While the need to shield prosecutors from what would obviously be a landslide of lawsuits from the accused makes sense, the mere fact that as it stands right now, that the prosecution can actually legally get away with knowingly presenting false evidence seems as if that may be something that needs a slight adjustment.
I cannot understand why the same standards used to grant immunity to possible defendants could not be extended to the prosecutors as well. A defendant who is given immunity can lose their immunity if they are found to be lying or withholding anything relevant. And since the prosecutor in this case locked up two innocent people for 25 years, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to just say they are immune regardless of what they do.
From SCOTUS Blog:
by Erin Miller
Prosecutors are normally immune from suit for their official actions during a trial. Tomorrow, in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, the Court will consider whether that immunity extends to actions taken in preparation for trial. The stakes in this technical question are high because the prosecutors’ actions at issue in the case resulted in two men – the respondents here – being incarcerated for twenty-five years based on falsified evidence.
…The two main issues discussed by both parties in their merits briefs are, first, whether the respondents McGhee and Harrington can establish a constitutional violation by the Pottawattamie County prosecutors; and, second, whether the prosecutors have immunity from suit under § 1983 for such a violation.
In 1976, the Supreme Court held in Imbler v. Pachtman that prosecutors have absolute immunity from liability for their official actions during trial. That conclusion rested largely on policy reasons: the Court emphasized that prosecutors must be able to pursue criminals with “courage and independence,” and without worrying about the threat of lawsuits. Thus, the parties agree that prosecutors such as petitioners enjoy immunity when they knowingly introduce false testimony during trial. However, they disagree about whether Imbler’s rule extends to actions that are taken before trial but are directly connected to the trial.
___________________________________________________
Yesterday the court tried to sift through this – SCOTUS Blog
from Erin Miller
For almost twenty minutes, the Court struggled to understand how a prosecutor’s fabrication of evidence is different from a policeman’s. On Sanders’ interpretation, the fabrication alone cannot create a constitutional harm until a prosecutor uses the evidence at trial and the trial ends in conviction. Then the prosecutor alone seems responsible for the harm, Justice Sotomayor asserted. If a policeman can still be responsible for fabricating evidence independent of its use at trial, then aren’t these two different acts subject to different liability? Justice Ginsburg summed it up: “It’s strange to say a prosecutor who wasn’t involved in the trial would have liability, but as long as the prosecutor turns the investigatory material over to himself, there’s absolute immunity.”
_________________________________________________
Yeah, that does seem just a tad strange.
