"There Is No Freestanding Constitutional Right Not To Be Framed"
Absolutely sick stuff from an excerpt from a WaPo editiorial. The header of this blog post is a quote from a brief filed by Iowa prosecutors hoping to persuade the Supremes to dismiss a lawsuit against them for allegedly fabricating evidence and causing two men to spend 25 years in prison:
It's a breathtaking proposition that the justices should roundly reject when they hear the case Wednesday.According to court documents, the prosecutors took a leading role in 1977 in investigating the murder of a recently retired white police officer at an Iowa automobile dealership where he was working security. The prosecutors allegedly coaxed a witness to offer a version of events that implicated two African American men, Curtis W. McGhee Jr. and Terry J. Harrington; the witness gave several different statements over time and had trouble keeping his facts straight. Prosecutors also allegedly coerced other witnesses to lie and withheld evidence that pointed to a different culprit.
...Prosecutors need to be able carry out their duties without fear that they'll become the targets of personal lawsuits if defendants are found not guilty or charges are dropped. But such lawsuits face high hurdles. The Supreme Court has recently -- and correctly -- made it even more difficult for plaintiffs to make officials personally liable unless there's convincing evidence that they were directly involved in knowingly violating a clearly established constitutional right. Mr. McGhee and Mr. Harrington have shouldered that burden and should be allowed to proceed with their case.
via @radleybalko
What's the difference between a manta ray and a lawyer?
One's a scum-sucking bottom dweller, and the other's a fish.
- from The Doctor
At least those lawyers have balls, launching that request. Lawyers occasionally know that their clients are stone cold guilty but manage, perfectly legally, to get them acquitted. Hopefully this one gets buried. The fear of reprisal should keep them above suspicion.
OTOH, if this flies then perhaps the Supreme Court will also erect a shield protecting random citizens from bogus lawsuits. Kind of a prequalification process.
DaveG at November 3, 2009 8:16 AM
Prosecutorial misconduct is unforgiveable. I figure a punishment of double the maximum for the offense prosecuted would be fair.
Two lifetimes in prison, or a double death penalty might be overkill, but this needs to never happen.
MarkD at November 3, 2009 9:26 AM
There is a constitutional right to Due Process.
Manufacturing evidence against a defendant is not Due Process, except in the unlikely event that the state's statute law says so.
These guys should be (or are) criminally liable for abusing their office. They should be in jail. Prosecutors hold a position of trust, and supposed to forego the pleasures of acquiring a good record by jailing the innocent.
But, who will take the risk to prosecute them?
Andrew_M_Garland at November 3, 2009 12:20 PM
I have seen sveral cases where a guy will be convicted on a cell-mates testimony.
The felony cell-mate will say the guy told me he did it and the cell-mate will get 10-15 years off their sentence.
Hmmm! Let's see a convicted felon would never lie to get a 10-15 year reduced sentence would he?? Duh!
David M. at November 3, 2009 1:55 PM
The biggest danger to our criminal justice system is not "sleazy" defense lawyers trying to win on a "technicality." The biggest danger is the prosecutor who (for personal electoral gain, of course) seeks to win, rather than seeking justice.
Jay R at November 3, 2009 2:03 PM
Leave a comment