 
|
While the reason for this may be reasonable, how many others are in jail, even been executed, because prosecutors are immune from answering, like the rest of us, for their actions? Perhaps it’s time to have their offices wired with cameras and mics like police cars that catch dirty cops in the act. What’s that line about power corrupting?
In July 1977, retired police captain John Schweer was shot and killed while working as a night watchman at an Oldsmobile dealership in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two teenagers, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were convicted of the murder based on evidence they allege was knowingly fabricated by prosecutors.
[…]
Now both men are suing the Pottawattamie County prosecutors, claiming they coerced and coached witnesses, fabricated evidence and arrested them without probable cause. But according to federal law supported by numerous legal precedents, prosecutors have immunity for anything they do during a trial. Richter and Hrvol say they were just doing their job.“If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial, that prosecutor is absolutely immune from lawsuit,” explains Stephen Sanders, an attorney representing Richter and Hrvol. The rationale is that if prosecutors could be blamed for errors in a trial, they would become vulnerable targets for any litigious convict with an ax to grind.
“This means that some people who are genuinely wronged by a prosecutor [are not] able to recover,” Sanders concedes.
[…]
Hrvol and Richter cannot be tried for knowingly putting a dishonest witness on the stand. They don’t have to own up to the fact that they presented false evidence or coerced a witness’s testimony. But fortunately for McGhee and Harrington, they did something on which the law is not completely clear — they didn’t just present the evidence at trial, but also helped gather it. In an unusual move, the prosecutors aided detectives by canvassing the neighborhood and interviewing witnesses, and so their actions may not be covered by absolute immunity. That is what the Supreme Court will decide.
Yea–UNLIKE the rest of us. Well, misconduct is grounds for appeal and reversal which would be the primary interest of anyone so convicted.
As in so many “serious” issues, ultimately what is shocking is not how the law gets broken, but rather, the outrages that occur day in and day out that are completely legal: how many people are in jail because they were over charged for purposes of coercing a plea bargain??????
10 times nay 100 times more than those put there by criminal activities of the prosecutors.
Why won’t god just part the clouds and point to who is guilty????
What about “prosecutorial misconduct”?
I’ve heard the term a 1000 times. Is there no such crime, in reality?
I often get in arguments with my conservative friends about this issue — it’s a huge difference between us.
They believe we should have a lower standard for law breaking by authorities/cops/soldiers/etc. “Give ’em a break. They are just doing their jobs!” they plead.
I’m just the opposite — I hold authority-figures to a _HIGHER_ standard. It’s mainly for the reasons in this article — they are given so much latitude, power and trust.
According to the story, prosecutors have immunity for errors committed in a trial. Fair enough. But what does that have to with this case? Fabricating evidence isn’t an error, it’s a crime.
I agree that prosecutors should not be civilly liable. They, and judges, should have the independence to make decisions without coersion or the fear of being wrong.
That should not excuse them from the criminal liability of knowingly introducing false evidence and subverting the course of justice to further their own agenda.
One of the very few cases where a prosecutor has been criminally charged is Mike Nifong; charged with criminal contempt after framing the four Duke University students in a rape trial. He served one day in jail. What also hurt him badly was his disbarment. He was still immune from any civil suits though.
Another case, and I can’t be bothered to look it up, was two Juvenile Court Judges who were sending kids to detention at a camp in return for kickbacks. They were charged by the Federal Government with corruption. The children who had been sent to the camp, many were innocent and most sentences were grossly excessive to the crime, were denied the right to sue.
Ten years ago there were a flurry of wrongful convictions overturned in Illinois and particularly around Chicago. Although massive misconduct was demonstrated by police, the prosecutors, and even the judges, none were ever charged. The police did pay out huge sums in some of the cases though.
For anyone interested in the two Judges I mentioned earlier,
What I wrote above was from memory, so keep that in mind.
If there is a death penalty isn’t that attempted murder??
Where’s the BS meter?
I also love that even when new evidence (or DNA) completely clears a person who was convicted of a crime, the DA and prosecutors almost never admit that the person they convicted is innocent of the crime.
I agree with Greg that these individual need to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
Jee, do ya think this might be part of a reason the United States has the highest documented incarceration rate, and total documented prison population in the world?
# 4 Mr. Fusion, I have to disagree
“prosecutors should not be civilly liable”
# 2 Greg Allen noted conservatives state “they believe we should have a lower standard for law breaking by authorities/cops/soldiers/etc. “Give ‘em a break. They are just doing their jobs!” they plead.”
With the level of science and technology the government is asking Americans to pay for so as to enable 24/7 monitor, tap and track all cell phone calls, travel movements, credit card purchases, …. the government SHOULD NOT be getting a break!!!
We sue doctors for making honest mistakes. We claim they should know better at all times. We should NOT HAVE A LOWER STANDARD for law breaking by authorities/cops/soldiers/etc.
As noted above, the United States has the highest documented incarceration rate. Incarcerated people don’t come out better citizens. They come out broken with only crime as a means of survival.
We need to break the cycle of crime by not charging or convicting innocent people.
What about ‘Perjury’?
I realise that lawyers are not ‘sworn in’ therefore are not in the position of witnesses, but, are not lawyers ‘Officers of the Court’ therefore bound by other regulations?
Certainly, knowingly misleading a Court of Law, is an offence. The question is really one of law and also one of professional behaviour. I would have thought that any body concerned with the governance of any professional body would have little difficulty disbarring any lawyer found guilty of intentionally and knowingly misleading a Court in a criminal action. From there it is surely a short step in any succeeding civil action for damages. In the face of such action, or indeed even preceding such action, I would have thought that, should sufficient convincing evidence be available, acquittal would be a formality.
Alternatively I am led to believe that Hit men are readily available for a price.
#10, noname,
I hear you and you make some good points.
Look at this on the other hand. If a prosecutor makes an error, even though they utilized the best evidence available at the time, why should he be liable if later some contrary evidence appears that exonerates the person? An error to be sure, but an honest one. Even if there was some contrary evidence beforehand but it appeared shaky to the prosecutor so he discounts it.
Now please don’t confuse a deliberate attempt to secure a conviction by fraudulent means with an honest error or judgment call. Any time an innocent person is jailed is a travesty.
BTW, doctors are protected from making honest mistakes if it can be shown they used reasonable judgment expected of someone with his training. Negligence is another story and is the base for almost all physician / patient lawsuits.
IMO the high incarceration rate is the result of three related cultural issues in America. The first is America’s obsession with gun ownership, the second is the trend towards gangs for protection and criminal pursuits. But the most common factor is America’s insistence upon long, harsh sentences with no or very little rehabilitation.
I doubt there are many falsely convicted behind bars even though one is too many. How many? No one knows, I think everyone in prison claims they were set up.
o’er the land of the free, and the home of the jailed…
Immunity for judges and prosecutors is essential to the rule of law. Doesn’t anyone know any history any more?
# 12 Mr. Fusion,
I will agree with immunity against the truly honest mistake ONLY in principal. But who decides what is an honest mistake, the fox or the hens? How high and difficult of a bar must be cleared to say it wasn’t a honest mistake? What needs to be understood is why are so many prosecutors not honest and ethical?
In this age of the state office must win at any cost, no holds barred zealousness; too many times it has been shown exculpable evidence is withheld with the most inane reasoning (honest mistake if you like).
Case as example and one you pointed out above, the misconduct of Durham NC prosecutor Mike Nifong’s. The media eventually flipped and started reporting nothing positive about Nifong. When Meehan admitted he withheld evidence at the instruction of Nifong. Finally, the hoax was exposed clearly enough for the various dim bulbs to call it for what it was, deliberate, evil misconduct.
But very little in comparison to what would have happened against Nifong targets happened to him.
Also too you have Texas Governor Perry Totally Cool With Executing Innocent Man. Is that just an honest mistake?????
#16, noname,
The only reason Nifong was criminally charged at all was because he picked the wrong kids to beat up on.
The Texas Board of Pardons is a mistake and travesty of justice.
Sarah Palin claimed a similar reason for resigning her Governorship. She couldn’t afford it. If local prosecutors and judges are paying for lawyers to defend them from every one who feels they got a raw deal no one would want to be a prosecutor or a judge.
Civil immunity yes, criminal immunity, never. What Nifong, the two Judges I mentioned earlier, the prosecutors in this story, and all the Chicago area prosecutors did went beyond discretion and into criminality.
Burden of proof
Prosecutors rarely punished for withholding criminal evidence
http://neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory.cfm?recID=19259
And they are still arguing about it.
See Pottawattamie County v. McGhee — Supreme Court of the United States
http://law.nyu.edu/centers/adminofcriminallaw/litigation/index.htm
“Prosecutorial misconduct” isn’t a crime, it’s a term of art that judges rarely pull out when they want to make it obvious that the District Attorney’s office didn’t do a good enough job in hiding the fact that they were framing someone. (Note to those of you who are more pro-prosecution – you *can*, in fact, frame a guilty man: see the OJ Simpson trial/debacle).
It’s my opinion that, at least in those jurisdictions which elect their DA (which is most of them), we the voters should have the ability to sue the DA for breach of their duties, or petition the legislation for impeachment, or something at least.
“Prosecutorial Misconduct” is also the name of a book (on the aforementioned matter) which we sometimes joke is used as the DA’s office manual. (Disclaimer: the commenter works for a public defense agency.)
Wait – didn’t the California Legislature pass a law about 15-20 years ago specifically making prosecutors and police liable for the same sentence as a criminal defendant that they “knowingly” lied or presented fabricated evidence against at trial? I’m not 100% sure about that, but I was living in L.A. at the time and I think I remember this right. Was that law overturned, or…? Anybody know?
Down at The School of Lies (a.k.a. law school), they try to teach students that the prosecutor has a duty to ALL citizens, including the ones that are being prosecuted. You can almost hear the snickers when that concept is introduced.
In theory, presenting false information to the court is a violation of bar association rules of conduct. In Washington State, these rules rise to the level of State law. However, just try to get the bar association interested in proceeding against any public official (or any lawyer-bureaucrat, for that matter). Pissing up a rope is more likely to produce results.
A core issue with the current justice system is that there is no consequence for false arrest or falsely accusing someone of a crime. Even if you prove yourself not guilty, you still have to pay legal fees. The prosecution has no penalty for trying every dirty trick in the book.
I’m fine with making prosecutors personally free from lawsuits but the State should be liable for the defendant’s legal fees in most cases.
Lawyers, politicians (same thing), medical Doctors, police. They all can pretty much get away with doing anything. And not be held anywhere near as responsible, as the rest of the common folk. Little surprise. Those that make the laws, interpret the laws, argue the laws, and defend the laws. Don’t have to suffer the laws’ consequences upon themselves. It’s like those bankers and CEOs getting huge bonus payments, even though their business is failing. Very little of the real world applies to them. Everyone else losses their shirt. And the defense is basically the same. If they weren’t given such immunity, there wouldn’t be anyone willing to do the job. Which is just a load of BS, to protect this double standard.
And it not just prosecutors that are protected. There have been various experts of forensics evidence, that testify for either side, depending on who pays them. Obviously, they can both be right, about the same case. So somebody is lying or making up the results. And yet, none of them EVER have a charge of perjury leveled against them, after the trial they testified on, is over. Apparently, it’s ok to lie in court, if you’ve got a degree in something that supposedly allow you to claim to be an expert. But there are scant standards for establishing the exactness of forensic science. Bite marks, tire marks, finger prints, handwriting, voice prints, gun ballistics, or even DNA. None of these have infallible accuracy to be used to put someone to death, because of. And yet, they have been.
http://tinyurl.com/yz74ckm
ROFLMAO!
-this is news??
several thoughts:
1) everyone has their price and the other side will always pay higher..
2) their is nothing more dangerous than an out of control ego in a position of authority..
2b) the danger increases exponentially when a “group” of these egos have been allowed to work together. (esp when disguised as “for the greater good”)
3) profit feeds the unchecked ego, -and this has nothing to do money or monetary gain.
-s
As per “do you remember history”
Immunity in a nutshell, contradicts the Declaration of Independence. It arises from the discovery that the bill of rights was too powerful and challenged the common law of allowing despots and judges the right to tyranny which they enjoyed up until 1772, and stopping at the first ten amendments or the bill of rights. This “justice for all” ended in 1789, Chisolm v. Georgia shocked congress into realizing that they could no longer get away with corruption. 2 days after Chisolm, congress ratified the 11th amendment. This new amendment affectively ended the bill of rights. If abusers are immune, then what good is a right, if they can get away with corrupt acts? However, there are precedence that shows how the Supreme Court has abrogated 11th amendment legislative immunity, and qualified immunity for local municipalities. All in all, Immune officials have “… refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Direct quote for the Declaration written to King George. Now we have King Judge, and lots of them. Basically immunity is the cultivation of corruption. Get rid of it, and you have a bloodless revolution. Those who state that immunity is a necessity are officials or supporters of totalitarian government under a fallacy of moot democracy. Only despots and judicial tyranny of Britain under King George III enjoyed immunity in the colonies. The Declaration was a contract to recruit citizens to become traitors to the King under the promise that immunity would not be part of the Continental Congress which evolved unto the United States of America. The contract is breached, and immunity has created Kingdoms and Hamlets all across the country, wielding an iron fist to any voice of so called free speech in retaliation and violation of the Bill of Rights, but the 11th amendment made them null and void and selective if necessary. Chew on that for a bit!