 
|
While the reason for this may be reasonable, how many others are in jail, even been executed, because prosecutors are immune from answering, like the rest of us, for their actions? Perhaps it’s time to have their offices wired with cameras and mics like police cars that catch dirty cops in the act. What’s that line about power corrupting?
In July 1977, retired police captain John Schweer was shot and killed while working as a night watchman at an Oldsmobile dealership in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two teenagers, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were convicted of the murder based on evidence they allege was knowingly fabricated by prosecutors.
[...]
Now both men are suing the Pottawattamie County prosecutors, claiming they coerced and coached witnesses, fabricated evidence and arrested them without probable cause. But according to federal law supported by numerous legal precedents, prosecutors have immunity for anything they do during a trial. Richter and Hrvol say they were just doing their job.“If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial, that prosecutor is absolutely immune from lawsuit,” explains Stephen Sanders, an attorney representing Richter and Hrvol. The rationale is that if prosecutors could be blamed for errors in a trial, they would become vulnerable targets for any litigious convict with an ax to grind.
“This means that some people who are genuinely wronged by a prosecutor [are not] able to recover,” Sanders concedes.
[...]
Hrvol and Richter cannot be tried for knowingly putting a dishonest witness on the stand. They don’t have to own up to the fact that they presented false evidence or coerced a witness’s testimony. But fortunately for McGhee and Harrington, they did something on which the law is not completely clear — they didn’t just present the evidence at trial, but also helped gather it. In an unusual move, the prosecutors aided detectives by canvassing the neighborhood and interviewing witnesses, and so their actions may not be covered by absolute immunity. That is what the Supreme Court will decide.
Wait – didn’t the California Legislature pass a law about 15-20 years ago specifically making prosecutors and police liable for the same sentence as a criminal defendant that they “knowingly” lied or presented fabricated evidence against at trial? I’m not 100% sure about that, but I was living in L.A. at the time and I think I remember this right. Was that law overturned, or…? Anybody know?
Down at The School of Lies (a.k.a. law school), they try to teach students that the prosecutor has a duty to ALL citizens, including the ones that are being prosecuted. You can almost hear the snickers when that concept is introduced.
In theory, presenting false information to the court is a violation of bar association rules of conduct. In Washington State, these rules rise to the level of State law. However, just try to get the bar association interested in proceeding against any public official (or any lawyer-bureaucrat, for that matter). Pissing up a rope is more likely to produce results.
A core issue with the current justice system is that there is no consequence for false arrest or falsely accusing someone of a crime. Even if you prove yourself not guilty, you still have to pay legal fees. The prosecution has no penalty for trying every dirty trick in the book.
I’m fine with making prosecutors personally free from lawsuits but the State should be liable for the defendant’s legal fees in most cases.
Lawyers, politicians (same thing), medical Doctors, police. They all can pretty much get away with doing anything. And not be held anywhere near as responsible, as the rest of the common folk. Little surprise. Those that make the laws, interpret the laws, argue the laws, and defend the laws. Don’t have to suffer the laws’ consequences upon themselves. It’s like those bankers and CEOs getting huge bonus payments, even though their business is failing. Very little of the real world applies to them. Everyone else losses their shirt. And the defense is basically the same. If they weren’t given such immunity, there wouldn’t be anyone willing to do the job. Which is just a load of BS, to protect this double standard.
And it not just prosecutors that are protected. There have been various experts of forensics evidence, that testify for either side, depending on who pays them. Obviously, they can both be right, about the same case. So somebody is lying or making up the results. And yet, none of them EVER have a charge of perjury leveled against them, after the trial they testified on, is over. Apparently, it’s ok to lie in court, if you’ve got a degree in something that supposedly allow you to claim to be an expert. But there are scant standards for establishing the exactness of forensic science. Bite marks, tire marks, finger prints, handwriting, voice prints, gun ballistics, or even DNA. None of these have infallible accuracy to be used to put someone to death, because of. And yet, they have been.
http://tinyurl.com/yz74ckm
ROFLMAO!
-this is news??
several thoughts:
1) everyone has their price and the other side will always pay higher..
2) their is nothing more dangerous than an out of control ego in a position of authority..
2b) the danger increases exponentially when a “group” of these egos have been allowed to work together. (esp when disguised as “for the greater good”)
3) profit feeds the unchecked ego, -and this has nothing to do money or monetary gain.
-s
As per “do you remember history”
Immunity in a nutshell, contradicts the Declaration of Independence. It arises from the discovery that the bill of rights was too powerful and challenged the common law of allowing despots and judges the right to tyranny which they enjoyed up until 1772, and stopping at the first ten amendments or the bill of rights. This “justice for all” ended in 1789, Chisolm v. Georgia shocked congress into realizing that they could no longer get away with corruption. 2 days after Chisolm, congress ratified the 11th amendment. This new amendment affectively ended the bill of rights. If abusers are immune, then what good is a right, if they can get away with corrupt acts? However, there are precedence that shows how the Supreme Court has abrogated 11th amendment legislative immunity, and qualified immunity for local municipalities. All in all, Immune officials have “… refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Direct quote for the Declaration written to King George. Now we have King Judge, and lots of them. Basically immunity is the cultivation of corruption. Get rid of it, and you have a bloodless revolution. Those who state that immunity is a necessity are officials or supporters of totalitarian government under a fallacy of moot democracy. Only despots and judicial tyranny of Britain under King George III enjoyed immunity in the colonies. The Declaration was a contract to recruit citizens to become traitors to the King under the promise that immunity would not be part of the Continental Congress which evolved unto the United States of America. The contract is breached, and immunity has created Kingdoms and Hamlets all across the country, wielding an iron fist to any voice of so called free speech in retaliation and violation of the Bill of Rights, but the 11th amendment made them null and void and selective if necessary. Chew on that for a bit!