Reply With Quote
the prosecutors deserve jail. no doubt
I kind of concur with FWD. The focus should be on the remedy for the injured parties. Criminal charges are not a meaningful remedy for them. If they have no lawsuit, they have nothing but their ruined lives as recompense.
the prosecutors deserve jail. no doubt
No.
This issue here is the long-standing legal precedent that prosecutors cannot be sued for their actions during a trial.
Should any crack appear in this, then every convict in every jail would then be able to sue the prosecutor for any imagined or real thing they could. Imagine someone sentenced to 30+ years with literally nothing else to do...
This is my main concern.
FWD addressed it: set the the evidentiary bar high. Judges will know what do to with baseless claims. They'll be turned out of court peremptorily.
The same can be said of federal habeas corpus, yet judges routinely send show cause orders to the state for even the most frivolous claims.
Judges will instinctively want to develop the record before dismissal, especially when a prisoner is attempting to litigate pro se.
So then, the inconvenience for the courts outweighs any possible injury to the rule of law and the appellant?
The court can always make a ruling that clearly states that it only applies to this specific case and does not set precedence. And I think that's the way they'll probably go with this.
The fact that we have a clear case of innocence here might tend to this result.
My guess is that these guys will be disbarred similar to the Nifong - Duke players incident. In Kansas, we had a similar situation which was politically motivated. The prosecutor did not lose his license but he was rebuked publically and ultimately had to resign his post. He did get fined anything too seriously but he was declaing bankruptcy within a year out of office and no one would really associate with him. He had been the County prosecutor for over 25 years in the County.
I understand the need for immunity but there always has to be limitation when you deal with complete and total fabrication. Lying or even unreasonable exaggeration should be punished.
I'm not even talking, necessarily, about a true evidentiary bar being the standard of proof in such cases; I'm talking about establishing some sort of exceedingly high bar as the standard of pleading. I'm talking about requiring something like forcing the claimant to append affidavits attesting to facts that demonstrate not only his or her innocence of the charges convicted upon, but setting forth proof of the overt misconduct of the prosecutor.
I don't mean to suggest that will alleviate all concerns, but I don't think the solution to a problem like this one is to shroud even heinous prosecutorial misconduct with immunity.
No, they should be brought up on criminal charges and go to prison.
Any prosecutor who intentionally frames a defendant needs to be put in prison. ASAP.
How could ANYONE argue this?
I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't go to jail.
That's a different question than whether they should have to face a civil suit for damages based on their misconduct.
It's not an either/or proposition. A person can be convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison and then found civilly liable to the person who was the victim of the crime.
MH, youre missing the point.
The prosecutor deserving to go to jail is assumed.
Whats at stake is, what are these men due for being framed and serving 25 years in prison?
Settled for $12 million.
A case testing the immunity of prosecutors to damage lawsuits for obtaining and using false testimony ended in the Supreme Court Monday, with the two sides agreeing to dismiss it, without specifying reasons. The case was Pottawattamie County, et al., v. McGhee, et al. (08-1065). The Justices had heard argument in the case on Nov. 4, and were weighing a decision when the two sides moved for dismissal under the Court’s Rule 46. The press release from the respondent’s counsel describing the settlement is here.
Don't worry, this will come up again.
Someone (the prosecutors and, almost assuredly, their insurers) was extremely concerned with how that issue was going to be resolved; rightfully so, I think.
At $12 million, we're not talking about a settlement to get rid of the nuisance of a suit; we're talking about a real concern for the ultimate liability that was going to be imposed as a consequence of the Court's likely resolution of that issue.
That was my first reaction (and I still think it's probably correct). But there's another possible explanation: the DA realized it's better to compensate these plaintiffs (even though it doesn't have to) if the community is outraged by what was done to them. Perhaps this case had become a political liability.
This is now a cert-friendly issue, though. No doubt about it.
Thank you very much. I'm serious. This was concise and clear and informative. Are you a law prof?
The problem is that once you allow it.. you have the millions of convicts sitting aroudn with literally nothing do do for decades initiating copy-cat suits.
Not an easy one.
If we do away with all cons utional protections "for convicts", there will be no possibility for abuse. Problem solved.
I'm sorry, RG, it just seems perverse to suggest that we should countenance prosecutorial frame ups because to punish them would open the door to abuse of the legal process.
Still, the sheer volume of cases that would be brought forth would concern me, especially given what I know of the budget cuts many courts have been faced with in recent years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions