# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/41 "2009-11-06T05:00:58Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > 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. Why? [Because](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519&ps=rs) > [@](#): > > Under Iowa law, for all practical purposes, there is no way for the men to recover compensation for their 25 years of hard time. So they sued the prosecutors and the police under a federal civil rights law for violation of their constitutional rights. There are many, many cases of wrongful convictions in Japan, and I firmly believe that there needs to be strong measures to prevent official abuse. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/42 "2009-11-06T05:56:30Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I think you miss the cause of the confusion. Yale (and the rest of the Ivies) have never offered athletic scholarships. I don’t feel like listening to the report again, but the article is a transcript of the report, and it doesn’t say he was up for an athletic scholarship —just a normal one. It was just that they mentioned his high school football career in the same breath. The confusion is understandable, though. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/43 "2009-11-06T06:06:49Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > 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) Thank you for that link. I find this case very interesting, because it seems to me that in fact there are many people in the US who are above the law. This case may provide that there are even more people who are above the law (at least some of the time). I found page 5, section 2 (and continuing on to page 6 & 7) very interesting. > [@](#): > > II. Established law provides no support for finding prosecutors liable for alleged acts of fabrication at the investigatory stage. Courts agree that the act of fabrication, > by itself, without any use of the evidence, is not a constitutional violation. So prosecutors are free, according to this argument, to make up whatever they want, to plant evidence, muck about with physical evidence, tamper with whatever they wish, at the investigatory stage? Am I reading that correctly? Then, once the trial begins, they so have absolute immunity, since now they are at trial. Do I understand that argument correctly? Another question: what prevents the plaintiffs from suing the county office of the prosecutor? I mean, as the employer, they knew or should have known what their employees were up to. If they did, they were complicit (thus it becomes a conspiracy), and if they didn’t know what their employees were up to, they become negligent. Count me as another who would like to know if criminal charges have been brought against Hrvol and/or Richter, and if not, why not. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/44 "2009-11-06T06:08:27Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > I don’t feel like listening to the report again, but the article is a transcript of the report, and it doesn’t say he was up for an athletic scholarship —just a normal one. It was just that they mentioned his high school football career in the same breath. The confusion is understandable, though. from the NPR story linked earlier: > [@](#): > > When Harrington was arrested, he was 17, captain of his high school football team, and being recruited for a possible scholarship at Yale. Just trying to help clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/45 "2009-11-06T13:38:13Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I’m sure Dahlia would have appreciate the pageviews, had you included [the link](http://www.slate.com/id/2234604/). If the inference is that Ms. Lithwick’s Slate column prompted my post, it did not. I hadn’t read it before now. Without checking, I’m sure I could find three or four bloggers who have also commented on this case. I didn’t link to them, either, because none of them prompted my post. However, I will be happy to post the link that made me track this case down and start reading it: [http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/08-01065qp.pdf](http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/08-01065qp.pdf) I don’t know if they’ll care about the pageviews, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/46 "2009-11-06T13:43:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. Or, more simply… > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Assuming the facts in the OP are true… Let me make clear that this is a required assumption. The point of a trial is to determine issues of fact. “What events actually happened?” is a question for the jury to answer. A motion for summary judgment says, “We don’t even need to have a trial, because even if every single thing the other side says is absolutely true, they STILL don’t have a case.” So when you’re deciding a motion for summary judgment, you assume all the facts alleged by the other side are true, and resolve all reasonable inferences from those facts in their favor. And then you determine if they can win. if they can’t, then summary judgment is appropriate. At a trial, the question of what the proseuctors actually did can be resolved. THIS motion is saying, “No matter what they did, they have immunity, so no need to have a trial. They didn’t do this bad stuff, but even if they did, so what? They still have immunity.” ---
**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 6, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/47 "2009-11-06T14:08:20Z")
One thing I’m not really getting is the distinction between the pre-trial phase and the trial phase. I imagine it has to do whether they are technically within the scope of their official duties. But I don’t think there should be any distinction. Anyone who is framing someone is already outside of their official duties. And if they’re not framing someone then it’s iffy in any event. Or maybe not. Here’s a question for the legal scholars: can you sue a non-government official base on a “should have known” claim? For example, suppose a witness testifies that they are “pretty sure” they saw you at the scene, and you later (i.e. after you’re convicted) prove that you weren’t there. Can you sue the witness based on the claim that they should have realized it wasn’t you? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. This appears to be an exagerated version of McGhee/Harrington’s claims. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/48 "2009-11-06T14:19:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This appears to be an exagerated version of McGhee/Harrington’s claims. No. From McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, 547 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 2008): > [@](#): > > In the investigation’s early stages, more than a dozen individuals were under suspicion, but McGhee and Harrington were not yet suspects. The best lead was Charles Gates, known to investigators as “the man with the dog and shotgun.” Gates had been a suspect in a 1963 homicide investigation involving the murder of a female coworker of Gates. The detectives knew Schweer left a note at the McIntyre dealership the night before his murder noting Schweer had chased off someone who had a gun. A witness saw a man with a dog and a shotgun around the time of the murder, a man Detective Larsen determined was Gates. Richter personally interviewed another witness who positively identified Gates as the person seen walking dogs in the vicinity of the murder. Two more witnesses also placed Gates near the scene of the murder in the relevant time frame. Richter and Hrvol went so far as to consult an astrologer regarding their suspicions of Gates. Gates submitted to a polygraph exam in which the examiner opined Gates was not truthful when he denied owning a shotgun and, more importantly, denied shooting Schweer. Eight reports dealing with Gates and the murder investigation were written by the Council Bluffs police, yet, Richter and Hrvol never disclosed any of this evidence to Harrington’s or McGhee’s trial or post-conviction relief counsel. Hrvol, in answering McGhee’s post-conviction hearing discovery, went so far as to disavow any other suspects but McGhee, inaccurately answering that the “man and dog” (Gates) was “never found or identified.” And: > [@](#): > > Detectives Larsen and Brown traveled to Lincoln to interview Hughes, telling Hughes they knew he was involved in the car theft ring and the Schweer murder, but promised: (1) he would not be charged with the murder, (2) he would be helped with his other criminal charges, and (3) there was a $5,000 reward available, if Hughes helped the detectives with the Schweer murder. Hughes agreed to help. > > Hughes’s first written statement identified a light skinned man, later identified as Steven Frazier, as the man who told Hughes that he stole a Lincoln Continental from the McIntyre dealership, killing a security guard in the process. The detectives told Hughes they knew he was lying because no Lincoln was stolen from the McIntrye dealership. > > Next, Hughes identified Arnold Kelly as involved in the murder. This was also demonstrably false as Kelly was in the Kansas City Job Corps at the time of the murder. > > Harrington and McGhee assert that Hrvol, Richter, Detective Larsen and Detective Brown (1977 Defendants) began to pressure Hughes to implicate > Harrington, McGhee and Houston in the Schweer murder, even though Hughes initially expressed his belief the three were incapable of murder. Hughes’s story then changed again as he reported Harrington and the others told him they had murdered Schweer. Authorities accused Hughes of lying about this conversation. Once confronted, Hughes admitted to lying once more. > > On September 30, 1977, Hughes told police he was at the McIntyre dealership when Schweer was murdered. The 1977 Defendants met with Hughes at the murder scene. After this visit, Hughes reported he was with Houston at the McIntyre dealership when the Schweer murder occurred. The 1977 Defendants knew Hughes was lying again because they already knew Houston was in jail at the time of the murder. > > Hughes’s story continued to change. When describing the murder weapon, Hughes first said Schweer was murdered with a pistol. This was wrong. Hughes next claimed a 20-gauge pump shotgun was the murder weapon, which was also inaccurate. Finally, only after being told by the 1977 Defendants a 12-gauge shotgun shell was found near the body did Hughes say a 12-gauge shotgun was the murder weapon. > > In light of the changing stories, inaccuracies and inconsistencies, Detective Larsen considered Hughes’s credibility suspect and later Detective Larsen admitted he always had problems with Hughes’s final story. Nevertheless, a preliminary True Information charging Harrington with Schweer’s murder was issued on November 16, 1977, and a similar preliminary True Information charging McGhee was issued on November 17, 1977, based on Hughes’s accusations. Richter and Hrvol approved the decision to arrest McGhee and Harrington, who were arrested on November 17, 1977. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/49 "2009-11-06T14:22:49Z")
From NPR article: > [@](#): > > Like Sanders, Katyal asserted there is no constitutional right not to be framed. IANAL, but wouldn’t this pretty clearly fall under Due Process? ---
**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 6, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/50 "2009-11-06T14:30:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > THIS motion is saying, “No matter what they did, they have immunity, so no need to have a trial. They didn’t do this bad stuff, but even if they did, so what? They still have immunity.” I acknowledged that the govt appears to be making that argument, and noted that I disagree with it. What I was quibbling with is whether the plaintiff in this case is claiming actual knowledge of framing or that it “effectively amounts to framing”, which to my mind might be different. It would be more clear-cut if, for example, someone from the prosecutor’s office asserted knowledge of a plan to frame the guys. I don’t see anything in your subsequent post that amounts to anything more than “they should have known better”. FWIW it seems particularly egregious the way it’s presented here, but I would guess that most of these types of witnesses are constantly changing their stories and the cops browbeat them until they settle on a version that the cops believe to be true. But that’s not especially relevant, I think. The point is that no actual knowledge is being claimed of a frameup, only that they should have known better. Here’s another example. Suppose the cops believe that so-and-so murdered someone at such-and-such place and they think some-other-guy witnessed it. Some-other-guy initially denies it but the cops interrogate him until he admits that yeah he saw so-and-so do the murder. Are the cops framing so-and-so by pressuring some-other-guy to lie? ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/51 "2009-11-06T14:31:39Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Open up the opportunity and everyone will accuse prosecutors of framing them. Thinking on this more I do not see why a line cannot be drawn that would prevent this feared flood of litigation against prosecutors. Simply make it that a convicted person needs to secure their freedom (i.e. throw the prison doors wide and let them walk out) via a court finding that determines prosecutorial misconduct got them convicted in the first place. In this case the withholding of exculpatory evidence (the court that set them free did not speak to the being “framed” issue it does not seem). Now that guy would seem to have good cause to chase after the prosecutor. Let a court decide the issue. That would keep every Tom, Dick, Harry & Jane cooling their heels in prison with nothing else to do from filing lawsuits against their prosecutor. The notion of absolute immunity that is so absolute, as mentioned above, that a prosecutor can literally fabricate evidence, lie, cheat, whatever and be completely free of consequences is just…:eek: ETA: I presume a prosecutor might get disbarred which is serious to them but hardly seems enough in a case like this…especially since this is so long afterwards those guys are likely close to retirement anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/52 "2009-11-06T14:33:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t see anything in your subsequent post that amounts to anything more than “they should have known better”. > [@](#): > > Hrvol, in answering McGhee’s post-conviction hearing discovery, went so far as to disavow any other suspects but McGhee, inaccurately answering that the “man and dog” (Gates) was “never found or identified.” Despite: > [@](#): > > Gates submitted to a polygraph exam in which the examiner opined Gates was not truthful when he denied owning a shotgun and, more importantly, denied shooting Schweer. That’s not “should have known better.” That’s lying, directly, about a piece of exculpatory evidence. ---
**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 6, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/53 "2009-11-06T14:40:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not “should have known better.” That’s lying, directly, about a piece of exculpatory evidence. I agree about that. I was talking about the fabricating evidence part. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. (Can you sue a prosecutor for failing to reveal evidence as required? Maybe Ted Stevens should sue.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/54 "2009-11-06T14:47:07Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > From NPR article: > IANAL, but wouldn’t this pretty clearly fall under Due Process? The court below agreed: > [@](#): > > We find immunity does not extend to the actions of a County Attorney who violates a person’s substantive due process rights by obtaining, manufacturing, coercing and fabricating evidence before filing formal charges, because this is not “a distinctly prosecutorial function.” The district court was correct in denying qualified immunity to Hrvol and Richter for their acts before the filing of formal charges. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/55 "2009-11-06T14:50:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree about that. I was talking about the fabricating evidence part. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. Well, the fabricating evidence is pretty clearly with respect to the shotgun shell. Hughes obviously knew nothing about what the murder weapon was, after two wrong guesses was told there was a 12 gauge shell found at the scene, and then his testimony about the murder weapon being a 12-gauge was offered against the accused. That knowledge came from the investigators, nowhere else. ---
**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 6, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/56 "2009-11-06T14:57:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the fabricating evidence is pretty clearly with respect to the shotgun shell. Hughes obviously knew nothing about what the murder weapon was, after two wrong guesses was told there was a 12 gauge shell found at the scene, and then his testimony about the murder weapon being a 12-gauge was offered against the accused. That knowledge came from the investigators, nowhere else. Again that’s not actual knowledge of fabricating evidence. That means he changed his story, which, again, undoubtedly happens all the time and frequently from false to true. My understanding is that this is actually a common tactic used by interrogators - confronting reluctant witnesses with your own knowledge of parts of the case. From the prosecutor’s perspective, they may have been doing this here, thinking “this guy was trying to BS us with those earlier stories but now that he knows we know more than he thought, he’s finally coming clean”. Or not. Maybe they knew Hughes knew nothing. We can only guess. Regardless, from reading a bit about the case it seems like withholding exculpatory evidence is included in the “framing” claim. If this is the case then my argument is not especially relevant, and I’m sorry for wasting people’s time with this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/57 "2009-11-06T15:01:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Again that’s not actual knowledge of fabricating evidence. That means he changed his story, which, again, undoubtedly happens all the time and frequently from false to true. The distinction between simply changing stories and the use of falsified testimony is this: Hughes didn’t change his story on his own. If they had kept telling him, “No, you’re lying,” as he cycled through various pistol, rifle, shotgun, hacksaw, and small artillery theories, you might have a point. But Hughes was fed the information by the investigators, who then presented his testimony as though he had come up with it on his own. The source for the knowledge was the investigators. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/58 "2009-11-06T15:19:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The court below agreed: Good. That make me feel better about our court system. But I can’t see how an administration that condemned the previous one for arresting and holding non-citizens without evidence can seriously argue that it’s OK to do the same to citizens, as long as you invent some evidence first. :dubious: ---
**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 6, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/59 "2009-11-06T15:32:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The distinction between simply changing stories and the use of falsified testimony is this: Hughes didn’t change his story on his own. If they had kept telling him, “No, you’re lying,” as he cycled through various pistol, rifle, shotgun, hacksaw, and small artillery theories, you might have a point. But Hughes was fed the information by the investigators, who then presented his testimony as though he had come up with it on his own. The source for the knowledge was the investigators. Again, I don’t know if this is relevant as above (can you confirm whether withholding or lying about evidence about other suspects counts as framing?) but FWIW I don’t see your point here. Did the prosecution use his “identification” of the murder weapon to bolster his credibility? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459/60 "2009-11-06T15:35:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Did the prosecution use his “identification” of the murder weapon to bolster his credibility? Yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-a-prosecutor-that-framed-innocent-men/516459.md?page=4)