# Suing a prosecutor that framed innocent men **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459 "2009-11-05T19:46:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/21 "2009-11-05T21:37:44Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > Who exactly is arguing the government’s case? Is it the Obama administration, or the Justice Department? There’s a difference insofar as the DOJ is supposed to be arm’s length from the White House, and isn’t supposed to be directly an arm of administration policy. Saying “The Obama Administration” makes it sound like the Big O himself said “We have to fight this one” when it could as easily be the DOJ deciding that they need maximal discretion and immunization lest there be a chilling effect on prosecutors. Does the White House (or even the Big “O” himself) get briefed on US Supreme Court Cases pending? I bet someone in there does. I doubt that the WH routinely gets involved in each and every case, but I think they are going to want to get the White House talking points together when a possibly controversial case is coming up soon. (Say, for example, R. v. Wade, or 1st or 2nd Amendment stuff.) The most benign reason I can think of for the DOJ to try and assert that their prosecutors should be immune to law suites is to try and head off what might be tons of frivolous accusations clogging up the court systems. I think the DOJ is being a bit too binary here, though. The citizens need to have faith in the justice system, and that noone is above the law. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/22 "2009-11-05T21:41:21Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > So she reports to Obama, not Eric Holder? [Apparently, she reports to Holder.](http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/October/20091015123539wrybakcuh4.360598e-02.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/23 "2009-11-05T21:46:13Z")
Question: Since most states I know of offer wrongful imprisonment compensation, why sue? Is he not going to get enough in the wrongful imprisonment suit or is he trying to send a message? He likely won’t get much from suing the actual prosecutor. IMO, he ought to be wanting to charge this guy with a crime and put him behind bars. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/24 "2009-11-05T21:52:05Z")
I bring up the subject of who Kagan reports to because I’m getting very tired of the slippery locution “The X administration” when discussing why some part of the gov’t does something. Bricker says “I think this is a surprising position for the administration to take”, which implies that this is somehow a considered position of the administration, a bit of policy decision for which they’re fully responsible, a political decision. In this case, the much more likely motive would seem to be a reflexive DOJ policy to oppose limits on prosecutors, along with a flood of frivolous cases where jailhouse lawyers try to sue their prosecutors. Right or wrong, that’s a very different thing than the administration making a political decision. Lumping all the actions of the gov’t under “the X administration” is a very lazy way of ascribing a cause, and it lets people fill in the blanks in a way that seems guaranteed to derail the discussion. The president may be ultimately responsible for everything the federal government does, but that doesn’t mean everything the federal government does should be discussed in terms of the president’s agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/25 "2009-11-05T21:52:29Z")
Has the prosecutor been criminally charged? This OP was kind of a long way to go just to take a cheap shot at Obama, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/26 "2009-11-05T22:19:06Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The position of the prosecutors, and the administration in support of them is entirely wrong. Framing people with false information is an absolute wrong. Our position must be that prosecutors do not do that, and then we find remedies for the potential deluge of suits that might follow. Let justice be done though the heavens fall, in other words. With all due respect, the final sentence conflicts with the previous ones. The prosecutors being sued believed, apparently as you do, that justice must be done, irrespective of the cost. The difference is they were willing to abandon the rules of proper evidentiary procedure in order to put someone they believed to be guilty away, and you’re willing to abandon the rules of immunity from prosecution for the performance of their duties in order to put someone you believe is guilty away. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Otherwise, there’s no point in having a justice system. We have trials rather than summary judgments because we believe in the presumption of innocence and the necessity of due process. Saying that we uphold those things on the one hand, but allowing no redress against people in power who construct a falsehood in order to wrongly imprison someone on the other is an intolerable contradiction. We either do away with one or the other. Which is exactly what we’re doing now. The Obama administration didn’t dismiss the trial by fiat, and stretch forth the protective hand of the supreme leader. They’re making an argument the men acted in the spirit of justice, as they were sworn to do in their role as prosecutors, and the protections afforded those in their positions should apply, even when they make mistakes as a result of their zealous prosecution. The very fact that this argument has to be made at a trial shows protection from liability for intentionally violating evidence gathering rules is not absolute. The question now is, does the good-faith belief of the prosecutor justify their knowing transgression of due process? Is acting in the spirit of their duty enough to offset stepping out of line with the letter of their duty? Personally I say no. Think back to a couple years ago when a forged document was offered regarding then President Bush’s service record. Even if the person who presented the document was certain of its factual accuracy, that wasn’t enough to overcome the problems with its authenticity. The former prosecutors here need to go down, and down hard. I don’t hold it against the admin for doing this though, if they didn’t try to protect prosecutors, no one would want to be a prosecutor and our adversarial system(which I’m not a fan of, but it’s like democracy, the worst system possible except for all the others) would crumble. Now if Obama had declared the trial as off limits and dismissed it, say by changing the jurisdiction of the court so it couldn’t hear the case, or claimed executive privilege to shield them from liability, that would be a huge crock of shit and you’d find me with a torch and pitchfork. But the real world is messy, and sometimes you have to stand up for the bad guy in order to protect the broader population. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/27 "2009-11-05T22:22:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The witness Hughes now admits he lied in an effort to secure the reward and dodge the car theft charge, and says that after several attempts on his part to concoct a workable story, detectives and prosecutors essentially told him what to say. > > Harrington now sues the prosecutors, saying that they framed him. The prosecutors respond, in essence, “No, we didn’t, but even if we did, we’re entitled to absolute immunity for any actions we took as prosecutors.” > > The case is now in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. At summary judgment below – in other words, a proceeding that takes every word the plaintiffs say as true, and every word the defendants say as a lie, the court determines if the plaintiffs can win. > > The court below concluded that in a case of deliberate framing, absolute immunity did not apply, and that the prosecutors could be sued. The prosecutors now appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. The NPR link is a good one and I’m not sure if it supports what you say. What a person believes is very difficult for another person to figure out. You might personally think that the prosecution shouldn’t have believed Hughes based on the fact that he changed his story, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe him. Per my understanding a lot of people change their stories over time. And it’s not uncommon for people to base their decision of who to believe based on what they otherwise think the facts are, and it’s perfectly rational. (Who do you believe more, the guy who tells you he saw a squirrel outside or the same guy who says he saw a Martian?) So unless there’s something missing here, Harrington is not claiming to have actual knowledge that he was deliberately framed. He is only claiming that they should have known better. I’m not a legal scholar (and it seems unsettled in any event) but I certainly think the law _should be_ that you can prosecute prosecutors for deliberately framing an innocent man. In this case the government seems to be arguing otherwise, and I disagree with them. But as to the specific case at hand, that gets into greyer territory of “should have known” or “must have known”. I guess you could let a jury settle that, but everything always looks clearer in hindsight. I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/28 "2009-11-05T22:22:44Z")
I believe willful, intentional Brady violations should not only be civil torts, but be prosecutable crimes. Capital crimes, in fact. There should be no higher offense on the books – none – than intentional misuse of government power to pursue personal gain (such as advancing a prosecutor’s career). Obviously, the bar for proving such bad faith is going to be awfully high. But I think it should be there ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/29 "2009-11-05T22:26:17Z")
The Solicitor General’s reasoning straight from the horse’s mouth (warning - pdf): [POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY, IOWA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CURTIS W. MCGHEE, JR., ET AL. – BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS](http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-1065_PetitionerAmCuUSA.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/30 "2009-11-05T23:10:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What a person believes is very difficult for another person to figure out. You might personally think that the prosecution shouldn’t have believed Hughes based on the fact that he changed his story, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe him. Per my understanding a lot of people change their stories over time. And it’s not uncommon for people to base their decision of who to believe based on what they otherwise think the facts are, and it’s perfectly rational. (Who do you believe more, the guy who tells you he saw a squirrel outside or the same guy who says he saw a Martian?) > > So unless there’s something missing here, Harrington is not claiming to have actual knowledge that he was deliberately framed. He is only claiming that they should have known better. > > I’m not a legal scholar (and it seems unsettled in any event) but I certainly think the law _should be_ that you can prosecute prosecutors for deliberately framing an innocent man. In this case the government seems to be arguing otherwise, and I disagree with them. But as to the specific case at hand, that gets into greyer territory of “should have known” or “must have known”. I guess you could let a jury settle that, but everything always looks clearer in hindsight. I don’t know. Assuming the facts in the OP are true then it isn’t “should have known” but rather “did know”. Not only did the guy change his story repeatedly he never got relevant facts right (or not till he went through a long list of guesses). He is then told by the police what the right answer is and who they want him to finger. Further, good evidence is presented implicating someone else who is totally ignored. This exculpatory evidence is then hidden from the defense. Essentially the prosecutor has NO evidence of these men’s guilt and is going solely on manufactured evidence. ETA: Also curious if these folks have been criminally prosecuted. This is about as heinous a crime as I can imagine (some are worse but this is up there). They robbed two men of 25 years, their best years. This is appalling assume the truth is as stated in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/31 "2009-11-05T23:14:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > They robbed two men of 25 years, their best years. This is appalling assume the truth is as stated in the OP. One of the guys had hopes of a football scholarship to Yale. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/32 "2009-11-05T23:44:04Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > One of the guys had hopes of a football scholarship to Yale. ??? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/33 "2009-11-06T00:02:15Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > With all due respect, the final sentence conflicts with the previous ones. The prosecutors being sued believed, apparently as you do, that justice must be done, irrespective of the cost. The difference is they were willing to abandon the rules of proper evidentiary procedure in order to put someone they believed to be guilty away, and you’re willing to abandon the rules of immunity from prosecution for the performance of their duties in order to put someone you believe is guilty away. The fabrication of evidence is not part of their duties. > [@furt](#): > > I believe willful, intentional Brady violations should not only be civil torts, but be prosecutable crimes. Capital crimes, in fact. There should be no higher offense on the books – none – than intentional misuse of government power to pursue personal gain (such as advancing a prosecutor’s career). > > Obviously, the bar for proving such bad faith is going to be awfully high. But I think it should be there I have long shared this view. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/34 "2009-11-06T01:03:04Z")
> [@](#): > > If the two men received significant compensation for their wrongful conviction, that would obviate the need/benefit of suing the prosecutors, who should be punished otherwise. This is fine and dandy as far as compensatory damages go, but there needs to be punitive remediation as well. Otherwise there is no reason to expect that this won’t happen again. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/35 "2009-11-06T01:14:13Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Isn’t it necessary to establish the prosecutors motive and frame of mind? > > Situation 1:The prosecutors believed they had the right suspects (McGhee and Harrington), and cooked the evidence to put the bad guys in jail. > > Situation 2: The prosecutors know for a fact that McGhee/Harrington are innocent, and cooked up evidence to send them to jail anyway. > > Slightly different motive. Both are criminal actions, IMO, but still different shades of bad. Perhaps most likely: Situation 3: Hey, we got a couple guys we can pin this on; let’s get this file off our desks and go out for brewskis. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/36 "2009-11-06T01:23:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …and the response that the prosecutors can’t be sued. I’m sure Dahlia would have appreciate the pageviews, had you included [the link](http://www.slate.com/id/2234604/). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/37 "2009-11-06T01:33:16Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > With all due respect, the final sentence conflicts with the previous ones. Only if you think it’s just to frame someone. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/38 "2009-11-06T02:05:18Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > ??? Yep. It was in the NPR piece. Technically that makes no difference but it does make the story more poignant. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/39 "2009-11-06T03:00:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yep. It was in the NPR piece. Technically that makes no difference but it does make the story more poignant. I think you miss the cause of the confusion. Yale (and the rest of the Ivies) have never offered athletic scholarships. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/40 "2009-11-06T03:11:26Z")
The point I see is that prosecutors are expected to take suspects and build the best possible cases against them; that is their normal duty (though of course withdrawing charges against an accused person who proves to be innocent is also a part of their duty). They should not be penalized for good faith efforts to prosecute someone they believe to be guilty. On the other hand, cases where someone was framed with the knowledge of the prosecutor that it was a frame – yes, that is an abuse of discretion and needs to be penalized hard. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459.md?page=3)