The Supreme Court has taken the case of a breakthrough case where the Ninth Circuit had held that a wrongly convicted man could sue the prosecutor who was allegedly responsible for injustice. The expectation is that the Court will carve out an exception for prosecutors — further insulating abusive prosecutors from responsibility for their acts.
Thomas Goldstein is an ex-marine who was convicted of murdering his neighbor and served 24 years. He was convicted in a favorite fashion for many prosecutors. With the absence of direct evidence, prosecutors went to their endless supply of jailhouse snitches willing to claim that he confessed in jail.
Jailhouse snitches have become a plague within the legal system but courts are largely unable to block the practice. Now, however, one court held that if a prosecutor engages in abuse, they can be sued for the resulting injustice.
Goldstein used 42 U.S.C. 1983 to sue. This law allows a citizen to sue government official who deprives them of their constitutional rights “under the color of state law.” In the case of Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court previously created a massive exception for prosecutors — establishing absolute immunity when acting in their official capacity.
The novel approach in the case seeks not to sue the trial prosecutor but his boss, L.A. District Attorney John Van de Kamp for the negligence of his supervision of his office.
I expect the court will deliver Van de Kamp from liability and further insulate this odious practice from liability. For the abuse of the snitch system, click here.
For the full story, click here
Flower Child Gone to Seed:
I used to agree with that assumption, but on a recent pilgrimage to Monticello, I could swear I heard a distinct whirring sound as I passed the obelisk marking Jefferson’s grave on my ascent to the main house.
Amen.
We’ll all sleep when we’re dead.
Jill,
Nuclear arms in the Middle East
The U.S. is attacking the Iraqis
The Israelis are mad at the Lebanese
And Cheney does whatever he please
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy….
“Just get over it* will you.
* i.e. respect for law, comity, leaving political decisions to the political process,”
If in the case of Bush v. Gore you mean yielding to congress and the 12th amendment; I agree.
“stare decisis,”
Buck v. Bell is still good law?
“respect for the voters, the right to to vote, fairness in elections, jurisprudence being above politics, Justices more concerned with the law than book sales and public celebrity, decisions with more consensus that a 4-3 split, courageous leaders and jurists, and last, but not least, our liberal democracy.”
Democracy’s got nothing to do with this one; it was all about that lil ole guarantee contained within Article IV.
Regards,
Bob
Mespo,
That’s a long list of crap! (Just saying before someone else does.) These are scary times.
Jill
“Send lawyers, guns and money for the s*$t has hit the fan.”
Bob,Esq:
Just get over it* will you.
* i.e. respect for law, comity, leaving political decisions to the political process, stare decisis, respect for the voters, the right to to vote, fairness in elections, jurisprudence being above politics, Justices more concerned with the law than book sales and public celebrity, decisions with more consensus that a 4-3 split, courageous leaders and jurists, and last, but not least, our liberal democracy. I feel like Cicero before the fall of the Republic!
Since December 9, 2000 at approximately 2:45pm, I seem to have lost all faith, trust, respect, etc., in SCOTUS. Accordingly, I’m keen to guess why the plaintiff in this case chose to rely on 1983 in lieu of state law that became applicable in the face of unofficial conduct.
But that’s just me.
Regards,
Bob
P.S.
Professor Turley,
In case you catch this post, I caught the end of your interview on Dan Abrams regarding Scalia’s comments on the actions of he and his cadre during the 2000 presidential election.
I noticed that you mentioned something about standing before going on to say how frustrated you were about the court claiming the case could never be used as precedent.
I was wondering if you were aware of the consequences of the case itself simply in terms of justiciability and the law of contradiction.
“Jailhouse snitches have become a plague within the legal system but courts are largely unable to block the practice. Now, however, one court held that if a prosecutor engages in abuse, they can be sued for the resulting injustice.”
*************************
I too despise the use of jailhouse snitches with nothing to lose and everything to gain by cooperating –falsely or otherwise. Not so long ago, we disqualified felons from testimony due to the supposition that anything they had to say was per se perjurious. That was too extreme, but I think making the entire criminal record of the snitch available to the jury might be a step in the right direction. I also think that videotaping the snitch’s plea negotiation session (we do it for defendants’ confessions) for the jury’s review would be eye-opening as well.
Seems Justice Roberts’, I mean Antonin Scalia’s, I mean Dick Cheney’s, SCOTUS, is bound and determined to take up and support as many of the right wing loonies’ pet projects as they can (at least all those they’re instructed to take on) and as quickly as possible.