Supreme Court hears case on prosecutorial immunity
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in an important snitching case: Pottawattamie County v. McGhee. Two prosecutors are being sued for fabricating evidence -- essentially pressuring a criminal informant until he came up with the story they wanted and then using that story at trial. The issue is whether they have absolute immunity, as prosecutors typically do for trial-related decisions, or whether they were acting more like investigators and therefore would only have qualified immunity from suit. Radley Balko over at Reason has posted this comprehensive discussion of the case and oral argument. For defendants who have been convicted based on fabricated evidence, the only remedy to which they are typically entitled is the overturning of their conviction. See this post: Judge finds prosecutorial misconduct in permitting false informant testimony. A finding that prosecutors who fabricate evidence might be personally liable would significantly alter the dynamic between informants and the government.
Comments
Having witnessed numerous ethical breaches and illegal conduct by Federal prosecutors, and the fear of defense attorneys to call them out so that their clients aren't adversely impacted, I think some accountability is necessary in leveling the playing field. Unfortunately, "justice" has given way to winning at all costs. Incentives need to be changed, and I hope the Supreme Court does that. Justice Kennedy's comments were welcome, as the logic defending the conduct was perverse to say the least.
this has to start on the local level , with the display of prosecutors behavior , to cause an out-cry , that can't be resisted by local Govt. which , certainly , is less powerful than state / Fed. govts. ..... which our group , will start doing , in 3 months , here in L. A. county, ca. __ Hi from malibu