Justices weigh lawsuits against prosecutors

flarider wrote:
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices struggled Wednesday with whether prosecutors, who usually are shielded from civil rights lawsuits, can be held responsible for framing defendants with false testimony and fabricated evidence.

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, backing local Iowa prosecutors in the case, urged the justices to rule that prosecutors' immunity for actions related to their trial work also covers any investigatory misconduct that led to charges in the first place.

Katyal said the court should not focus on officials who abuse their authority but rather the overriding goals of the justice system. "(T)his court's decisions have said … that absolute immunity doesn't exist to protect bad apples," he insisted. "It reflects a larger interest in protecting judicial information coming into the judicial process. If prosecutors have to worry at trial that every act they undertake will somehow open up the door to liability, they will flinch in the performance of their duties."

Two Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors allegedly obtained false testimony from a man who became the key witness against Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington in the 1977 shotgun murder of an auto dealership security guard in Council Bluffs. They were sentenced to life in prison.

Two decades later, after a friend of Harrington's had sought the police record, it emerged that prosecutors Joseph Hrvol and David Richter had failed to turn over evidence about a leading suspect in the murder and allegedly coached the key witness in his tale against McGhee and Harrington. The Iowa Supreme Court threw out Harrington's conviction in 2003, based on Hrvol's and Richter's failure to disclose the evidence about the other suspect. McGhee's sentence was later voided, too. In 2005, the men sued Hrvol and Richter under federal civil rights law, alleging they violated their rights to due process of law by coercing the false testimony to frame them..

The case, which could affect prosecutors' methods in cases nationwide, is being closely watched by defendants' rights and civil liberties groups, such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which raise concerns in a "friend of the court" brief about "overzealous and dishonest" prosecutors.

Twenty-seven states and the Obama Justice Department are in the case, trying to ensure that prosecutors are shielded from claims for damages tracing to any trial testimony, even that arising from misconduct before an arrest was made.

There appeared to be no consensus among the justices hearing the Iowa prosecutors' appeal of a lower court decision that said the claim of McGhee and Harrington could proceed.

When Katyal worried that prosecutors would "flinch" from their duties, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested a prosecutor should indeed flinch "when he suspects evidence is perjured or fabricated." Sotomayor, a former prosecutor who seemed more sympathetic to the claims of McGhee and Harrington, elicited from Katyal that the Iowa prosecutors were never sanctioned for their actions.

She said she believed prosecutors nationwide were rarely disciplined for improper conduct in the investigatory stage. Justice John Paul Stevens also expressed concerns about shielding prosecutors for bad acts that occur long before they began to prepare for trial.

Justice Anthony Kennedy responded heatedly to arguments by the Iowa prosecutors' lawyer, Stephen Sanders, that they cannot be liable for any fabrication that ends up being used at trial.

"So the law is the more deeply you're involved in the wrong, the more likely you are to be immune?" Kennedy said. "That's a strange proposition."

Justice Samuel Alito, who also is a former prosecutor, worried about frivolous lawsuits against government lawyers. He said the line between investigative and prosecutorial stages is not always so clear, and noted that prosecutors often deal with unsavory witnesses who have credibility issues but who can legitimately make a case.

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general representing McGhee and Harrington, said prosecutors' procuring legitimate evidence is not at issue. Rather, he said, "I don't think we want them shaping the witness for trial. I think we want them trying to figure out who actually committed this crime."

Chief Justice John Roberts speculated that if McGhee and Harrington were allowed to press their claim, prosecutors would be vulnerable to lawsuits simply because a defendant was acquitted. He suggested a defendant might say, "He fabricated (the evidence). Nobody believed it when it was presented at trial."

Added Roberts, "We're concerned about the chilling effect on the prosecutors."

flarider wrote:
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices struggled Wednesday with whether prosecutors, who usually are shielded from civil rights lawsuits, can be held responsible for framing defendants with false testimony and fabricated evidence.

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, backing local Iowa prosecutors in the case, urged the justices to rule that prosecutors' immunity for actions related to their trial work also covers any investigatory misconduct that led to charges in the first place.

Katyal said the court should not focus on officials who abuse their authority but rather the overriding goals of the justice system. "(T)his court's decisions have said … that absolute immunity doesn't exist to protect bad apples," he insisted. "It reflects a larger interest in protecting judicial information coming into the judicial process. If prosecutors have to worry at trial that every act they undertake will somehow open up the door to liability, they will flinch in the performance of their duties."

Two Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors allegedly obtained false testimony from a man who became the key witness against Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington in the 1977 shotgun murder of an auto dealership security guard in Council Bluffs. They were sentenced to life in prison.

Two decades later, after a friend of Harrington's had sought the police record, it emerged that prosecutors Joseph Hrvol and David Richter had failed to turn over evidence about a leading suspect in the murder and allegedly coached the key witness in his tale against McGhee and Harrington. The Iowa Supreme Court threw out Harrington's conviction in 2003, based on Hrvol's and Richter's failure to disclose the evidence about the other suspect. McGhee's sentence was later voided, too. In 2005, the men sued Hrvol and Richter under federal civil rights law, alleging they violated their rights to due process of law by coercing the false testimony to frame them..

The case, which could affect prosecutors' methods in cases nationwide, is being closely watched by defendants' rights and civil liberties groups, such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which raise concerns in a "friend of the court" brief about "overzealous and dishonest" prosecutors.

Twenty-seven states and the Obama Justice Department are in the case, trying to ensure that prosecutors are shielded from claims for damages tracing to any trial testimony, even that arising from misconduct before an arrest was made.

There appeared to be no consensus among the justices hearing the Iowa prosecutors' appeal of a lower court decision that said the claim of McGhee and Harrington could proceed.

When Katyal worried that prosecutors would "flinch" from their duties, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested a prosecutor should indeed flinch "when he suspects evidence is perjured or fabricated." Sotomayor, a former prosecutor who seemed more sympathetic to the claims of McGhee and Harrington, elicited from Katyal that the Iowa prosecutors were never sanctioned for their actions.

She said she believed prosecutors nationwide were rarely disciplined for improper conduct in the investigatory stage. Justice John Paul Stevens also expressed concerns about shielding prosecutors for bad acts that occur long before they began to prepare for trial.

Justice Anthony Kennedy responded heatedly to arguments by the Iowa prosecutors' lawyer, Stephen Sanders, that they cannot be liable for any fabrication that ends up being used at trial.

"So the law is the more deeply you're involved in the wrong, the more likely you are to be immune?" Kennedy said. "That's a strange proposition."

Justice Samuel Alito, who also is a former prosecutor, worried about frivolous lawsuits against government lawyers. He said the line between investigative and prosecutorial stages is not always so clear, and noted that prosecutors often deal with unsavory witnesses who have credibility issues but who can legitimately make a case.

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general representing McGhee and Harrington, said prosecutors' procuring legitimate evidence is not at issue. Rather, he said, "I don't think we want them shaping the witness for trial. I think we want them trying to figure out who actually committed this crime."

Chief Justice John Roberts speculated that if McGhee and Harrington were allowed to press their claim, prosecutors would be vulnerable to lawsuits simply because a defendant was acquitted. He suggested a defendant might say, "He fabricated (the evidence). Nobody believed it when it was presented at trial."

Added Roberts, "We're concerned about the chilling effect on the prosecutors."