Supreme Court to rule on whether it's legal to frame innocents for murders

[SirFozzie]

When Is It Legal To Frame A Man For Murder? - TIME

As absolutely bugfuck crazy as the title sounds.. that's the issue at hand. Two prosecutors in Arkansas in Iowa framed two men for the murder of a police chief. They even had the right suspect (a man married to the daughter of the fire chief, who had been identified by multiple eyewitnesses at the site, and had failed a polygraph test).. but instead paid a 16 year old who was arrested for stealing cars to identify the two men as the people who killed the police chief.

They had to repeatedly correct his story,the boy gave three different versions of how the murder happened, and was allegedly pressured (as well as paid) to identify the two men as the people who did it.

Thanks to the false testimony and pressure, these two men were put in jail for 25 years for crimes they did not commit.

And what do the prosecutors in question say?

Sanders says his clients have not admitted to any wrongdoing. They haven't admitted or denied that they framed two men for murder. Instead, they are claiming that their guilt doesn't matter, that it was legal either way.

Unfortunately, as prosecutors, they have absolute immunity for what they did. The question here is if they can be sued for taking 25 years away from two men for something they did not do.

Unfuckingreal.

[PackerFanatic]

I heard about this - absolutely crazy.

[RedKingGold]

The proper phrasing for the thread should be: "Supreme Court to rule on whether it is civilly punishable to frame innocents for murders."

[molson]

Hopefully there's a workable balance. Perhaps prosecutors exposing themselves to liability by crossing over into investigation is it. And of course, these kind of attorneys need to be aggressively thrown out of state bars.

But you're not going to attract the best and brightest to a $35k/year prosecutor job where you're personally sued for every conviction you win. (which would happen - a HUGE amount of a court's workload is dedicated to crazy pro se inmates, who aren't slowed down by attorney fees, or life responsibilities). These cases aren't always easily disposed of, once a "jailhouse lawyer" figures out how to properly state a claim, he can easily sell his services for sex and whatnot.

Though it would certainly ensure job security for government lawyers.

[RedKingGold]

Besides, it's not like the prosecutors will pay out of pocket if they lose, it will come from taxpayer coffers, liability insurance and other government funds.

Thanks?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Besides, it's not like the prosecutors will pay out of pocket if they lose, it will come from taxpayer coffers, liability insurance and other government funds.

Thanks?

I guess that might create less public pressure on prosecutors to get the conviction at all costs.

[SportsDino]

Ya, don't frame people you know are innocent... doesn't seem to be all that opposite from the idea of protect and serve. We don't need bullshit corrupt cops or lawyers.

Not sure if I like the precedent though, I hope like hell they can find a way to make this case come out where assholes like this get punished, but not creating some massive loophole in the legal system to allow other asses to cause idiotic trouble.

If you frame someone for a murder, you should be charged with some sort of accomplice to murder sentence. Immunity my ass, what the hell is wrong with our legal system... Bunch of pencil pushers, seems like the law is more a joke than anything.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Ya, don't frame people you know are innocent... doesn't seem to be all that opposite from the idea of protect and serve. We don't need bullshit corrupt cops or lawyers.

Not sure if I like the precedent though, I hope like hell they can find a way to make this case come out where assholes like this get punished, but not creating some massive loophole in the legal system to allow other asses to cause idiotic trouble.

If you frame someone for a murder, you should be charged with some sort of accomplice to murder sentence. Immunity my ass, what the hell is wrong with our legal system... Bunch of pencil pushers, seems like the law is more a joke than anything.

IANAL, obviously, but it seems like you'd have to make that a federal issue to avoid conflicts of interest with the guy obstructing justice in the first place. If the guy being charged is the guy who'd have to bring the charges in the first place, you've got a problem unless you otherwise remove him from office and/or disbar him first.

If the feds are the ones bringing charges, maybe it gets around the issue somewhat.

[SportsDino]

Ya, I just don't make the leap of 'I'm a prosecutor, you can't sue me for performing a trial, because then everyone will sue me' to... 'I'm a prosecutor, you are on trial for stealing a bagel, I'm gonna shoot you in the frickin face, stomp on your baby, and burn your house down, and you can't sue me cause I'm the motherf-in DA, like a boss!'

Bribing someone to lie in court is a crime, simple as that. So I don't see how immunity should possibly apply, if it does, we are severely screwed up in our thinking. Brains people, logic, god!

I brought up the crazy example to make it obvious the lunacy of this style of thinking. Separate prosecution from crime, and this should be an open and shut, clear cut, finding of wrongdoing against the prosecutors. We wouldn't let an attorney shoot someone to manufacture evidence, so why would we let them bribe them, or forge documents, or anything else? You should not need to commit a crime to prove innocence or guilt, hell if joe schmoe did it, would be called vigilante-ism.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I guess that might create less public pressure on prosecutors to get the conviction at all costs.

Uh, that's their job. And it's the public defender or private counsel's job to do the same for the two wrongly convicted people.

That's what I want to know. This seems like such an obvious frame-job that a capable defense attorney could poke holes in the DA's case. Where's that side of the story?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Ya, I just don't make the leap of 'I'm a prosecutor, you can't sue me for performing a trial, because then everyone will sue me' to... 'I'm a prosecutor, you are on trial for stealing a bagel, I'm gonna shoot you in the frickin face, stomp on your baby, and burn your house down, and you can't sue me cause I'm the motherf-in DA, like a boss!'

There's all kinds of other concerns. Prosecutorial immunity isn't particularly controversial except in the most unusual, extreme scenerios.

We want prosecutors to be motivated by justice. Not liability.

I'm amused by the growing stereotype of the "conviction at all cost prosecutor." I've never actually met one. I've heard about a couple nationally in the news.

And the issue here is a civil lawsuit - if there was a crime committed, they can certainly be prosecuted (probably by the state AG's office, or whoever handles conflict cases).

[digamma]

As RKG pointed out, civil and criminal liability are different things. This case is about civil liability. There may be a number of criminal laws under which the prosecutors may be charged and prosecuted, however, that's a separate issue and not the subject matter in question here.

[cartman]

Cue the face palm pic:

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal is in this case on the side of the prosecutors. He says Harrington and McGhee are asking this court "to announce for first time ever that there is a free-standing due process right not to be framed."

http://www.slate.com/id/2234604/pagenum/all/

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

That's what I want to know. This seems like such an obvious frame-job that a capable defense attorney could poke holes in the DA's case. Where's that side of the story?

I would presume that these guys, who were teenagers at the time, and apparently poor, could not afford good counsel.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I would presume that these guys, who were teenagers at the time, and apparently poor, could not afford good counsel.

Which is why it is/was/should have been the public defender's task and responsibility.

(As I said in the statement above the part of my earlier post which you quoted)

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Which is why it is/was/should have been the public defender's task and responsibility.

(As I said in the statement above the part of my earlier post which you quoted)

I think the implication here is that public defenders are not capable -- or at least, very likely to not be capable.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think the implication here is that public defenders are not capable -- or at least, very likely to not be capable.

I would rank defense attorneys:

-The super elite private attorneys for the for the very rich
-public defenders
-everyone else

Public defenders are extremely experienced, and usually have relationships with the court clerks, police, they know how to get info and how to get things done. It's always kind of sad to me when I see a poor person fire their public defender and hire some downtown office solo attorney who probably does 2-3 criminal defense cases a year.

Of course, when the other side is being unethical, that's a problem, but one of the primary roles of public defenders is to work as a check against that, so there's definitely someone not doing their job on that end too.

Prosecutors have a different kind of job though. It shouldn't be about winning a case or getting a conviction. It really is about justice. Prosecutors dismiss cases all the time (well over half that are referred to them). They reprimand cops who make mistakes in the field. They don't get paid per conviction.

It's easy to look at the individual people in this case and believe that they should be able to sue, of course they should. But how that remedy is found is extremely important. We really don't want that initial prosecutorial screening process to be based on liability concerns. That would turn prosecution offices into DUI/Drug possession factories, and prosecution of more challenging cases like rape, domestic battery, sex abuse, murder, would decline.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think the implication here is that public defenders are not capable -- or at least, very likely to not be capable.

I think that would be a poorly informed statement. I know of several individuals from who were in the top quarter of my law school class to be drawn to public defender work because (a) while the demands of the job are difficult, there is an intrinsic reward to defending the defenseless and (b) the more practical aspect is that jobs with county government are very appealing due to lifestyle.

While you can cite sample size to my own personal experiences, I would bet that many highly qualified attorneys strive to work as a public defender.

Perhaps times were different back then, and we have to keep in mind the location of the town and surrounding pressures around the conviction itself. However, the broad statement that public defenders are poor attorneys is misconceived.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I think that would be a poorly informed statement. I know of several individuals from who were in the top quarter of my law school class to be drawn to public defender work because (a) while the demands of the job are difficult, there is an intrinsic reward to defending the defenseless and (b) the more practical aspect is that jobs with county government are very appealing due to lifestyle.

While you can cite sample size to my own personal experiences, I would bet that many highly qualified attorneys strive to work as a public defender.

Perhaps times were different back then, and we have to keep in mind the location of the town and surrounding pressures around the conviction itself. However, the broad statement that public defenders are poor attorneys is misconceived.

I didn't mean it as a slight to the people themselves, and was including considerations of the demands of the job in my statement.

[Noop]

I hope these guys go to prison for a long time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think the implication here is that public defenders are not capable -- or at least, very likely to not be capable.

Well, not public defenders as a whole, but the history of wrongful conviction cases is littered with poor public defenders.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

I would rank defense attorneys:

-The super elite private attorneys for the for the very rich
-public defenders
-everyone else

Public defenders are extremely experienced, and usually have relationships with the court clerks, police, they know how to get info and how to get things done. It's always kind of sad to me when I see a poor person fire their public defender and hire some downtown office solo attorney who probably does 2-3 criminal defense cases a year.

Of course, when the other side is being unethical, that's a problem, but one of the primary roles of public defenders is to work as a check against that, so there's definitely someone not doing their job on that end too.

Prosecutors have a different kind of job though. It shouldn't be about winning a case or getting a conviction. It really is about justice. Prosecutors dismiss cases all the time (well over half that are referred to them). They reprimand cops who make mistakes in the field. They don't get paid per conviction.

It's easy to look at the individual people in this case and believe that they should be able to sue, of course they should. But how that remedy is found is extremely important. We really don't want that initial prosecutorial screening process to be based on liability concerns. That would turn prosecution offices into DUI/Drug possession factories, and prosecution of more challenging cases like rape, domestic battery, sex abuse, murder, would decline.

A large number of those "super elite" attorneys started out as public defenders, hire public defenders for their practice, or seek assistance for public defenders.

And, believe me, prosecutorial discretion is not used in favor of a defendant as often as you think. And to a lot of prosecutors, justice means conviction--not a fair process.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by digamma

As RKG pointed out, civil and criminal liability are different things. This case is about civil liability. There may be a number of criminal laws under which the prosecutors may be charged and prosecuted, however, that's a separate issue and not the subject matter in question here.

Originally Posted by Noop

I hope these guys go to prison for a long time.

"shrug"

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

And, believe me, prosecutorial discretion is not used in favor of a defendant as often as you think. And to a lot of prosecutors, justice means conviction--not a fair process.

I'm sure it depends on the office. I've never seen one of these "justice means conviction" prosecutors that you claim are so prominent (though I've seen a lot of lazy ones that want to get rid of cases above all else).

It's a tough job. Defense attorneys are allowed to lie, ignore rules of evidence, commit ethical violations, intimidate victims into not cooperating, and there's zero remedy for any of it. Prosecutors are under a much stronger micoscrope, and while that's appopriate and the way it should be to a degree (prosecutors should actually follow the rules even if defense attorneys feel they don't have to), 99% of the complaints and appeals are frivolous. Prosecutors and state governments definitely need to act aggressively when that ugly 1% emerges, so that we don't get this growing resentment that taints the whole process, like you have now with police officers.

[SportsDino]

Regardless of the quality of the lawyers, I can see we don't want to allow civil liability here. But I don't see how bribing someone to lie in court is not a crime. They should have been charged with something, what is the remedy if they are not because everyone in this situation is too plain stupid?

Was prosecutor immunity ever used to prevent a charge of criminal behavior? Or is it only for civil?

Can they still build a criminal case on this? (obviously it would be hard since no doubt the evidence is impossible to prove now, and statute of limitations maybe comes into play, who knows) Assuming they had surefire proof, could they convict for someone paying 5000 to get someone to lie in court, and on what?

I think we all agree, a murder is something that could have led to them being locked up. In my opinion, a bribe should not be considered any differently (obviously lesser sentence, but still criminal act that shouldn't be covered by any sort of immunity).

[SportsDino]

I don't think a defense attorney would be allowed to bribe someone to commit purjury either? Where does this notion that it is allowed even come into existence?

You can defend and prosecute without stepping over the line. Just because a lot of assholes have stepped over the line, suddenly it doesn't exist anymore or something? If you can prove it, I'd charge it. Does it have to be blatant outright murder (say a defense attorney shooting a witness) before people actually think it is a crime? It doesn't compute to me.

[molson]

I'm not sure what the roadblocks are to charging this as a crime. You'd have to find the relevant statutes from 70s, to see if this fits. There might be statute of limitations issues, there might be proof issues - there was a "reward" offered, and then a witness was coached. Did money ever actually change hands? Was he told if he lied then he'd get the money, and if he didn't, he wouldn't? Or was the whole thing just reckless? I'm not sure the facts support a conviction for whatever statute we're talking about (and cynically, this sounds like the kind of difficult case that would open up a prosecutor to civil liability, if we decide immunity is a bad thing, so it probably wouldn't be worth it - wouldn't it be fun if prosecutors had THAT excuse not to prosecute anything they didn't want to?).

If it was possible to prosecute, they should, but I haven't read any calls for them to do so, which is why I'm assuming there's a big roadblock there.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

"shrug"

They framed innocent people for a crime... I think they should go to jail for that and pay the people they framed.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm sure it depends on the office. I've never seen one of these "justice means conviction" prosecutors that you claim are so prominent (though I've seen a lot of lazy ones that want to get rid of cases above all else).

It's a tough job. Defense attorneys are allowed to lie, ignore rules of evidence, commit ethical violations, intimidate victims into not cooperating, and there's zero remedy for any of it. Prosecutors are under a much stronger micoscrope, and while that's appopriate and the way it should be to a degree (prosecutors should actually follow the rules even if defense attorneys feel they don't have to), 99% of the complaints and appeals are frivolous. Prosecutors and state governments definitely need to act aggressively when that ugly 1% emerges, so that we don't get this growing resentment that taints the whole process, like you have now with police officers.

I don't know if you have personal experience in this area, but, in practice, the tougher burden rests with the defense attorney. The prosecutor is supposed to have a difficult time (and be under a larger microscope) because the burden rests with them to show that the defendant commited the crime. The law doesn't provide that a defendant prove his innocence. In practice, that's not the case. The ball rests with the prosecutor, not the defense attorney.

Ignore rules of evidence--the burden is on the prosecutor to submit evidence to the jury and to provide evidence to the defense counsel, especially exculpatory evidence. In New York County, they have what are called midnight discovery rules. That means, the prosecutor doesn't turn over the evidence until the day of trial.

You shouldn't disparage defense attorneys as a class. Despite what Law and Order tells you, most of them don't do what you accuse them of doing. But the bulk of prosecutors do equate conviction with justice (especially in those jurisdictions where the DA is elected), and want to have a conviction. This leads to conflict between prosecutor offices and the Police Department. Again, despite what Law and Order says, the relationship between cops and prosecutors are strained.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

I don't know if you have personal experience in this area, but, in practice, the tougher burden rests with the defense attorney. The prosecutor is supposed to have a difficult time (and be under a larger microscope) because the burden rests with them to show that the defendant commited the crime. The law doesn't provide that a defendant prove his innocence. In practice, that's not the case. The ball rests with the prosecutor, not the defense attorney.

Ignore rules of evidence--the burden is on the prosecutor to submit evidence to the jury and to provide evidence to the defense counsel, especially exculpatory evidence. In New York County, they have what are called midnight discovery rules. That means, the prosecutor doesn't turn over the evidence until the day of trial.

You shouldn't disparage defense attorneys as a class. Despite what Law and Order tells you, most of them don't do what you accuse them of doing. But the bulk of prosecutors do equate conviction with justice (especially in those jurisdictions where the DA is elected), and want to have a conviction. This leads to conflict between prosecutor offices and the Police Department. Again, despite what Law and Order says, the relationship between cops and prosecutors are strained.

The rules of evidence I was referring to are unethical trial tactics. There's no remedy for that. The rules are intended to go both ways, but as a practical matter, defense attorneys can and often do what they want, because there's no remedy for a unethically obtained acquittal.

I'm not saying all defense attorneys of course, I'm just saying that unethical defense attorneys have zero scrutiny on them, and many take advantage. (There's also many great defense attorneys, including public defenders, who really care about their client beyond the outcome of case.)

The most disgusting thing though, is some of their relationships with victims of domestic violence. Defense attorneys can lie to victims about the consequences of their cooperation with prosecutors, tell them that they'll be arrested if they show up to testify, etc. Those tactics are widespread, there's zero scrutiny or remedy of that kind of thing, other than attempted vigilance, and trying to get as much honest and truthful information to victims as possible.

Ultimately, a crooked prosecutor is worse than a crooked defense attorney, but its just that kind of disparity that makes prosecutorial immunity so important. It's a complicated job, it's not about winning cases.

And yes, my experiences are all personal, as an attorney in various capacities in the criminal justice system, not from law and order.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

The rules of evidence I was referring to are unethical trial tactics. There's no remedy for that. The rules are intended to go both ways, but as a practical matter, defense attorneys can and often do what they want, because there's no remedy for a unethically obtained acquittal.

I'm not saying all defense attorneys of course, I'm just saying that unethical defense attorneys have zero scrutiny on them, and many take advantage. (There's also many great defense attorneys, including public defenders, who really care about their client beyond the outcome of case.)

The most disgusting thing though, is some of their relationships with victims of domestic violence. Defense attorneys can lie to victims about the consequences of their cooperation with prosecutors, tell them that they'll be arrested if they show up to testify, etc. Those tactics are widespread, there's zero scrutiny or remedy of that kind of thing, other than attempted vigilance, and trying to get as much honest and truthful information to victims as possible.

Ultimately, a crooked prosecutor is worse than a crooked defense attorney, but its just that kind of disparity that makes prosecutorial immunity so important. It's a complicated job, it's not about winning cases.

And yes, my experiences are all personal, as an attorney in various capacities in the criminal justice system, not from law and order.

DV cases are rough all around, especially in those jurisdictions that have "must arrest" laws. If someone calls a cop for a DV complaint, then the rule here is that someone has to be arrested and charged. And the same tactics you mention are oftentimes used by prosecutors to force a "victim" to testify, even though it was just a case of someone being pissed.

[judicial clerk]

My experiences with the criminal court system as a judicial clerk, practicing trial attorney, and police detective are exactly the same as what Molson described. I also suspect that Molson and Jon actually agree to a much larger extent than they disagree.

[SirFozzie]

Ran across an interesting story on SI.COM that sounded familiar, and yup, it was this case., Apparently, the county managed to buy their way out from under with a $12 million settlement, with no acknowledgement of wrongdoing:

Terry Harrington spent 25 years in jail for crime he didn't commit - The Bonus - SI.com

[cartman]

There has been a story similar to this one recently in Texas, where a guy was spent 18 years in jail, 12 of them on Death Row after being railroaded by the District Attorney.

Free at Last :: Texas Monthly

[JediKooter]

Sounds like to me that they need to do away with that immunity for prosecutors.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Uh, that's their job. And it's the public defender or private counsel's job to do the same for the two wrongly convicted people.

That's what I want to know. This seems like such an obvious frame-job that a capable defense attorney could poke holes in the DA's case. Where's that side of the story?

I know this is 2 years old, but I take great issue with this statement. I expect our police not just to arrest someone but attempt to arrest the right person. I expect our prosecutors to convict not just anyone but convict the right person. While I don't know any prosecutors personally I do know several police and this is what they try to do. While our legal system is built on an adversarial foundation, and our legal system is a darn good one, the idea that the prosecutor has no responsibility for doing what is right, that the only responsibility for preventing an innocent person from being convicted is with the defense, as misguided.

[Sun Tzu]

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated.