« Ninth Circuit continues its run this Term | Main | Oral argument in the Ezell Chicago case »
A reminder
Of what a prosecutor friend once told me -- that he was appalled to think of how all the power given a prosecutor these days could be used to entire ruin an honest man, or one who had made some minor error. Here's a case from the 11th Circuit, applying what appears to be established law, holding that the prosecutor and his agents are mostly protected by absolute or lesser forms of immunity from a civil rights lawsuit. Those folks had taken a fellow who had irritated a hospital by faxing it some critical humor, used perjured hearsay testimony to get him indicted for supposedly breaking into a doctor's house and assaulting him, when he's never been at the house, period, and was nowhere near the doctor that day, either. (You can use hearsay to get an indictment, and here the prosecutor's investigators probably just testified falsely that the doctor had said this had happened). That eventually got dismissed, so they brought another indictment, equally based on perjury, went to the press about the fellow's supposed crimes, etc.. The ruling doesn't say, but I assume some of the State tort claims remained.
Comments
How are things going with the various suits and claims against that Nifong guy in the Duke Rape Case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong
Lesson? Mess with Rich People, and the system will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Mess with Poor People? Yawn.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at April 4, 2011 06:14 PM
Basically, the Court takes as a given that these prosecutors either knowingly, willfully or maliciously wielded their government power for private purposes.
Could the granting of absolute immunity to prosecutors (or any agent of government) for knowingly, willfully, or maliciously misusing government authority against a citizen violate that citizen's right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances?"
Posted by: John at April 4, 2011 06:17 PM
Where's the bar in all of this???
Posted by: Terraformer at April 4, 2011 07:22 PM
John:
No, prosecutors and judges are "special" in that they generally have absolute immunity. Section 1983 lawsuits for other state officials and Bivens actions for federal officials can be filed when a person's civil rights have allegedly been violated, and "qualified immunity" is a defense. This in a nutshell is the problem with so-called "absolute immunity" is that it doesn't generally matter what the prosecutor or judge did, if it pretty much even arguably was in the performance of his official duties he gets a pass. This is why citizens need to be much more careful about who they elect prosecutor or judge. Those positions carry an incredible amount of power, and the downside of getting the wrong type in there is huge.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at April 4, 2011 09:31 PM
I'm looking for a way-out-in-left-field way of attacking that special status. I've no idea what kind of legs this argument might have. All I know is that to prevent more Elliot Spitzers, Mike Nifongs, and these clowns, there should be a method by which citizens can hold prosecutors to account when they misuse the power of their office.
Clearly it cannot be too open-ended, or everyone charged with a crime will file a lawsuit.
Posted by: John at April 5, 2011 06:36 PM