Can Prosecutors Be Sued By People They Framed?

[thundley4]

Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday.

On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.

On the other side are two black men — Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee — men who served 25 years in prison before evidence long hidden in police files resulted in them being freed.
*snip*
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."

Whatever constitutional wrongs were suffered by Harrington and McGhee, he says, they were the result of their conviction at trial, not the investigation that preceded the trial. Without the trial, he contends, Harrington and McGhee "are simply unable to point to any deprivation of liberty that they suffered from the fabrication itself."

  NPR

I'm just speechless at this argument.

[Chris_]

DAT should provide some expert comments, but it is my understanding that prosecutors cannot be held criminally liable for intentionally framing someone, however, they can be sued for prosecutorial misconduct (and lose their license to practice) , and their employers (the state) can be held liable for improperly convicting someone, particularly if "intent" can pe proven, I would think.......but I'm not a lawyer......

I think that immunity for prosecutors is a good idea, as mistakes do happen, and someone can be framed without the knowledge and participation of the prosecutor, however, if the prosecutor enters into a conspiracy to wrongly convict someone, with "intent", all bets should be off, perhaps this is the basis for the case before SCOTUS.......

doc

[thundley4]

I read through the article and it seemed like the frame up was intentional, including not letting the defense have exculpatory evidence.

[Doc]

I read through the article and it seemed like the frame up was intentional, including not letting the defense have exculpatory evidence.

That would certainly be a convincing argument for reversal on appeal, or a new trial, but holding the prosecutor criminally liable, or personally liable in civil court would be a stretch for me.....suing the state for damages big time, would be the adequate remedy IMO......

If prosecutors become fearful that they will be jailed, or have heavy judgements laid against them they will become hesitant to try cases where they are convinced that the perp is guilty, but evidence is either scanty, or circumstantial........we shouldn't forget that they represent "We, the people"....




doc

[Chump]

DAT should provide some expert comments, but it is my understanding that prosecutors cannot be held criminally liable for intentionally framing someone, however, they can be sued for prosecutorial misconduct (and lose their license to practice) , and their employers (the state) can be held liable for improperly convicting someone, particularly if "intent" can pe proven, I would think.......but I'm not a lawyer......

I think that immunity for prosecutors is a good idea, as mistakes do happen, and someone can be framed without the knowledge and participation of the prosecutor, however, if the prosecutor enters into a conspiracy to wrongly convict someone, with "intent", all bets should be off, perhaps this is the basis for the case before SCOTUS.......

doc

I agree, but why then are they making the asinine argument that we have "no right to not be framed?"  We have the inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, none of which can be infringed upon without due process.  Due process cannot exist alongside fraudulent activity, so the implication is that we do have a legally defined "right to not be framed."  Effing looney tunes...

[Chris_]

I agree, but why then are they making the asinine argument that we have "no right to not be framed?"  We have the inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, none of which can be infringed upon without due process.  Due process cannot exist alongside fraudulent activity, so the implication is that we do have a legally defined "right to not be framed."  Effing looney tunes...

Unfortunately a trial by ones peers is "due process", whether it is corrupt or not.......our system is an imperfect one, but it is the best that is available at the moment.......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If the law at the appropriate level, i.e. local/state/federal allowed for it.

I would even say yes to enacting such laws contingent upon court finding of being framed. Otherwise every asshole convict will claim he is framed and sue crushing our courts.

Even then it comes down to who pays if judgment goes to the plaintiff/framed party. The gov't shouldn't be made to pay because the gov't represents the people's interests in matters of law. The people don't condone prosecuting innocent members of their community. Just as I would not hold a corporation liable for the unsanctioned actions of an employee.

Also, a GOOD prosecutor needs to know there will be no repurcussions for performing his duties in good faith.

[Chump]

Unfortunately a trial by ones peers is "due process", whether it is corrupt or not.......our system is an imperfect one, but it is the best that is available at the moment.......

doc

I guess that's what I'm getting it: a trial by one's peers that's corrupted by fraud is not due process.  But, I seem to be stretching that point into a largely semantic argument.

It just gets me riled up to see someone say, "you don't have a right to not be framed."  Breath-taking asshattery, imo.

[Chris_]

I guess that's what I'm getting it: a trial by one's peers that's corrupted by fraud is not due process.  But, I seem to be stretching that point into a largely semantic argument.

It just gets me riled up to see someone say, "you don't have a right to not be framed."  Breath-taking asshattery, imo.

I agree, but it is similar to the argument that "there is no right that prohibits one from being offended........."


doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I guess that's what I'm getting it: a trial by one's peers that's corrupted by fraud is not due process.  But, I seem to be stretching that point into a largely semantic argument.

It just gets me riled up to see someone say, "you don't have a right to not be framed."  Breath-taking asshattery, imo.

I dunno. A contract entered into under fraudulent terms or dubious intent is consider null and void.

[Chris_]

Just as I would not hold a corporation liable for the unsanctioned actions of an employee.

However, it happens all the time........the foundation of tort law......

doc

[thundley4]

This would kind of put the lie to the whole fair trial thing. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This would kind of put the lie to the whole fair trial thing. 

Indeed.

I would argue that it violates the "due" in "due process". No one can presume the founders intended the people we due lying.

Also, would framing someone be considered perjury? I know lawyers aren't sworn in prior to trial but at a minimum deliberately lying to a judge, i.e. "the defendent did X and deserves Y penalty based on X" at least has to constitute something along the lines of contempt.

[NHSparky]

A devil's advocate position, if I may.

If in fact we do criminalize "fradulent" or "framing" prosecution, where do we set the bar?  Frankly, holding the state civilly liable and disbarring offending prosecutors is penalty enough.  If in fact it was just an overzealous yet well-intentioned prosecutor who managed to secure a conviction of an innocent person, should that prosecutor also be held criminally liable, or just a hardass?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Generally prosecutors and judges have complete immunity from being sued personally, but the government entity for which they (Mis)performed their duties does not and would be the target.  They can of course be disbarred over misconduct like that.  The usual situation involves the po-po hiding inconvenient facts that would tend to exonerate the accused from the prosecutor, rather than the prosecutor intentionally framing anyone.
As a general rule I think anyone who frames someone should be severely punished, howeve the right way to do it is probably to allow suit against the government for the lost freedom by the injured party, rather than allowing him to sue the prosecutor, because that would tend to open a door to endless suits from prisoners with nothing better to do for years on end; the punishment for prosecutorial or police misconduct should be doled out by criminal prosecution in another venue, and disciplinary action by the Bar, with either no or a very long statute of limitations. 

[thundley4]

A devil's advocate position, if I may.

If in fact we do criminalize "fradulent" or "framing" prosecution, where do we set the bar?  Frankly, holding the state civilly liable and disbarring offending prosecutors is penalty enough.  If in fact it was just an overzealous yet well-intentioned prosecutor who managed to secure a conviction of an innocent person, should that prosecutor also be held criminally liable, or just a hardass?

There is a big difference in aggressive prosecution with  few facts and little evidence, completely hiding evidence and it being exculpatory evidence at that. Should the state be held liable? Tough call. Should there be criminal liabilities ? I think so.

[NHSparky]

DAT--Kinda what I was getting at, but didn't know how to put it.  Thanks.

[NHSparky]

There is a big difference in aggressive prosecution with  few facts and little evidence, completely hiding evidence and it being exculpatory evidence at that. Should the state be held liable? Tough call. Should there be criminal liabilities ? I think so.

But again, as DAT said, people with lots of time on their hands (prisoners) won't care a whit about the difference.  They'll just tie up legal resources ad nauseam.

[thundley4]

But again, as DAT said, people with lots of time on their hands (prisoners) won't care a whit about the difference.  They'll just tie up legal resources ad nauseam.

Many of them  already do that by filing endless appeals on bogus reasons. It's only rarely that cases happen like this one going before the court.

[Gratiot]

DAT should provide some expert comments, but it is my understanding that prosecutors cannot be held criminally liable for intentionally framing someone, however, they can be sued for prosecutorial misconduct (and lose their license to practice) , and their employers (the state) can be held liable for improperly convicting someone, particularly if "intent" can pe proven, I would think.......but I'm not a lawyer......

I think that immunity for prosecutors is a good idea, as mistakes do happen, and someone can be framed without the knowledge and participation of the prosecutor, however, if the prosecutor enters into a conspiracy to wrongly convict someone, with "intent", all bets should be off, perhaps this is the basis for the case before SCOTUS.......doc

This is actually being played out locally to me.  They're not criminally charging the prosecutor, but instead they're going after him for prosecutorial misconduct and his state license. 

FWIW, I agree with your opinion in the second paragraph.

[Ptarmigan]

Prosecutors like any lawyer can be disbarred. Look at Richard Nifong.