- ‹ previous
- 104 of 2800
- next ›
The Right Not To Be Framed
Via OTB, here's an NPR story about a couple of guys who were framed for a murder they didn't commit and are now suing local prosecutors in the case for misconduct. The prosecutors are claiming absolute immunity from suit:
The Supreme Court has indeed said that prosecutors are immune from suit for anything they do at trial. But in this case, Harrington and McGhee maintain that before anyone being charged, prosecutors gathered evidence alongside police, interviewed witnesses and knew the testimony they were assembling was false.
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."
Well, yeah, there's no actual section in the constitution that says, "The right of the people not to be framed shall not be abridged." And prosecutorial immunity is a longtime staple of common law. But deliberately framing someone with evidence you know to be faulty? Maybe the law is an ass, but one way or another, that just has to be wrong.
frame them
Obviously, the corrupt prosecutors should be framed for a more serious crime. Frame them for a capital offense.
If being framed does not
If being framed does not constitute a violation of the fifth amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, then the phrase "due process" has no meaning.
framed
iowa? isn't that the place we go every four years to get the sacred opinions of a bunch of god-fearing, constitution-toting farmers? say it isn't so...
...
They're supposed to be immune in the course of their duties. That makes sense.
However, falsifying evidence should not be among their duties! Isn't it a crime? Why aren't they being prosecuted for that?
The Bigger Picture
The devil, as usual, will be in the details, but if you don't give judges and prosecutors very strong immunity protection from lawsuits we have to worry about them being sued by people who CLAIM that the prosecutors were framing them and knew they were innocent, even though that isn’t so. It can take a lot of time, effort and money to disprove such allegations. We want our prosecutors and judges to be doing their job, not fighting lawsuits all the time.
...
Yeah, but if our judges and prosecutors commit crimes, shouldn't they be facing charges?
This shouldn't be in a civil court. That it is shows the travesty.
But don't we care enough
But don't we care enough about the law and the rights of the people not to be accused, tried and found guilty for crimes they didn't commit? I don't see that its frivolous to expect those charged with upholding the law to actually not commit crimes in pursuit of personal glory. There has to be consequences for wrongdoing and those employed to provide justice have to be accountable for doing so.
No one is above the law, not
No one is above the law, not judges or prosecuters. Accountability...how many rogue prosecuters and judges have sentenced innocent people to jail? Records show quite a few.
One vote
Scalia has already gone on record saying it doesn't matter if someone is innocent. What matters is that rich white people feel safe.
Lying to federal / state law folks
Isn't lying to various law enforcement folks a crime?
Normal folks get prosecuted for that, so why should they be different.
I certainly don't see any right to immunity from prosecution in the constitution.
God forbid you do some
God forbid you do some journalism Drum, but how IS this a civil case and not a criminal or Federal Civil Rights case?
It's a civil case because
It's a civil case because Harrington and McGhee are suing the prosecutors for misconduct. That's a civil case by definition.
Now, as to why the prosecutors office is not filing criminal charges against one of their own prosecutors, well, I think you can probably guess the answer to that.
The dirty prosecutors and
tagged as:- solution
The dirty prosecutors and their defenders are ignoring the Ninth Amendment to the COTUS, which says there are unenumerated rights. So all that is needed is a good case for the right, not it's being listing in the Constitution. BTW I thought a case could often be both a civil and criminal case, as shown in the OJ travails.
The Big difference is not where the stock brokers are
What does not exist (geographically) in Tokyo is equivalent of K Street. There are certain parts of DC, if vacated of operatives would improve things.
Similar http://cbs2chicago.co
Similar
The prosecutors counter that
The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."
Why do the innocent accused have to find a "freestanding constituitonal right not to be framed"? There is no freestanding constitiional right for prosecutors to be immune for anything they do at trial, but the Supreme Court conjured up some immunity for them anyway. As always, the burden is always on the peons, not on the masters.
The prosecutors counter that
The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."
Nevermind that there is no freestanding constituional right not to be sued for magisterial misconduct (or whatever it's called when prosecutors frame the innocent), but the Supreme (that means they're better than you) Court conjured up some rights for them anyway. Guilty until proven innocent, always the burden of proof is on the peons, not the elite, that's the first thing you learn about law.
Sorry for the double
Sorry for the double posting. I was pretty sure my first comment got eated. What an annoying comments system.
Where are the libertarians?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing we have not heard much on this from the libertarians - the very folks who screamed about Kelo meaning tyranny. That bothers me. If the state can frame me, I am not so worried about them seizing my home with some sort of compensation.
Just another chink in their tiresome claims of moral clarity...
Another thing - we don't (and we just can't) utterly shield cops from various legal jeopardy. You know, I get the common law shield for judges - but if police, who get shot at and whatnot with some regularity can be exposed to civil and criminal action without all quitting, well then such absolute shields are bunk.
Odds.
I'm giving 10-to-1 odds on Thomas to side with the prosecutors. Any takers?
No takers.
No takers.
Maybe the law is ...
Don't count on it, Kevin. The good old USA has descended into some pretty murky territory as of late, especially as pertaining to defendants' rights.
The prosecutors counter that
What about them violating their oaths of office?
And while I may have slept through college, aren't there provisions in the Fifth, Sixth, and or Eighth Amendments requiring fair trials, due process, and that there be no cruel and unusual punishments (being imprisoned when you're innocent would certainly count as cruel)?
Prosecutors may have the power to charge people with crimes, compel testimony where the law requires, etc. BUT THEY STILL NEED TO ANSWER TO THE LAW THEMSELVES.
Someone should interview
Someone should interview Mike Nifong and see what he thinks.
Remember when progressives demanded his head on a platter?
Neither do I.
An Easy Call
Sanders' argument is preposterous on the face of it. So he can count on Thomas AND Scalia.
That story drove me crazy. I
That story drove me crazy. I think part of it is political - the prosecutors went with the politically palatable perpetrator instead of doing their jobs. I think part of it is just that people are astoundingly good at creating justifications for doing whatever they want. Otherwise, anyone with a soul would jump off a bridge after doing that to an innocent man.
As far as David Duck's comment on libertarians, I haven't seen anything on this case, but Dave Weigel and Reason write about these kinds of things pretty frequently.
Perhaps an argument exists
Perhaps an argument exists for making them immune to civil suites -- in which case, they should be subject to the harshest possible criminal penalties.
It will have a chilling effect--Good
But if we prosecute these guys, then the next time a prosecutor wants to frame someone or otherwise break the law, it will have a chilling effect and force them to follow the law.
It's like the government's argument about prosecuting telecoms who let the government illegally tap every phone in the country; if we prosecute them for that, then the next time we ask them to do something illegal, they won't go along with us.
Well that's the stinking point!
CDRealist@blogspot.com
Immunity Has Limitations
The Immunity laws that protect law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits do not, and should not protect them from wrong-doing. Those laws are in place to prevent criminals from filing pointless lawsuits against the people who put them away as revenge tactics. There were not meant to, and should not, place prosecutors above the very laws they're sworn to protect. If we've reached a point in this country where they ARE above the law, it may be time to burn down some courthouses. If we've reached the point where those people can do what they please, with no fear of consequences, courthouses are useless to us anyway and the "rule of law" is a farce.
Wicasta Lovelace
www.wicasta.com
www.malleusmaleficarum.org
Prosecutors
Having been the recipient of a prosecutor's failure to investigate the crimes against me in a series of incidents performed by and ochestrated with others to harm me. Greg jackson, later working for the county as a prosecutor, made a great joke about me when I sought help from that office with a letter I had insuring healp at anytime. This was following an incident when I was assualted in a courtroom by the perpetrator, had my shoulder broken, and there was nothing done to arrest the attacker on site. This WSBA member went on to be an AAG for WA state and is now in private practice.
We just deserve prosecutors who act based on fact and not supposition, as well as bar members who stop their antics and get away with them because they have JD after thier names. Same for the judiciary.
Really?
Really? A prosecutor can't be charged with perjury, libel, slander, etc, if it can be proven that such lied under oath?