This case raises a very big, ugly, elephant in the room. If you give prosecutors "complete immunity" from civil suits in even egregious cases, then what else is there to keep them from trampling all over the law? For example, in this case, withholding from the defense the fact that another suspect was seen at the scene of the crime holding a shotgun -- this sounds like an obvious violation of 'Brady' and discovery and several other laws and rules. In *theory* if a prosecutor is caught doing such a thing they should face all sorts of 'sanctions' -- from the court suppressing evidence at trial to the prosecutor facing bar disciplinary proceedings. As a general rule -- doesn't happen. Even federal judges high upon the ivory tower are starting to become aware of how commonly/blatantly some prosecutors are ignoring (or goring) the law.

One of the most recent studies showed, IIRC, that in over 1,000 cases where the case was thrown out and the judge *explicitly* accused the prosecutor of gross misconduct ---- only 1 of those prosecutors ever faced *any* type of sanction. I would agree that a major civil-right suit is not the preferable way to deal with these problems - the ideal is to keep them from happening in the first place. But there is no "graduated response" or range of sanctions that help keep prosectors in line. If they have "complete immunity" then why should they worry about following laws they are immune from?