http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/4/20/14270/7471
Something has to be done to to get it across to prosecutors that their job is to find the truth and NOT just to obtain a conviction. Imagine surviving every day of 29 years and 24 years of a prison sentence for a crime you did not commit. In the Iowa case the plaintiffs claim that the prosecutors withheld evidence that may have exonerated them. In the California case the plaintiff claims the poor case management by the prosecutor's office assisted in his wrongful conviction. I know the legal scholars claim that prosecutors need complete immunity to do their jobs. To that I say horsesh--.
A doctor can be sued if his incompetence injures or kills a person. This man lost 29 years of his existence. A life sentence is 25 years or more. Therefore for all intents and purposes he has cost these men their lives. If a prosecutor's willful action or gross negligence contribute to the wrongful conviction of a person then he should be removed from office and banned from holding a similar position. If it can be proven that he deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated the defendant then she should be disbarred and or prosecuted for criminal misconduct and sentence to a minimum of five years in prison.
Our prosecutors must be vigilant in prosecuting criminal yet they must learn that any conviction that prevents a defendant from receiving a fair trial is unacceptable. He must be aware that if he plays an active role in that denial of rights then there will be repercussions via either administrative, civil, or criminal actions.
Case Number 1
"The Supreme Court accepted cert today in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 08-1065, an Iowa case in which two men wrongfully convicted of murder sued the prosecutors. Curtis W. McGhee Jr., and Terry Harrington served 25 years of a life sentence for killing a retired police officer before being freed when it turned out prosecutors had withheld evidence about another suspect and presented false testimony from witnesses...."
Case Number 2
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/04/14/prosecutor_immunity_may_go_before_court/
"WASHINGTON - Prosecutors have long been shielded from lawsuits by persons who were wrongly convicted. Even if a defendant is later shown to be innocent, the prosecutor who brought the charges cannot be held liable for the mistake.
more stories like this
The US Supreme Court has ruled that "absolute immunity" is needed so that prosecutors - and judges - can do their jobs without fear of legal retaliation. But a California case before the Supreme Court could open a back door for such lawsuits despite the immunity rule.
Prosecutors in Los Angeles are urging the court to block a suit from a man who was wrongly convicted of murder because, they say, it will "open the door to a potential flood" of similar claims..."
SHOULD PROSECUTORS HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY NO MATTER HOW THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES?
6 comments: