Justices, in Aftermath of 2 Murder Cases, Hear Claims of a Process Gone Wrong

New York Times ^ | 11/4/09 | Adam Liptak

[steve-b]

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in two cases involving claims that the criminal justice system had gone badly awry.

In one, Iowa prosecutors are accused of fabricating evidence that sent two innocent men to life imprisonment for murder. In the other, an Alabama prisoner attributed his death sentence to an appointed defense lawyer's failure to present evidence at the sentencing phase of his trial....

In the Iowa case, Curtis W. McGhee Jr. and Terry J. Harrington, having spent 25 years in prison, were freed after the Iowa Supreme Court's determination in 2003 that the main witness against them was "a liar and a perjurer."

The two men then sued Joseph Hrvol and David Richter, prosecutors in Pottawattamie County, accusing them of coaching and coercing the witness into providing false testimony. For purposes of their appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court ruling allowing the suit to go forward, the prosecutors accepted the truth of the accusations against them and argued instead that they were entitled to complete immunity from being sued....

Neal K. Katyal, a deputy solicitor general, argued for the federal government in support of the state prosecutors. Mr. Katyal said that even in the case of police officers, they could be sued only if they had duped prosecutors into using fake evidence. There is no constitutional violation, he said, if the police and the prosecution are acting in concert, because the prosecutors' absolute immunity would apply to the police as well....

[steve-b]

So what if we fabricated evidence! We are above the law! Shut up, peasant!

[ConservativeMind]

“Neal K. Katyal, a deputy solicitor general, argued for the federal government in support of the state prosecutors. Mr. Katyal said that even in the case of police officers, they could be sued only if they had duped prosecutors into using fake evidence. There is no constitutional violation, he said, if the police and the prosecution are acting in concert, because the prosecutors’ absolute immunity would apply to the police as well....”

I don't see in the Constitution where trumped-up charges are made valid simply because lawyers and police work together on the lie.

Bizarre reasoning.

[Navy Patriot]

This one is so badly mixed that no good will come either way.

The LAWYERS (and there is where the problem originates) are mixing two types of evidence, fraudulent evidence (outright lies pertaining to guilt), and extenuating circumstances evidence withheld, that would reduce the punishment of an actually guilty perpetrator.

There is significantly more heinous prosecutorial misconduct in the former, and prosecutors wrongfully seek immunity for both in this one action.

[Forgotten Amendments]

Watch “conservatives” Scalia, Alito, etc. dutifully side with the jackboots. And Mark Levin, who allegedly abhors “statists” ignore this or side with the jbts. :(

[Lurker]

If this is an 18USC242 action there's absolutely no immunity. See the Rodney King case.

L