Seventh Circuit Rules Prosecutor Can Be Sued For Abusive Investigation and Misconduct

posnerUS-CourtOfAppeals-7thCircuit-SealIn an important decision on immunity, the United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor is not protected by immunity for allegedly coercing false testimony that sent a man to death row 17 years ago. Two prosecutors were accused of egregious misconduct: Lawrence Wharrie and David Kelley. The new opinion from the Seventh Circuit is Fields v. Wharrie, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1333. Ironically, I just filed on qualified immunity this week in the ongoing litigation in the Sister Wives case in Utah. We are advancing some of the same arguments, though our case has distinguishable characteristics. However, today we filed the Fields case as new supplemental authority.

The case involved the conviction in 1986 of street-gang member Nathson Fields for two murders. He was sentenced to death but granted a new trial in 1996 (I will just note that for those who complain of the long appeals in these cases, this is an example of how those appeals reveal fundamental wrongdoing and injustice ten years later). The new trail was based on the disclosure that the trial judge, Thomas Maloney, had accepted a $10,000 bribe from Fields’ co-defendant, Earl Hawkins, for his own acquittal. Maloney — showing a misplaced or belated form of honesty — later returned the money after Hawkins’ conviction (and disclosure of a federal investigation).

The second trial resulted in the acquittal of Fields after various witnesses recanted their testimony. That trial revealed misconduct and coercion by the prosecution to secure false testimony. Fields then sued Lawrence Wharrie and David Kelley for his then 17 years of incarceration. The prosecutors insisted that they had immunity and the district court agreed. However, later on reconsideration, the court stripped Wharrie of qualified immunity for his role in the investigation.

The matter went to a Seventh Circuit panel, which included conservative icon, Richard Posner. Writing for the majority, Posner held that it would be absurd to allow such prosecutors to claim immunity in such cases. Posner writes with his usual clarity and with some passion in rejecting immunity in a case of prosecutorial immunity:

Wharrie is asking us to bless a breathtaking injustice. Prosecutor, acting pre-prosecution as an investigator, fabricates evidence and introduces the fabricated evidence at trial. The innocent victim of the fabrication is prosecuted and convicted and sent to prison for 17 years. On Wharrie’s interpretation of our decision in Buckley, the prosecutor is insulated from liability because his fabrication did not cause the defendant’s conviction, and by the time that same prosecutor got around to violating the defendant’s right he was absolutely immunized. So: grave misconduct by the government’s lawyer at a time where he was not shielded by absolute immunity; no remedy whatsoever for the hapless victim.

In discussing the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993), Posner added that “A prosecutor may not shield his investigative work with the aegis of absolute immunity merely because, after a suspect is eventually arrested, indicted, and tried, that work may be retrospectively described as ‘preparation’ for a possible trial; every prosecutor might then shield himself from liability for any constitutional wrong against innocent citizens by ensuring that they go to trial.”

The “breathtaking injustice” described by Posner however was not enough for Judge Diane Sykes who wanted to extend immunity to the prosecutor.

Putting aside Sykes’ dissent, many will likely find it surprising that a prosecutor still has immunity for outrageous acts like coercion and soliciting false testimony if it occurs at trial. I have long had difficulty with that shield of immunity in cases of knowing abuses, but this case reaffirms an important protection for pre-trial conduct.

You can access the opinion: here

47 thoughts on “Seventh Circuit Rules Prosecutor Can Be Sued For Abusive Investigation and Misconduct”

  1. Tremendous issues here. I aam very happy to look
    your article. Thanks a lot and I’m taking a look ahead to contact you.
    Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?

  2. Allen Boyd. RE: Montgomery County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Case No. 2011-CR-2608. Judge Frances E. McGee, Asst. Pros. Jon C. Marshall (S. Ct. 0079409), Eric T. Michener (S. Ct. 0074559) and Brock A. Schoenlein (S. Ct. 0084707). I have “Prima Facie” Evidence these individuals, despite having verbatim transcripts of prior testimonies of police officials (Preliminary & Suppression Hearings), allowed perjurred testimonies and tainted evidence to contrive a malicious prosecution. Clearly Violating U. S. BAR ASSOCIATION “CANONS”. Most Disturbing, Why does this society allow a Judge to create “FINDINGS OF FACT” which are totally inconsistent with Sworn Testimonies by 3 police officials (DURING SUPPRESSION HEARING 12-20-2011), simply to violate the civil rights of an indigent defendant. View “MOTION TO SUPPRESS” filed November 8, 2011 @ 2:44 PM. View “DECISION OVER-RULING MOTION TO SUPPRESS” filed January 10, 2012 @12:00 PM. View Verbatim Transcript filed August 16, 2012 @10:14 AM, 54 Pgs. SUPPRESSION HEARING, TRANSCRIPT PREPARED MARCH 14, 2012 BY LINDA RAPIER OF RAPIER AND ASSOCIATES (Jury Trial Was April 4th. & 5th., 2012). IT’S TIME WE HOLD JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS LIABLE FOR UNETHICAL AND PREJUDICIAL “TORTS” WHICH LEAD TO TAINTED CONVICTIONS. I, ALLEN BOYD SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK (90 PERCENT BLOCKAGE OF L.A.D.; BARE METAL STENT IMPLANTED) DUE TO MISDIAGNOSIS BY PRISON MEDICAL STAFF (DIGESTIVE PROBLEM), WHOM PERFORMED 3 E.K.G.’ S WITHIN A 2 MONTHS PERIOD. THANK THE LORD I WON MY APPEAL: STATE V. BOYD, SECOND DISTRICT MONT. CO., MARCH 22, 2013, 2013-OHIO-1067, 2013 OHIO APP. LEXIS 950. MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CLERK OF COURTS HAS A WEBSITE TO VIEW THIS CASE AT HAND:

  3. This is from the tv show The Practice. I think it is a fantastic speech and describes the ideal of the prosecutor. And it is schmucks like Wharrie and Kelley that damage it, by winning at any cost, including the cost of the justice they have sworn to uphold. Interestingly but unrelated, The Practice was created by David E. Kelley. From IMDB:
    “Richard Bay: OK. (takes a deep breath) There are heroes in this world. They’re called District Attorneys. They don’t get to have clients, people who smile at them at the end of the trial, who look them in the eye and say, “thank you.” Nobody is there to appreciate the District Attorney, because we work for the state. And our gratitude comes only from knowing there’s a tide out there. A tide the size of a tsunami coming out of a bottomless cesspool. A tide called crime, which, if left unchecked will rob every American of his freedom. A tide which strips individuals of the privilege of being able to, to walk down a dark street or take twenty dollars out of an ATM machine without fear of being mugged. All Congress does is talk, but it’s the District Attorney who grabs his sword, who digs into the trenches and fights the fight. Who dogs justice day, after day, after day without thanks, without so much as a simple pat on the back. But we do it. We do it, we do it because we are the crusaders, the last frontier of American justice. Knowing that if a man cannot feel safe, he can never, never feel free.”

Comments are closed.