Prosecutors sorely need to be reined in. Listen sometime to the way they construct cases against defendants. It's like they are creating philosophies, not trying human beings. As long as their 'cases' ( which are really hypotheses ) are internally consistent they proceed. It really is horrible to watch and an insult to any rational concept of justice.

It's good to be the government.

Unbelievable. And it's not even due to DNA tech we didn't have 25 years ago.

I could see this happening under the Patriot Act, but as insidious as that thing is, I don't believe they made it retroactive 25 years.

I can see where they wouldn't want to have the prosecutors fighting lawsuits constantly from incarcerated people, but this is beyond the pale.

This should be a crime equivalent to perjury, but I will be surprised if the Supreme Court rules against the prosecuted.

EvilEgg: prosecuted

prosecutors.

FTFM

Jesus. The story of the two men bringing the case to the Supreme Court pisses me off to no end.

Can I get one of the "black people need to get over it!" farkers to pop in here?

TFA: The Council Bluffs prosecution team, while still maintaining that Harrington and McGhee are guilty, contends that even if the men were in fact framed, prosecutors, under established Supreme Court precedent, have total immunity from being sued.

Are you farking kidding me? If the evidence indicating a conspiracy is as cut and dried as the article indicates, every member of that prosecution team, assuming they're still alive, should be disbarred, charged, convicted and thrown in prison for the same 25 years these innocent men lost.

As for their civil suit, while I agree with the general basis of prosecutorial immunity, I do not believe it, like almost anything else, should be absolute. Actions bordering on criminal fraud or things that would normally be actionable under 42 USC 1983 should have at least some chance of proceeding.

I was going through the Supreme Court Justices and guessing how they were going to vote and I could see this going either way. Look:

Roberts - against it
Scalia - against it
Thomas - default against it because Scalia is

Kennedy - wildcard
Alito - wildcard

Stevens - for it
Breyer - for it
Sotomayor - for it
Ginsburg - for it

SnakeLee: I was going through the Supreme Court Justices and guessing how they were going to vote and I could see this going either way. Look:

Roberts - against it
Scalia - against it
Thomas - default against it because Scalia is

Kennedy - wildcard
Alito - wildcard

Stevens - for it
Breyer - for it
Sotomayor - for it
Ginsburg - for it

That sounds about right, though I'd guess Alito will lean to the Scalia side and Kennedy will lean to the Stevens side.

It's also entirely possible that this will be 9-0 based upon past precedent, though I think the Court will consider loosening the absolute immunity standard for criminal-level violations of civil rights.

If there's no legal recourse against rogue prosecutors, people will take illegal recourse against them.


/boom... head-shot

The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." Stephen Sanders, the lawyer for the prosecutors, will tell the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no way to separate evidence gathered before trial from the trial itself. Even if a prosecutor files charges against a person knowing that there is no evidence of his guilt, says Sanders, "that's an absolutely immunized activity."

If SCOTUS confirms the position of the prosecutors, then we're done as a nation. If there is nothing to stop a prosecutor for framing you for a crime you did not commit - then we might as well go back to vigilante justice.

Weaver95: If there is nothing to stop a prosecutor for framing you for a crime you did not commit - then we might as well go back to vigilante justice.


This is exactly my point. And it saddens me.

So what does Sanders recommend as the remedy for this situation?

Or does he contend that intentional misconduct by prosecutors resulting in imprisonment of an innocent should follow the jurisprudential philosophy of 'tough titty'?

aiiee

Prosecutors sorely need to be reined in

They keep getting new crimes to charge people with from the legislature, but none of these laws ever expires. The result is they can convist anyone of something most of the time.

That's one of the reasons we've got the higest incarceration rate in the entire world.

hillbillypharmacist: So what does Sanders recommend as the remedy for this situation?

Or does he contend that intentional misconduct by prosecutors resulting in imprisonment of an innocent should follow the jurisprudential philosophy of 'tough titty'?

I actually wrote a 40-page term paper in my third year of law school on this very subject, but that was 11 years ago. I'm really not sure what the precedential status of this issue is currently. But in 1998, prosecutorial immunity was not an absolute, IIRC. I don't remember the limitations or remedies, unfortunately, but it wasn't the absolute that the Council Bluff jagoffs are claiming.

Diogenes: Unbelievable. And it's not even due to DNA tech we didn't have 25 years ago.

I could see this happening under the Patriot Act, but as insidious as that thing is, I don't believe they made it retroactive 25 years.

Weaver95: If SCOTUS confirms the position of the prosecutors, then we're done as a nation. If there is nothing to stop a prosecutor for framing you for a crime you did not commit - then we might as well go back to vigilante justice.

THIS
so the cops and prosecutors FRAMED him
out and out HID evidence, and put a put a liar on stand.

these people are WORSE than the criminals, and if they are immune from the justice system, there is ONLY one option left
lynch them

and that is a great way to destroy america

nice work there boys

Weaver95: The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." Stephen Sanders, the lawyer for the prosecutors, will tell the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no way to separate evidence gathered before trial from the trial itself. Even if a prosecutor files charges against a person knowing that there is no evidence of his guilt, says Sanders, "that's an absolutely immunized activity."

If SCOTUS confirms the position of the prosecutors, then we're done as a nation. If there is nothing to stop a prosecutor for framing you for a crime you did not commit - then we might as well go back to vigilante justice.

The founding fathers put that clause in the constitution for a reason. The government must be able to act without fear of frivolous lawsuits. (Clinton should have never been forced to trial while he was president.) Its also a way to prevent powerful people from intimidating prosecutors from going after them.

What needs to be done, is the prosecution team to be jailed for obstruction of justice....like 30 years or so.

crimsin23: Diogenes: Unbelievable. And it's not even due to DNA tech we didn't have 25 years ago.

I could see this happening under the Patriot Act, but as insidious as that thing is, I don't believe they made it retroactive 25 years.

You can be fraudulently accused of terrorism and be given no right to confront the charges. But any evidence you require to do so can be withheld. Ask someone who was mistakenly put on the do-not-fly list how hard it is get off it.

Fraudulent prosecution is inexcusable, regardless of the level of government.

This is one of those questions that shouldn't need to be asked. Or it is asked, it should be answered with a dope slap while saying "Of course it's illegal to frame people"

Can't wait to see what bullshiat Scalia spews for this one.

I was zoning in and out listening to this today on NPR. This whole thing would've been avoided had Ohio not some retarded law that says people wrongly imprisoned aren't eligible for compensation. WTF?? the guy's in jail for 25 farking years and he can't get some restitution? people in Ohio are farking retarded.

EvilEgg: This is one of those questions that shouldn't need to be asked. Or it is asked, it should be answered with a dope slap while saying "Of course it's illegal to frame people"

This.

Hey in case you didn't notice, we're being ruled. Just FYI.

P.S. I like how the link ends in "scum"