An ethics commission has recommended that a prosecutor involved in the case risk a 60-day suspension of her law license owing to “grave” professional misconduct, a surprising turn of events more than two decades after Chandra Levy vanished in May 2001. The discovery that Ingmar Guandique, who was convicted of killing Levy in 2010, was later proved to be innocent, came after the news of the development.

Guandique was charged and found guilty by federal prosecutor Amanda Haines in Washington, D.C. Her handling of the case has drawn a lot of criticism. Haines’ legal license should have been suspended for 60 days, according to a 53-page report that was submitted on Monday by the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility. This suggestion was made as a result of her inability to provide evidence to Guandique’s defense attorneys throughout the trial.

The board contended that Haines had failed to uphold her obligations to “timely disclose evidence” to the defense attorneys and had skipped performing the case law-required evaluation of the evidence from the defense counsel’s point of view. Guandique, who had already done time for prior charges, was convicted in 2010 based on evidence that was later called into question, resulting in his exoneration.

In response to the proposal, Haines’ attorney, Sarah Fink, argued that Haines was not guilty of willful misconduct. Fink emphasized that the board’s conclusion did not support a finding of deliberate wrongdoing and voiced support for the recommended penalty’s decrease.

When Chandra Levy, a 24-year-old California native, vanished while serving as an intern at the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C., her story gained widespread attention. Tragically, in 2002, her remains were found in Rock Creek Park. The complexities of the criminal justice system and the effects of unjust convictions have once again come under the spotlight as a result of the case’s flips and turns.

The suggestion that Amanda Haines be suspended for 60 days is a sobering reminder of the seriousness of the prosecutor’s job in the criminal justice system. The incident emphasizes how crucial it is to respect moral norms and make sure that all pertinent evidence is presented in a transparent manner in order to ensure fair and just trials. As the legal process progresses and the case develops, it raises more general concerns regarding the systemic problems that may result in erroneous convictions and the responsibility of those participating in the criminal justice system.