US Gov't to USSC: Americans do not have the right not to be framed.

[LtMarvel]

In a case before the Supreme Court yesterday (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120098210), it was argued that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." (And thus you cannot sue any prosecutor who frames you!)

This argument was met with some skepticism, thankfully, but it was backed by the US government.

Seems like a scary thing, to me.

[Charles RB]

Oh fuck me.

At least the justices don't seem to be buying the prosecutor's claims.

[carabas]

People keep telling me that the USA is an actual country, and not a fiction created by Monty Python as an extended practical joke on the rest of the world.

I remain unconvinced.

[thespianphryne]

I'm astounded.

wouldn't this fall under prosecutorial misconduct or under wrongful imprisonment?

[Winslow]

I'm astounded.

wouldn't this fall under prosecutorial misconduct or under wrongful imprisonment?

Meh ... the title of the thread isn't quite a summary of the case, more of an awkward exchange during the trial.

The case is trying to decide where to draw the lines of immunity for prosecutors. The case brought before the Supreme Court is pretty binary ... it was clearly wrong conduct. But in crafting a decision, the court has to figure out where the line is for defining when a prosecutor can be sued. And that is no simple task.

[Mac Danny]

I'm astounded.

wouldn't this fall under prosecutorial misconduct or under wrongful imprisonment?

More importantly, how does this relate to the show "Life"?

[LtMarvel]

Hmmm..."Life" is cancelled.

[thespianphryne]

Meh ... the title of the thread isn't quite a summary of the case, more of an awkward exchange during the trial.

The case is trying to decide where to draw the lines of immunity for prosecutors. The case brought before the Supreme Court is pretty binary ... it was clearly wrong conduct. But in crafting a decision, the court has to figure out where the line is for defining when a prosecutor can be sued. And that is no simple task.

I understand that: I listened to the audio. Of course what was being argued was the lines of of what constitutes prosecutorial misconduct or even police misconduct. But I'm pretty damn sure fabricating evidence of, hiding evidence and perjuring or coercing witnesses is criminal misconduct. How can there be a question that being framed should not be open to prosecution?

I mean the audio of the transcript was quite sickening: there's no infringement of civil rights if evidence is fabricated. The only problem being that the main reason a prosecutor might fabricate evidence is to infringe on someone's civil rights. It's puerile self justifying bullshit.

If they're worried about how many civil suits there would be for prosecutors with wrongful convictions, they should be worried about how many of their prosecutors are engaging in criminal misconduct.

[Loren]

In a case before the Supreme Court yesterday (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120098210), it was argued that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."

That's...interesting.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a sudden pressing matter I must attend to. Completely unrelated to framing anybody. Especially anybody named Brian.

[mikekerr3]

The lines on this don't seem to be forming in the usual left-right devide, on this case the right can't depend on Scalia backing the government (he's an ass often, but he's an honest and honorable ass).

The judges definitely have a hard task ahead of them here, some protection is necessary but total immunity is a license that we probably can't afford in the justice system

[LtMarvel]

That's...interesting.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a sudden pressing matter I must attend to. Completely unrelated to framing anybody. Especially anybody named Brian.
We'll remove the staples before sending you the comics in prison, Brian!

[Winslow]

I understand that: I listened to the audio. Of course what was being argued was the lines of of what constitutes prosecutorial misconduct or even police misconduct. But I'm pretty damn sure fabricating evidence of, hiding evidence and perjuring or coercing witnesses is criminal misconduct. How can there be a question that being framed should not be open to prosecution?

I mean the audio of the transcript was quite sickening: there's no infringement of civil rights if evidence is fabricated. The only problem being that the main reason a prosecutor might fabricate evidence is to infringe on someone's civil rights. It's puerile self justifying bullshit.

If they're worried about how many civil suits there would be for prosecutors with wrongful convictions, they should be worried about how many of their prosecutors are engaging in criminal misconduct.

I don't understand the debate to be honest. I would think that IF there was misconduct, then that would be criminal rather than civil charges against the prosecution. So why is there talk of law suits?

Because I don't understand the conversation, I wonder if there is context missing that is NOT reported.

[thespianphryne]

Well, prosecutors are generally immune from lawsuits based on their trial work. This is how I understand things. I also understand why this is in place: covictions, beliefs, biases and opinions all go into shaping the way arguments are framed and evidenced is presented and spun to the jury. To make a prosecutor liable for such conduct during a trial is ill-considered.

But I don't see why criminal conduct - knowing, deliberate criminal conduct - should be immune from lawsuits. I don't understand how criminal action fall under this kind of judicial immunity.

There are probably other intricacies I'm unaware of, but there are lawyers on this board. I'll wait until one of them chimes in.

[Expletive Deleted]

I don't understand the debate to be honest. I would think that IF there was misconduct, then that would be criminal rather than civil charges against the prosecution. So why is there talk of law suits?The guy who was framed and spent twenty-odd years in prison for a crime he didn't commit wants to sue the prosecutor who framed him.

[Winslow]

The guy who was framed and spent twenty-odd years in prison for a crime he didn't commit wants to sue the prosecutor who framed him.

That part I understand.

I don't understand the how that context fits within the discussion of the judges. They were weaving back and forth regarding criminal misconduct and civil liability. It was confusing to this layman.

[Michael P]

I understand that: I listened to the audio. Of course what was being argued was the lines of of what constitutes prosecutorial misconduct or even police misconduct. But I'm pretty damn sure fabricating evidence of, hiding evidence and perjuring or coercing witnesses is criminal misconduct. How can there be a question that being framed should not be open to prosecution?

Well, the prosecutor in question really, really doesn't want to be sued.

[Abomination]

The lines on this don't seem to be forming in the usual left-right devide, on this case the right can't depend on Scalia backing the government (he's an ass often, but he's an honest and honorable ass).

The judges definitely have a hard task ahead of them here, some protection is necessary but total immunity is a license that we probably can't afford in the justice system

The administration appointee is backing the prosecutors and he agreed with the position that you don't have a constitutional right to not be framed. Obama should fire this man for making such an insipid statement. But who knows, maybe Obama agrees with this sentiment.

[mikekerr3]

That part I understand.

I don't understand the how that context fits within the discussion of the judges. They were weaving back and forth regarding criminal misconduct and civil liability. It was confusing to this layman.

They guy that was harmed by the prosecutor wants some financial compensation from the guy who broke the laws to harm him, the prosecutors defense team and the Justice Department say that that's unfair

[Winslow]

They guy that was harmed by the prosecutor wants some financial compensation from the guy who broke the laws to harm him, the prosecutors defense team and the Justice Department say that that's unfair

I understand that too. I understand the positions in the law suit.

I guess I didn't understand the context of the judges discussion that Das was so upset about. My posts are meta-textual and a little unclear ... so I can see why I am misunderstood.

I'll throw out an opinion to get the thread back on track:

If a prosecutor commits a crime (i.e. fraud) in prosecuting a case, then he opens his ass up to being sued. That line should be and can be drawn in the sand. I would say he can't be sued until he is convicted of fraud though.

[MacQuarrie]

Tell me again how this administration is going to clean up all the corruption and misconduct of the last one. Why does this US Prosecutor still have a job?

[Charles RB]

Tell me again how this administration is going to clean up all the corruption and misconduct of the last one.

He'll do it after the mid-terms, when he can afford more risks.

(Then it may be "he'll do it after the 2012 election, when he can afford more risks", and then...)

[mikekerr3]

If a prosecutor commits a crime (i.e. fraud) in prosecuting a case, then he opens his ass up to being sued. That line should be and can be drawn in the sand. I would say he can't be sued until he is convicted of fraud though.

The problem with your line is that other procecutors have to make the decision to procecute one of their own, and if you notice these bastards were never even charged with a crime. Regrettably your line would be a free pass to prosecutors.

I think that a better line would be that no suit can be filed until an appeals court has found procecutorial wrongdoing.

[rick]

Tell me again how this administration is going to clean up all the corruption and misconduct of the last one. Why does this US Prosecutor still have a job?

Actually we said that he would stop commiting war crimes.

We never said that he wasn't a politician.

[howyadoin]

Tell me again how this administration is going to clean up all the corruption and misconduct of the last one.It would take 4 or 5 presidents to clean up Dubya's mess.

[Fenris]

The problem with your line is that other procecutors have to make the decision to procecute one of their own, and if you notice these bastards were never even charged with a crime. Regrettably your line would be a free pass to prosecutors.

I think that a better line would be that no suit can be filed until an appeals court has found procecutorial wrongdoing.

That might work better.

But that could just shift the back-scratching problem, so that few appeals courts would ever be willing to find prosecutional wrongdoing. Which means that fewer innocent people would be able to get their wrongful convictions overturned.

It's a really nasty, backroom-political problem.

õ
Which is why no one's fixed it yet, I guess!

[thespianphryne]

I think I understand more clearly now. The two Iowa prosecutors in question are being made personally liable in a civil suit. And I understand the justices position in not allowing civil cases against individual prosecutors. However, they should definitely be made criminally liable.

If I were an arbitrarily assigned judge I would say, the kind of misconduct on display here should be criminally prosecuted but with no civil liability. However, I would allow the two plaintiffs to file a civil suit against the state. After all, the prosecutors were agents of the state and behaved criminally while acting under the banner of the state. Sort of like how I become responsible for damages if my dog causes you damage or injury.

[mikekerr3]

That might work better.

But that could just shift the back-scratching problem, so that few appeals courts would ever be willing to find prosecutional wrongdoing. Which means that fewer innocent people would be able to get their wrongful convictions overturned.

It's a really nasty, backroom-political problem.

õ
Which is why no one's fixed it yet, I guess!

Appeals court judges haver seemed all that willing to protect prosecutors or their reputations, it's not perfect but it's the best alternative i can find. At the Federal levl there is little a prosecutor can do to scratch a judges back.

[mikekerr3]

I think I understand more clearly now. The two Iowa prosecutors in question are being made personally liable in a civil suit. And I understand the justices position in not allowing civil cases against individual prosecutors. However, they should definitely be made criminally liable.

If I were an arbitrarily assigned judge I would say, the kind of misconduct on display here should be criminally prosecuted but with no civil liability. However, I would allow the two plaintiffs to file a civil suit against the state. After all, the prosecutors were agents of the state and behaved criminally while acting under the banner of the state. Sort of like how I become responsible for damages if my dog causes you damage or injury.

A man commited criminal acts that sent a man to prison for 25 years and he should have NO civil liablity:confused: ? I think he should bay he guy everything he made in those 25 years and then serve out the rest of his sentence myself.

[Fenris]

Appeals court judges haver seemed all that willing to protect prosecutors or their reputations, it's not perfect but it's the best alternative i can find. At the Federal levl there is little a prosecutor can do to scratch a judges back.

Do prosecutors' reputations matter very much, in this context? Do people in their peer community keep track of this kind of thing?

I wonder to what extent there is a kind of professional class consciousness: judges are generally former lawyers, and their natural sympathies will be much more with fellow lawyers than with wronged convicts.

This isn't to say that judges will deliberately, maliciously keep innocent people in prison. But lots of cases have gray areas that require a judgement call. And if all appeals become a matter of convict-vs-prosecutor, where one of them must be guilty and pay for it, then I'd think you'll see a decline in successful appeals.

õ
Which is, I admit, somewhat cynical!

[Chris N]

I think I understand more clearly now. The two Iowa prosecutors in question are being made personally liable in a civil suit. And I understand the justices position in not allowing civil cases against individual prosecutors. However, they should definitely be made criminally liable.

If I were an arbitrarily assigned judge I would say, the kind of misconduct on display here should be criminally prosecuted but with no civil liability. However, I would allow the two plaintiffs to file a civil suit against the state. After all, the prosecutors were agents of the state and behaved criminally while acting under the banner of the state. Sort of like how I become responsible for damages if my dog causes you damage or injury.

That makes sense to me. I feel like people usually sue the government for what its employees do anyway. If a bus driver hit my parked car, I'd probably think to sue the city first, rather than the bus driver.

[MacQuarrie]

Actually we said that he would stop commiting war crimes.

We never said that he wasn't a politician.

I know that. I was just being snarky.

But there are always those out there who think "their guy" is the perfect hero who will fix everything. They never listened to Pete Townsend very carefully: "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

I don't really have any complaints about Obama, to be honest; I think he's trying, and a welcome change from the endemic corruption of the last crew. But fairness demands that everything that happens under his administration be laid at his feet, same as when the unfashionable party is in power.

There are a lot of little fundamental problems in the system that need to be addressed. "From tiny acorns, mighty oak trees grow." This case is one example, and it's an example of bureaucratic policy that does not change, regardless of which party is in power, until whoever is in charge finally demands that it change.

Politics is equal parts locomotive and ballet; tiny adjustments can change things dramatically, but big changes take a hell of a long time to execute.

[Alexander the immortal]

It would take 4 or 5 presidents to clean up Dubya's mess.

It seems to me that any one or two or three or 4 or 5 after Bush presidents will more likely continue the mess rather than do anything to clean it.

[Winslow]

I know that. I was just being snarky.

But there are always those out there who think "their guy" is the perfect hero who will fix everything. They never listened to Pete Townsend very carefully: "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

I don't really have any complaints about Obama, to be honest; I think he's trying, and a welcome change from the endemic corruption of the last crew. But fairness demands that everything that happens under his administration be laid at his feet, same as when the unfashionable party is in power.

There are a lot of little fundamental problems in the system that need to be addressed. "From tiny acorns, mighty oak trees grow." This case is one example, and it's an example of bureaucratic policy that does not change, regardless of which party is in power, until whoever is in charge finally demands that it change.

Politics is equal parts locomotive and ballet; tiny adjustments can change things dramatically, but big changes take a hell of a long time to execute.

This isn't really something the previous administration brought on. It's a long standing legal precedent that prosecutors are immune from civil suits.

It makes sense, since a defendant can sue in order to slow down or complicate the criminal process.

The problem is, when a prosecutor's misconduct is so acute there are huge civil damages, what do you do then?

The attorney for the Obama administration is just doing his job. In a big picture sense, Constitutionally, it is the executive branch trying to keep certain legal privileges protected from the judicial branch. Sometimes attorney's posture in the courtroom with statements that seem outrageous but in a legal context make more sense (that's the point I was trying to make earlier).