ok for the record, this is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, so i am not looking for specific legal advice on any case, and this is not creating any kind of attorney-client relationship.
Ok so say someone brings charges against you for some small crime like accessory to something based on testimony for whoever is being charged with the actual crime. you didnt do anything, and it quickly becomes apparent that the person who testified against you is just trying to spread out the blame. you had to hire a lawyer for this case to prove your innocence. is the people who brought charges against you and/or the state legally liable for your lawyer fees?
IANAL etc. The prosecutor has immunity (IIRC the correct expression is “qualified immunity”) from liability for acts s/he undertakes as an agent of the state, as long as the action is undertaken in good faith. So if the DA has a good faith belief that you’re guilty of a crime and charges you with it, you’re SOL as far as recovering attorney fees or other damages. Now if the prosecutor commits an abuse of discretion (conceals evidence, coerces witnesses against you, etc.) or otherwise acts in bad faith you may then have a cause of action.
(IANAL) - In the UK - if someone knows that you are innocent, bu deliberately lies to the police with specific intention to have you charged with a criminal offence then you can sue them for malicious prosecution.
Third parties can bring Civil suits, but not criminal charges. Someone can swear out a criminal complaint against you, but only the DA can decide to press charges. Disclaimer: IANAL
In the case of a civil suit, I imagine that it would depend on the particulars and if the judge thought it was a frivilous suit. There are different laws in different juristictions about this.
You don’t want people to hold off on legitimate civil suits because they fear being stuck with a huge legal bill if they should happen to lose. This would be a huge chilling effect on lawsuits by poor people.
It’s very unlikely that the government would be liable to the innocent person; prosecutors are usually immune from liability for their official actions.
As for the lying witness, there is a civil cause of action for malicious prosecution that could be available. However, the standard of proof for that claim is very high, at least in Texas.
Can you cite something indicating that a witness who lies is liable for malicious prosecution, given that witnesses don’t actually prosecute anyone in the United States? The witness would be on the hook for defamation if anything.
Note that my comment specifically referred to UK law; US law may be totally different. I can only quote from my text book.
As for defamation, yes that would be a possibility, but probably a malicious prosecution claim would be easier. Under UK law defamation requires a jury trial, while most civil suits are decided by the Judge. Libel cases are very complex for all concerned. If there’s a simpler option, the plaintiff is likely to go for that. (IANAL)