It sounds as if the DA actually was directly involved in the fabrication I think his immunity should be stripped, however if he recieved bad evidence from the police, and he does not look into it, he should not be sued, he should instead be fired for incompetence. You cannot assume idiotic behavior is devious behavior. Even if it likely is.

You (or your employer) can be sued for incompetence in a professional capacity. Malicious intent might instead decide criminal prosecution of the prosecutor.

Would it be justice if a prosecutor fabricated evidence to prosecute a bad prosecutor? ;- )

I completely get where you are coming from, but I also understand the spirit of protecting the prosecutor so he can do his job. Face it, its not really the prosecutors job to look over what the cops found, he has to trust the cops, if he doesn't trust the cops he can never ever prosecute a case, thats just fact. The cops are always the ones who find the facts for the prosecutor, if you want the prosecutor to go over every little thing your just being silly. Take a person fighting a speeding ticket in court... nine times out of ten its the cops word vs. the citizens word. By your standard of the prosecutor has a responsibility to prove the cop was telling the truth, he would have to let all speeders off, because speeding is almost never proved by anything but the word of the cop. Even the speed taken could be doctored by the cop, so all speeding tickets should be dismissed, so the prosecutor does not have to risk being sued. Same with most resisting arrest charges, drunk driving (hey the cop could have rigged the breath analysis by having someone else blow in it first or some other method. Now, don't misunderstand me, if you can prove that the prosecutor knew the evidence was fake, planted, or in some way altered, then yes, sue the pants off the guy. But if you can't prove he actually knew it was fake, i think immunity is appropriate. i hate immunity, but if anybody needs it to do their job reasonably well, its prosecutors. Again proving intent should matter, even in a civil case.if it is obvious that he knew what the cops were doing thats different, if you can prove that he knew the cops were giving him fake evidence fine, which in this case i think you probably could, it sounds as if cops changed their story multiple times when talking with him, thats something i think is worth stripping immunity it proves intent to ignore evidence that might allow the defendent to get off. Actually, no, immunity would be stripped if the prosecutor himself fabricated it, against another prosecutor, now if he used evidence given to him by police that was fabricated no he should not be prosecuted for it, unless of course you can prove intent, civil or legal.

Giving prosecutors such license is like saying "innocent until proven guilty" is a bankrupt and empty philosophy.

As noted, malicious intent could constitute criminal grounds. Negligence might not require jail time but should surely not be subject to any sort of immunity. It is people's lives these prosecutors are playing with; their loss of job is nothing compared to what a falsely jailed person loses.

I hope you aren't arguing from a standpoint of public safety. We must all accept that we live in an unsafe society where the guilty go free sometimes. This is simply a necessary price we must pay for freedom.

We could live in a much safer society where the guilty never go free and the innocent are often imprisoned. Is that really the kind of place you want to live?

No I'm not arguing public safety, I'm more or less arguing that you severely hinder the ability of a prosecutor if you don't have some sort of immunity. I'm simply warning that if you strip all immunity you would be crippling the prosecutor, he needs to have some degree of trust in the police, and only at least a thin sheet of immunity would allow that, im not saying wrap him up in bubble wrap and let him go crazy, but yes, you have to protect him to some degree.

You don't HAVE to do anything. The degree of immunity a prosecutor has from the law is a measure of how much society values the rights of a defendent vs. the desire to imprison somebody when a crime is committed.