You (and/or the plaintiffs) left something out, Bricker: Curtis McGhee entered an Alford plea after Harrington’s conviction was vacated, so apparently the case against at least one of the men did not rest solely or even mainly on Hughes’ testimony.
Yes, the case against the other guy also was based on his own admissions:
Putting guilty people behind bars is their duty. The rules of how they do that are subservient to the overarching duty. There isn’t a prosecutor on the planet who hasn’t felt they were hamstrung by the laws of evidentiary discovery. And, to be fair, they have a point. The deck is deliberately stacked against them. Working every day in an environment which ties your hands as you try to take criminals off the street has got to suck. If you had this guy in front of you, and you were SURE he did it, well, let justice be done, even if the heavens fall.
This is a devil’s advocate position because I personally think these guys should face penalties for what they did, preferably criminal penalties. But it’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback and say no one should ever violate rules of evidence, procedure, etc. Even though those rules are often capricious, arbitrary, and occasionally downright stupid. It’s not as easy to sit there and watch as someone walks out, maybe to assault, and kill, AGAIN. When you’re charged with protecting people and you see someone you believe is guilty about to walk, finding some way of getting the evidence you need is a completely human temptation, and someone who believed in justice above law may feel compelled to do something about it.
Enjoy,
Steven
The guilt or innocence of these two plaintiffs and truth of the assertions are irrelevant.
What matters is does a prosecutor who conspires to deny someone of due process still have complete immunity from tort?
First, a question: as I understand it, this really only affects the rights of former defendants to sue, not the ability of government to prosecute or otherwise discipline prosecutors for misconduct. Is this correct? If the prosecutor did what he is accused of, could he face disciplinary action and/or charges?
Second, I understand why there should be immunity for actions taken at trial. If a prosecutor is handed a case with all the evidence already gathered and proceeds to trial, he should not be able to be sued just because someone else falsified that evidence. Proving whether he did or did not know is usually almost impossible. That precedence would put prosecutors in the position of having to either verify all evidence they receive or participate in all evidence gathering functions personally.
That said, if the misconduct is performed outside of the trail, than immunity does not make sense. From what I heard/read of the arguments, the government position was that falsifying evidence was not a due process violation until it went to trial, and as soon as a prosecutor goes to trial the immunity kicks in. If a prosecutor is involved with framing a suspect but does not participate in the trial, they would be liable, but one step into court and boom, they are immune. That makes no sense.
Jonathan
Yes, which is what the DOJ’s position is based on: that other remedies exist (specifically, criminal penalties). I guess it depends on whether the prosecutors are charged, though.
The other issue is that even if there is a criminal penalty involved it does not address the damage done to the plaintiffs. By that logic I should not be able to sue a drunk driver that hits me because it is a criminal violation.
Jonathan
It’s the state’s job to offer redress for the plaintiffs’ loss, not the prosectors’, goes the argument, since the prosecutors were acting as agents of the state.
Sorry, I thought that would be taken as read.
Let’s put it another way. He was a star football player. Ivy League schools offer need based scholarships. Coaches who are recruiting athletes can facilitate the awarding of such scholarships. He was being recruited to Yale to play football. So, not a football scholarship, but a scholarship that was contingent upon his ability to play football.
Understood, but in this case there is no government redress of the damages in Ohio. Looking at the case law, I am not sure if the plaintiffs can file suit against the state or not. The Eleventh Amendment’s current interpretation suggests that it would fail. So where does that leave the plaintiffs?
Jonathan
Sounds like what we need are prosecutors that are apathetic towards justice, who just go in, do their jobs, and go home.
Is it? I am in a different country, so I don’t know what the overarching duty of a prosecutor in the USA is. Where I am in Canada, the role of a prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction, but rather to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime, and excludes any notion of winning or losing. The fruits of the investigation which are in the possession of the crown are not the property of the crown for use in securing a conviction, but rather are the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. The Crown must disclose all relevant information.
In Canada, the protection from personal liability only applies if the prosecutor had been acting in good faith. Up here, if a matter were heard with such facts as set out in Bricker’s OP, the result would be a slam dunk win against the defendant prosecutor.
Despite this limit on protection from personal liability for crown prosecutors, civil suits against crowns are few and far between here.
Part of the problem is their job evaluation is in wins and losses. They have to win cases to keep their jobs and get promoted. To spend a lot of tax payers money and then decide to scrap the case because they are not sure will hurt them. To lose cases could cost them their jobs. There is plenty of motive to go along that evil path once it has started.
In theory that would work just fine, but in reality we’ve got human beings in the office, not automatons.
Muffin, District Attorney(the prosecutor’s boss) is often an elected position in the US, and yes, they run on promises that they’ll deliver justice, not necessarily that they’ll follow the law to the letter. That doesn’t make as good a campaign promise. The Assistant District Attorneys, the ones who do the actual grunt work of prosecuting cases, swear their oaths to support the law and the constitution(in the ones I’ve found), but it’s not unbelievable that one would think they serve justice instead of law. The two are frequently confused, even in the best of minds.
Enjoy,
Steven
In that case the DOJ’s position is wrong.
Why do you find it surprising? From the brief:
*
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
The United States has a substantial interest in the
circumstances in which federal officers can be liable in
a civil action for alleged violations of constitutional
rights. The United States also has a substantial interest
in the rules of pleading and proof in civil actions against
federal officers. Although this case involves a claim
against state prosecutors under 42 U.S.C. 1983, this
Court has invoked its Section 1983 jurisprudence in
cases involving the implied cause of action against federal
officers for the deprivation of constitutional rights,
recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).*
Clearly the feds want to protect their prosecutors. I really can’t see them arguing the other side of this one. If they’re going to file an amicus brief in the case, of course it is going to on the side of the prosecutors.
I suspect it will be a 5-4 decision, and a whole bunch of prosecutors are praying for the health of Scalia and all the right leaning Justices. I agree with you that prosecutors should not have absolute immunity.