|
LinkyMorning Edition posted:Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday. I'm amused that Bush's Solicitor General is on the side of preventing gross abuses of the law for once. So while I understand that simply dumping prosecutorial immunity would be a bad thing that would flood the courts, why can't we establish some requirement for malice or gross negligence? It's obvious in this case that the prosecutor's office worked in tandem with the police to frame a man for murder. This isn't an issue of evidence being discovered later or a simple mistake at the lab. Am I missing some deep lawyerly issue here?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 15:38 |
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 21, 2009 16:24 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Linky
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 15:49 |
|
|
Prosecutors should have absolutely no immunity. We need a nationwide overhaul removing the incentive prosecutors have to convict mindlessly. For examples like you listed, not only should they be sued, but criminally charged.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 15:54 |
|
|
Dominoes posted:Prosecutors should have absolutely no immunity. Dominoes posted:We need a nationwide overhaul removing the incentive prosecutors have to convict mindlessly. For examples like you listed, not only should they be sued, but criminally charged.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:07 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I wouldn't go that far. Immunity from mistakes made in good faith is obviously required. Without that you ask every prosecutor to risk his own life on every case. Isn't that one of the big issues right now in the Japanese criminal system? No one is willing to put forward a case unless it is an absolute slam-dunk because the prosecution is held accountable?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:13 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I wouldn't go that far. Immunity from mistakes made in good faith is obviously required. Without that you ask every prosecutor to risk his own life on every case. Dominoes fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 16:16 |
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:13 |
|
|
Nifong was sued (case is pending) for framing the Duke lacrosse players. So the answer is yes.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:24 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I wouldn't go that far. Immunity from mistakes made in good faith is obviously required. Without that you ask every prosecutor to risk his own life on every case. Yes to a point. If there is a real risk of ruin, they may need to make sure their ducks are in a row before putting innocent people in jail. Some cases that were overturned recently had the prosecution knowing 95% that the person was innocent, but that 5% is what allowed them to rationalize the conviction. Now if they are at least civilly responsable, then they might think twice. Let them have the same chance against a jury like they gave their victims.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:30 |
|
|
I don't know how it'd ever get prosecuted. Police are already protected from having to tell the truth outside of court, can make up stories or say they have evidence/show fake evidence to someone in interrogation to get a confession, can deceive people about how serious the crime they did will be perceived as being, can lie to gain consent to search someone's property etc. Even if the Court comes down on the right side I can't see how it will change everything, it'll just make the prosecutor-police understanding that the police use their protections to do the dirty work and don't go over it in full detail with the prosecutors so they can maintain plausible deniability. As long as you have one side of the state apparatus with strong protection about being deceitful before trial and one with strong protection during trial, you can't do anything about situations like this emerging. quote:Wait, shouldn't this be covered by the right to due process? Not really. People are guaranteed a high standard of neutrality for fair & impartial judges, but the current reasoning on prosecutors, if I'm not mistaken is Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (1980) quote:Strict due process requirements as to the neutrality of officials performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, cf. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510; Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57, are not applicable to the determinations of the assistant regional administrator, whose functions resemble those of a prosecutor more closely than those of a judge. In an adversary system, prosecutors are permitted to be zealous in their enforcement of the law. Although traditions of prosecutorial discretion do not immunize from judicial scrutiny enforcement decisions that are contrary to law, rigid standards of neutrality cannot be the same for administrative prosecutor as for judges. So if the prosecutors can be demonstrated to have flaunted the law/standards before the trial the due process protection counts, but if they win their argument that nothing occurs until it goes to trial, it doesn't count. Tape Speed fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 16:59 |
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:57 |
|
|
I'm glad the article mentions the distinction between investigating and prosecuting. I do think the two parts of the process need to be considered separately and that investigative work needs to be held to a uniform standard. It's a civil rights thing, not a procedure thing. If your rights are denied, they are denied and whether the cop or prosecutor is responsible doesn't change that. There needs to be some way to compensate individuals and families who suffered because of malicious prosecution. If fabricating and failing to turn over exculpatory evidence are crimes in themselves, why shouldn't the perpetrators be civilly liable when they've established that the suspect was framed? Normal people can be held civilly liable for the damages of a crime even if they aren't convicted of the crime (see OJ Simpson). Normality should be presumed but we need a way of taking care of people who've been maliciously prosecuted. I think making prosecutors personally liable would open up too many doors for every convict to sue, but allowing a grand jury to indict the state? Also, if falsity of conviction is established, why can't the people who fabricated/gathered evidence be liable for a 4th amendment violation? I don't see how any warrants could be considered valid or even in good faith when the cops and prosecutor requesting them knew they were bogus. Lying to a judge to get a false warrant?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 17:27 |
|
|
Isn't it a crime to incite perjury? Are prosecutors really immune to prosecution for this?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 17:46 |
|
|
Sham I Am posted:Isn't it a crime to incite perjury? Are prosecutors really immune to prosecution for this? Who would prosecute? They have enough trouble prosecuting police officers who shoot unarmed people in the back in front of dozens of witnesses and multiple camera angles. To prosecute themselves? LOL.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 17:49 |
|
|
With this court, it will be 5-4 in a favor of the prosecutors right to frame people to boost their conviction count. I am incredibly disappointed but not surprised that on a matter of justices, Obama is supporting the rear end in a top hat side.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:23 |
|
|
Wait a second. I don't want a justice system where the prosecuters won't prosecute rich douchebags because of the inevitable civil trial where they must defend themselves against said douchebag. I am generally ok with this ruling. I think the fall out of letting this become the norm would be horrible.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:43 |
|
|
knucklehead posted:Wait a second. I don't want a justice system where the prosecuters won't prosecute rich douchebags because of the inevitable civil trial where they must defend themselves against said douchebag. Newsflash, this is already happening.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:45 |
|
|
I thought it wasn't already happening that is why prosecutors have immunity from civil cases brought by defendants. What was that article all about?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:52 |
|
|
knucklehead posted:I thought it wasn't already happening that is why prosecutors have immunity from civil cases brought by defendants. What was that article all about? I mean prosecutions passing on rich douchbags to go after lower hanging fruit. No one likes to fight someone who can defend themselves.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:54 |
|
|
LorneReams posted:I mean prosecutions passing on rich douchbags to go after lower hanging fruit. No one likes to fight someone who can defend themselves. I can agree with that, but the ability to bring a civil suit would exacerbate this problem one hundred fold, thousand fold? I know this is idle speculation, but even if the well paid defense gets the douchebag off, at least the rich douchebag went to trial.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:59 |
|
|
It seems morbidly twisted to me to endorse the continuation of a system in which the innocent have no protection or recourse, simply because some obscure situation might arise if things changed. The rich already have so many layers of protection in the law compared to African-Americans, and one would have to imagine that the number of innocent African-Americans rotting in jail is higher than the number of cases where a rich person could intimidate their way out of jail. Is it worth damning two innocent black kids to spend over half their lives in prison on the off chance that someone wealthy gets caught? Or am I not understanding the point being raised here?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 20:21 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:
Sort of, What I am getting at is that the prosecutions of those that are poor would increase, while the prosecutions of the rich would diminish. I don't think it is large leap of logic that people with enough money would counter sue the prosecution on a regular basis, regardless of merit.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 20:43 |
|
|
Every D&D thread doesn't have to be turned into a class/race struggle. Bottom line: We need federal legislation, or something similar to remove the incentive for prosecutors to convict people regardless of guilt, while still encouraging them to do their job and counter defense lawyers.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 20:47 |
|
|
Horrible case, doing nothing for race relations in addition to the obvious damage to the perception of justice. Would a comparison to medicine be valid as far as liability goes? An understanding that human error is acceptable as long as procedures were followed and there was no malice (neither of which apply in this case at first reading?) A situation where abuse like this can occur with no meaningful recourse is kind of unacceptable in my opinion, even if a compromise which results in a more difficult job for honest prosecutors is the only solution. EDIT - should point out that my perception of medical liability is based mostly on the UK system, which is less prone to lawsuits than its US equivalent. Also the fact that a consequence of limited liability would be in a greater gap in the prosecutions of the poor vs rich is a valid point. The rich have more justice, to be sure. I've never understood how a system with end user paid lawyers can say it provides equality and justice for all. reallybigpants fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 20:54 |
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 20:48 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:Is it worth damning two innocent black kids to spend over half their lives in prison on the off chance that someone wealthy gets caught? Or am I not understanding the point being raised here? Well first, not all false convictions are malicious. The prosecutor is not tasked with responsibility of deciding guilt or innocence - his job is to convince of guilt if he decides there's enough evidence to go for it (but that's where it gets tricky). Allowing the prosecutor to be held personally liable for doing his job opens up a can of worms in which the state cannot afford to prosecute on suspicion of a crime, but must perform the entire justice process itself to be safe from civil action later. Second, depending how big a window you want to sue prosecutors, it could open a backdoor appeals process wherein convicts sue the prosecutor for malicious prosecution hoping that a civil review of the evidence will reveal something they hadn't seen before. Essentially, unexonerated convicts could force the court to review their case without any cause or new evidence, more or less asking the court to do the job of an appeals attorney. As I said, it gets tricky because there is a lot of wiggle room for prosecutors to rig trials with convenient loopholes in evidence laws or simply taking advantage of poor oversight. My opinion is that compensation should be automatic for anyone found be falsely convicted (in whatever broad sense that might apply). After establishing false conviction I think a grand jury indictment of the state should be required to get a civil judgment of maliciousness. Suing the state, that is, anyone acting as an agent of the state, would also be more efficient. When nonexistant or false documentation is at the root of the suit, it could be very easy for the state to acknowledge wrongdoing, but shift blame to someone not named in the complaint. These should be treated as civil rights cases on fair trial and 4th amendment grounds. The prosecutor still won't be compelled to gather exculpatory evidence, but malicious prosecution could be discouraged much more than it is now.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 20:55 |
|
|
Dominoes posted:Every D&D thread doesn't have to be turned into a class/race struggle. We have federal legislation, if the Civil Rights division at DoJ would actually do something about policing this poo poo. Then again, Mary Beth Buchanan was still AUSA until this week, soo...
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 20:59 |
|
|
CalvinDooglas posted:The prosecutor still won't be compelled to gather exculpatory evidence, but malicious prosecution could be discouraged much more than it is now. First of all, why shouldn't they gather exculpatory evidence? The goal here is to convict the actual guilty party, not convict someone period. Secondly, this specific case deals with a prosecutor who everyone agrees framed someone else for the crime of murder for political gain. Why in the ever living gently caress should this prosecutor not be held personally responsible? Why can't we establish a standard in which if an agent of the state was acting an a clearly malicious or negligent manner that they get hosed? If everyone is so loving worried about endless lawsuits, then the states need to establish independent QC/QA departments to audit the police and prosecutor's office and provide proof that everything is on the up and up. Thus when someone clearly guilty sues the paperwork can be shown and that's that.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 21:46 |
|
|
This confuses me:quote:But even after 25 years in prison, Harrington never gave up. In 2003, armed with the newly disclosed police records, he petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court, which overturned his conviction as well as McGhee's, and concluded that the star witness was a "liar and perjurer." Since then, all the witnesses have recanted. Why is it that they have no recourse under Iowa law? If their conviction was overturned, what is their actual legal status? Are they exonerated? Why did McGhee have to agree to a plea deal? Can't the whole question of holding the prosecutors liable be avoided by compensating the men for their wrongful imprisonment? I thought that was a regular thing done when it turns out somebody was wrongly convicted. quote:Secondly, this specific case deals with a prosecutor who everyone agrees framed someone else for the crime of murder for political gain. Why in the ever living gently caress should this prosecutor not be held personally responsible? Why can't we establish a standard in which if an agent of the state was acting an a clearly malicious or negligent manner that they get hosed?
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 21:57 |
|
|
Dominoes posted:Right, I mean no immunity from maliciously abusing their role to increase conviction rates. The example in the OP is pretty clearcut malicious abuse. I'm more worried about cases where its' less clear. Successfully suing or getting convictions in clear-cut cases is a good first step. Who defines malicious abuse? If it is a judge, what is keeping a mob boss or corporate executive from paying him off to define any prosecution against him as "malicious"? While I am sure your intentions are just, I think making prosecutors non-immune to actions relating to their job will only create another channel for the rich and powerful to be above the justice system. Prosecutors should be answerable to their jobs and their license to practice law like they are now. Cheesemaster200 fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 22:03 |
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 22:01 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:First of all, why shouldn't they gather exculpatory evidence? The goal here is to convict the actual guilty party, not convict someone period. The job of searching for exculpatory evidence is defense attorney's. Both parties have a duty to show their hands so they know they're looking at the exact same evidence. It is simply not the prosecutor's job to be the defense, too. Even if the defense attorney is incompetent a convict can still appeal on that ground, though an improved public defense system would be better. quote:Secondly, this specific case deals with a prosecutor who everyone agrees framed someone else for the crime of murder for political gain. Why in the ever living gently caress should this prosecutor not be held personally responsible? Why can't we establish a standard in which if an agent of the state was acting an a clearly malicious or negligent manner that they get hosed? I think a nice side effect of suing the state (again, not to exclude suing individuals) is that it would force states to look at false convictions in a broad and legally relevant way. Finding individual wrongdoers is the "bad apples" approach that we know is ineffective. Leveraging 20 million dollars from your state for a false conviction even without being to name names gives it a good reason to take a look at whose being sloppy. States with poor records might then be forced to address false convictions systematically instead of piecemeal. quote:If everyone is so loving worried about endless lawsuits, then the states need to establish independent QC/QA departments to audit the police and prosecutor's office and provide proof that everything is on the up and up. Thus when someone clearly guilty sues the paperwork can be shown and that's that. I hope you aren't talking about auditing things like convictions. Why even have the trial if a review panel is even more qualified to look at the evidence? CalvinDooglas fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 22:30 |
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 22:13 |
|
|
Stop electing your prosecutors. It really is incredible the way Americans manage to have more elected positions and less democracy than practically any other first world country.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 22:38 |
|
|
This article has a few extra links to various precedents that are being used in the argument. http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/...ible-prosecutor quote:In the 1993 case Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, it ruled that prosecutors who act as investigators in a case are subject to the more limited qualified immunity afforded to police officers with respect to the actions they take as investigators. . . . Under Buckley, prosecutors who violate the clear constitutional rights of a defendant while serving an investigatory role can be sued, but once they assume the role of a prosecutor, they're immune. I think there's a way to reach the right conclusion in this case. The high court can say that the prosecutors are technically liable for the evidence they fabricated while "investigating", because when they were fake-investigating, they weren't technically "prosecuting" yet, which means they can be sued as investigators instead of prosecutors. But maybe someone can shed light on this one: "We expressly stated that the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom, and are nonetheless entitled to absolute immunity. ...[yet]... A prosecutor's administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate's preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity." Cheesemaster200 posted:Prosecutors should be answerable to their jobs and their license to practice law like they are now. Well, that sure needs to happen a lot more often. (From the same writer) http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/26/no-accountability
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 23:11 |
|
|
CalvinDooglas posted:
If the prosecution finds evidence that the party they are prosecuting is innocent, I have a problem with them disregarding it, hiding it, and then prosecuting anyway for the conviction points. There should be some good faith all around, justice is justice.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 23:16 |
|
|
CalvinDooglas posted:Audit for what? There is already extensive documentation for just about everything the police and prosecutor do, just so the state can defend itself when accused of wrongdoing. And to that end it works marvelously because it's really drat easy to falsify documents. Having an 4th carbon copy of yet more documents isn't going to catch very much in the way of conspiracy. Documentation just makes everything more official, whether or not it's true. As long as the prosecutor can get a few key people to agree on things, more paperwork is more evidence for the state. The key here is independent. Currently crime labs aren't separate from police or prosecution offices, and therein lies the falsification issues you've brought up. This may be veering off into something else, but this sort of thing should be done much like when congress wants the economic impact of proposed legislation to be measured. It's sent off to the CBO, Congress waits and they get a result. They don't work together, they aren't buddy buddy, and the CBO gets paid/funded regardless of the results of their analysis. This isn't about a 4th carbon copy, it's about eliminating the conflict of interest and allowing independent agents to step in when something is amiss. At the lab I work at, I'm only a tech with a BS, but it's my job to make sure certain things are done in a certain manner, and if I have to tell a lab manager with three Ph.Ds that a result can't be sent out or that they're breaking certain rules or procedures, they have to suck it up and fix it. I'm not invested in their results and it doesn't matter to me if they get their poo poo done on time or with the results they were hoping for. I want to see the same thing for the police and the prosecutor's office.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 23:48 |
|
|
LorneReams posted:If the prosecution finds evidence that the party they are prosecuting is innocent, I have a problem with them disregarding it, hiding it, and then prosecuting anyway for the conviction points.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 23:49 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The key here is independent. Currently crime labs aren't separate from police or prosecution offices, and therein lies the falsification issues you've brought up. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see as many independent parts working together as possible for justice, but that's getting away from whether we can sue after safeguards fail. Exactly when a prosecutor can be held liable is a really difficult question and unless the court just says "NO", they're going to have to make a pretty complicated ruling in deciding under what circumstances a prosecutor can be sued.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 23:57 |
|
|
CalvinDooglas posted:Searching is not finding. Prosecutors are required to turn over exculpatory evidence, but they are not required to go out of their way to look for it. "Good faith" is the problem because it's so easy for prosecutors just not to mention something important even when legally compelled to. Your reaction to the fact that prosecutors sometimes flout the law is 'I wish they wouldn't'? Edit: These prosecutors also seem to be involved in the coerced eyewitness statements. Did I read that wrong?
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:05 |
|
|
What if malicious prosecution can't be alleged until after a sentence has been overturned? That gets rid of the "but everybody will claim it!" argument.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 05:35 |
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Edit: These prosecutors also seem to be involved in the coerced eyewitness statements. Did I read that wrong? The eyewitness was coached and told what to say. Is it legally protected to tell your witness to commit perjury? Question: what happens to someone who gets wrongfully convicted and later exonerated? They just let him out of jail and say "sorry"? Is there any compensation (monetary or otherwise) for losing 25 years of your life? Who are you supposed to sue? 
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 10:17 |
|
|
mistaya posted:Question: what happens to someone who gets wrongfully convicted and later exonerated? They just let him out of jail and say "sorry"? Pretty much, except that they don't say "sorry".
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 10:55 |
|
|
If prosecutors can be liable for putting people they know to be innocent in jail, will defense lawyers be liable for successfully defending someone they know to be guilty? I know the stakes are far different and our system is biased towards finding a guilty person innocent rather than an innocent person guilty, but it's something that needs to be considered. I personally think it is a bad idea to find prosecutors when they act truthfully and honestly. Prosecutors doing anything they can to nail people to the wall does need to be stopped though.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 11:38 |
|
|
amateur economist posted:If prosecutors can be liable for putting people they know to be innocent in jail, will defense lawyers be liable for successfully defending someone they know to be guilty? If they break the law, they get prosecuted. It happens all the time. Only prosecutors seem to get a free pass.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 12:22 |
|
Rate Thread:
