If prosecutors frame a suspect, should they be punished?

It sounds like a no-brainer question, but it's actually a major Supreme Court case, with arguments being heard today in Washington, D.C. There was a great summary this morning on NPR, but here's the nutshell version:

Back in 1977, two black teenagers from Omaha were charged with the murder of a retired policeman in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and convicted by an all-white jury. The star witness was a guy who initially accused two OTHER men and, even after he accused the teens, kept getting his facts wrong and had to be coached by prosecutors. Oh, and the authorities withheld evidence naming another suspect -- a white guy who was the brother-in-law of a local fire official.

Eventually, the Iowa Supreme Court declared shenanigans and freed the men. Only they can't be compensated under Iowa law for the 25 years they lost. They're trying to sue the prosecutors for, you know, FRAMING THEM but the authorities are relying on a rock-solid rule in the U.S. justice system: The prosecutors can't be held liable for their actions in court.

Now the Supremes have been dragged into the matter. We have a case where the authorities did something unspeakably heinous. But the White House, 28 states and several prominent legal groups are on the OTHER SIDE because, well, changing the "prosecutors are magical" rule would upset the apple cart in a pretty fundamental way.

Comments

[Chuck Rizzo]

IDK if they can legally but I hope they can.

[tpaine2]

Why should prosecutors be immune from paying for their mistakes? One reads constantly about overly zealous prosecutors ruining people's lives. To make matters worse the district attorney position is often an elected position leading to abuses of power to maintain that position. Like a doctor these people hold peoples lives in their hands and like doctors they should be held accountable for their misdeeds. While it will result in some lawsuit abuses just has happened with doctors it is better to err on the side of caution in this matter.

[REALLY!?!]

Mistakes are one thing - this was purposefully trying to frame innocent people which is a CRIME. I don't see how criminal acts, in the most wild of imaginations, could possibly be covered...

"there is no freestanding right not to be framed." Tell me again what country I'm living in?

[Man in a Mission]

I think a reasonable compromise would be to set a pre-trial review process by an independent review panel. If an allegation of deliberate misconduct (versus incompetence or error) appears likely to prevail, based upon the facts alleged and evidence presented, then the lawsuit can proceed.

This would provide a qualified versus absolute immunity from action. It would keep frivolous cases out of court while preserving the rights of individuals from violations by officers of the court using their positions to perpetrate that violation. Indeed, we already have a similar system set up to handle civil rights violations (where an individual acted 'under color of law'). Simply broaden that system and those provisions to permit lawsuits in cases like this one.

In the mean time, Iowa needs to get off the stick and pass a private bill providing compensation for this man.

Money can never restore time spent incarcerated for a crime one did not commit, but it is the best we can do to attempt to re-balance the scales of justice.

[Pat-a-matic]

A prosecutor should take the oath too. When they deliberately frame someone, it is an abuse of power, wich in my opinion, should be punishable by death. Kinda like holding them to a higher standard.

[Nowwhat]

none of the "politicians" related to this case are going to be punished. In a perfect world, maybe but not in this one.

[Marvin]

Put on your waders, there's going to be a flood of prosecutors and DAs peeing their pants.

[Nemesis]

If the prosecutors did frame the men, it is obstruction of justice, no matter how they want to spin it. They prevented justice by protecting the guilty, allowing them to go free. In so doing, they also violated these men's civil rights.

[MT]

This happens much more than anyone knows. Prosecutors often get people to say the things they know will get them arrested/convicted, even if it is not the truth, then they plea bargin. Accused have no choice but to plea bargin as they have no idea what a jury will do. I hope the Supreme Court sides w/the accused.

[Anarchanon]

2 questions, the first for deliberate abuses (which it seems there's little contest about), and the second about accidents and mistakes.

Considering those mistakes end peoples lives, I'm inclined to hold the prosecutors accountable for their mere mistakes and errors as well... inadequate attention seems a poor excuse.

[anon]

Well said, Man in a Mission. I heard this story on NPR, and believe that because the framing of the 2 men took place BEFORE the trial, the prosecutors should be held accountable for their actions. I understand that the prosecutors will not be liable for what happened DURING the trial. If Iowa changed it's compensation law now, would these 2 men qualify?

[Man in a Mission]

Anon - that is why I suggested a private bill. The bill would specifically authorize a set payment to these men. Then the legislature can address the wider issue of how to compensate victims of improper convictions as well as how to hold prosecutors accountable when they break the law they are sworn to uphold and frame innocent people.

[Man in a Mission]

Anarchanon -

Prosecutors are human, and occasionally mistakes are made. Those mistakes may be inattention, but it could also be a credible individual who lies, or is mistaken in identifying the person improperly convicted. It could be the result of a misinterpretation of evidence - maybe the prosecutor should have questioned it, or its provenance more thoroughly, but once a particular flawed line of reasoning was decided upon, it colored or compounded other errors resulting in conviction. Other errors could simply be misinterpreting a law which then is accepted by the trial judge and jury, but overturned on appeal. And there are those cases where a prosecutor is unaware of tampered evidence, or relies on the testimony of 'experts' who put forward junk science or manufactured evidence as valid.

To me there are lots of 'innocent' ways prosecutors can engage in erroneous conduct that results in improper conviction. We can and should work to reduce those errors, but prosecutors are human. That is why I differentiate between prosecutorial error and deliberate prosecutorial misconduct that rises to deliberate subversion of justice/malfeasance in office. It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to deliberately set out to commit a crime as it appears these prosecutors did.

We already have a remedy process for the former - it is the appeals courts and in most states compensation funds for those who are improperly convicted.

I am suggesting a remedy process for the latter case - deliberate misdeeds that should strip the normal protections from prosecutors when they set out to violate the rights of the innocent and/or subvert justice, violating their oaths as officers of the court. The limited remedies that do exist - disbarment, criminal prosecution, and/or removal from office do nothing for the victim of these criminals' acts.

The shame to me is that the police, judge, or witnesses did not come forward at the time to challenge the lies and misdeeds of this rogue prosecutor.

[Moral City USA]

Prosecutors probably wont be able to be sued. They should be, but likely not....from this court.

However, prosecutors should be charged with perjury, etc if thier framing involved lying under oath. These poeple are officers of the court. We expect ethical conduct.

[Wisdom]

Prosecutor would be a great job... can't be held responsible for their actions. On the other hand, it is very difficult to prosecute cases with your hands tied behind your back because of all the little twists and turns the defense can use.

One mistake in the prosecution process can set free the most heinous of criminals.

But purposely hiding evidence and coercing witnesses and being rather blatant about it should be punishable.

The lengths that we have to go through for trials is absurd. Unfortunately, the past work of bad pennies on both sides has caused the justice system to be so overwhelming in its complexity it boggles the mind.

People winning lawsuits for doing something common sense should tell you not to and doing everything they can to keep evidence hushed and letting innocent people spend years of their lives in prison is unbelievable.

When prosecutors do something like this they get off scott free and taxpayers have pay restitution for their mistake......

Pathetic

[KC Cicero]

I have practiced law for 36 years, and most of the prosecutors I have dealt with have been honest and honorable. Some of them have been overzealous.

After a while, I noticed that all honest, honorable prosecutors have some things in common: They will sometimes lose a case because they have behaved properly. They have disclosed exculpatory evidence. They have not induced witnesses to say what they want to hear. They have not sought to keep juries ignorant of the weaknesses of their case. Sometimes, they have determined that ehy are worng, and dismissed the charges -- at the risk of criticism, or even their jobs.

Then there are the other kind: They really do not care about guilt, only conviction. They ignore or subborn perjury -- sometimes with a wink-wink, sometimes with a promise of favorable treatment, often to "jailhouse snitches" who miraculously hear "confessions" from a defendant. They are not above browbeating (or even intimidating) judges, They manipulate pre-trial publicity to poison the media & jury pool. They hide evidence of innocence, and manipulate the rules to keep the jury in the dark about any weakness in their case.

They hardly ever lose a case.

They are the most powerful and dangerous criminals in America -- and they enjoy absolute immunity for their crimes. Punished when caught? On the contrary, they often are rewarded far above their honest peers.

Which is why the honest and honorable prosecutors are even more to be valued.

[genial Khan]

How would you handle the suit... prosecutors prosecuting prosecutors?

[Steve-O]

Notice how jealously attorneys cling to the idea that they need to practice their craft with independence.

Yet these are the same people who fight tooth & nail against tort reform in the medical field.

[Man in a Mission]

genial Khan -

The suits would be handled by civil attorneys, either hired by the plaintiff or working pro bono publico (for the good of the public), just as it is being handled in this case.

[Jo Jo]

MIAM and GK, sounds like JoCO will get to answer that one.