matter, in the novels of Charles Dickens. TV criminal trials, in shows such as Perry Mason, were like poker games in which the only objective was to win, and when Perry Mason showed that his client was innocent, you could imagine the DA muttering "Curses, foiled again!" under his breath. Seeing Boomerang on TV one afternoon was an eye opener and changed my mind about the legal profession. As it turned out, I became a lawyer. In my experience, I have never had the misfortune to run up against a prosecutor who knowingly continued to pursue a case against a defendant he reasonably believed to be innocent. Why would he do that? Society derives no benefit from having innocent people convicted, and convicting the wrong person means the cops close their files and the real criminal skates. Jury trials take a lot of time to prepare and take scarce court time that could be put to better use. A DA with a faulty case might try some BS like trying to get the defendant to plead guilty to a non-criminal offense or agree to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or he would continue the prosecution, but that threat is hollow. I have read in the ABA Journal that some DAs (mostly, it seems, in cowboy states) have joked that any DA worth his salt can get a conviction of a guilty person, but it takes real skill to convict an innocent party. In my opinion, they should be kicked out of office and disbarred for bringing shame on the profession. That book of lawyer's ethics that Dana Andrews read from is real, not outmoded idealistic pie in the sky. For several years, I have addressed high school groups on Career Day and have recommended they watch this movie. It also gives them an understanding of why Miranda rights are necessary.

IDK if this actually answers the question posted, and I don't know the rules, but IIRC the film does show a caption of a law that says a prosecutor can and should bring forth or accentuate evidence (I'm paraphrasing of course) that can prove the innocence of the defendant even though it be against his own case.

And how I feel is, however it gets done, the innocent should never be punished for crimes they didn't commit. IMO, there's no worse violation of human rights, or worse happening in a "free" society, than an innocent man punished for another's crime. Better 1,000,000,000,000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent man lose his freedom for the tiniest increment of his life.

This may seem a no-brainier, but I believe there are people out there who believe it's ok to "protect society" at any cost, and if an innocent man goes to jail, but is freed later, after, say, 6 months, or a year, that's ok, but I don't, and when I hear of these happenings, my first thought is always "I hope he sues the state to the point of bankruptcy", and, if anything improper was done, those lawyers disbarred and jailed. And that feeling never softens.