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?

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?

I'm not sure that your recollection is correct, but I'm appreciative that you appreciate the difficulty of the problem. My own view is that people are too quick to pooh-pooh and dismiss as a meaningless slap on the wrist the unofficial "sanction" of destroying one's credibility with a court that one -- and one's colleagues -- must appear in front of every day. You are correct that a number of federal judges have become increasingly angry with the federal prosecutor's office in their jurisdictions; the Attorney General has had to promise irate judges that prosecutors are going to receive retraining, with frequent periodic refreshers, on subjects such as what types of evidence they must disclose to the defense before trial. From the Justice Department's perspective, it is a very bad thing that things have come to this. The prosecutors whose failings have brought it to this -- whether or not those failings affected the outcome of a case -- are going to find that their careers as prosecutors aren't going anywhere.

I thought the Enforcement act, which makes it a crime to use color of office to deprive people of civil rights, would be raised here before the last "swish" moment. These prosecutors can go to JAIL. They are lucky all thye have is a civil suit. What they did is not just unconstitutional, but illegal.

The Enforcement Act is usually used against police officers (think the second set of Rodney King trials). If the prosecutors win immunity from civil suit, they should expect people will just try them for criminal charges. That's better?

Alito has now proven himself to be evil incarnate. I'm waiting for a bishop to excommunicate him. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm waiting.

People can't try them for violations. Their fellow Prosecutors decide whether or not to do so. Want to bet how that decision generally goes?

kgswiger:

People can't try them for violations. Their fellow Prosecutors decide whether or not to do so. Want to bet how that decision generally goes?

Depends on if the federal prosecutor is trying to become a judge. They caught District Attorney Harry Connick Sr. doing this in New Orleans (fabricating evidence) and he was charged federally.