News >> Browse Articles >> Law Enforcement News
Court Worries About Stifling Prosecutors
(Stock Photo)
The AP via YellowBrix
November 05, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed worried that allowing people to sue prosecutors who fabricate evidence to win convictions might chill other prosecutions — even if those prosecutors are doing their jobs correctly and honestly.
But justices also seemed frustrated at the thought that prosecutors could knowingly send an innocent person to prison — and then escape any repercussion by claiming that they were doing their job.
Police Law & Liability
The case in front of the high court involves two former Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors, Attorney Dave Richter and his assistant Joseph Hrvol. They are being sued by Curtis W. McGhee Jr., and Terry Harrington, who were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1978 for the death of retired police officer John Schweer. The men were released from prison after 25 years.
Evidence showed the prosecutors had failed to share evidence that pointed to another man, Charles Gates, as a possible suspect in Schweer’s slaying.
They later on denied that Gates was even a suspect, even though witnesses placed him near the scene of the crime and his name appeared in several police reports. He also was administered and failed a polygraph test and the prosecutors themselves even consulted an astrologer about their suspicions of Gates.
McGhee and Harrington filed lawsuits against the former prosecutors, saying as prosecutors Richter and Hrvol had them arrested without probable cause, coerced and coached witnesses, fabricated evidence against them and concealed evidence that could have cleared them. They claimed authorities were eager to charge someone and that they were targeted because they are black.
Richter and Hrvol argued, however, that they were immune from lawsuits because they were acting within the scope of their job. Federal courts, however, said the immunity did not extend to their work before the trial began and rejected their motions to dismiss the lawsuits.
Ordinarily, prosecutors are immune from lawsuits based on their work at trial. This case tests whether that immunity stretches to the prosecutorial work that happens before the trial begins.
“If a prosecutor’s absolute immunity in judicial proceedings means anything, it means that a prosecutor may not be sued because a trial has ended in a conviction,” lawyer Stephen Sanders said.
rsironron
20 days ago
1492 Comments
I to agree with jdelos and cowatchu.
Sheriff_1
21 days ago
6832 Comments
Prosecutors should stand accountable for their actions or inactions. LE is held to a higher standard and so should all judicial officials.
Irishcop1961
21 days ago
15506 Comments
I agree with jdelos19 and cowatchu.
cowatchu
21 days ago
268 Comments
I agree with jdelos19. But who in their right mind would not want a prosecutor to be held liable for fabricating evidence,regardless if he was doing the pre-trail work or actually prosecuting the case him or herself. I know i would not want to be prosecuted on evidence that was fabricated, regardless of who was prosecuting me. So hopefully the High Court will make the right choice and make prosecutors accountable for their actions from begining to end, when a innocent person has been found guilty all because of LIES on part of the PROSECUTION.
jdelos19
21 days ago
36 Comments
“And if prosecutors have to worry at trial that every act they undertake will somehow open up the door to liability, then they will flinch in the performance of their duties and not introduce that evidence.” HMMM dont get me wrong I know prosecuters and us are on the same side but we always have to worry about being sued in the performance of our duties why shouldn't they? Again I'm not against prosecuters we have to work with them to get convictions at trials. I think we should be able to sue the bad guy for the emotional stress they put on us.