The USA Today has been doing a series of articles on the justice system. Yesterday the series focused on whether or not prosecutors should be sued. Currently prosecutors have immunity from lawsuits. As it stands now if a prosecutor wrongly goes after you, causes you to lose your fortune defending yourself, and then wrongfully sends you to prison you can't sue him or her. The reason for that is that if prosecutors were subject to lawsuits that might deter them from filing charges against someone and the guilty would go free. What happens if the prosecutors oversteps their bounds and the innocent go to jail?
A quote from yesterdays article, "Short of pointing a gun at a prisoner and pulling the trigger, the prosecutor can get away with just about anything," said Patrick Regan, an attorney for two Washington, D.C., men who spent decades in prison before a court overturned their convictions because prosecutors never turned over evidence that pointed to other suspects. The men sued, but a court ruled the prosecutors had immunity and threw out their case."
You can read the complete article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-10-05-federal-prosecutor-immunity_N.htm
Just a side note, if you want to read the related and previous articles in this series click on "in this series" above the article.
Here is a follow-up to the above article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-10-06-prosecutors_N.htm
I read somewhere that the Supreme Court will reach a decision in December. The questions for the day. Should prosecutors be sued? Should the prosecutors have more training? Your reaction to the articles of the day?
PS
The answer to yesterday's Who Am I was Minnie-Jean Brown-Trickey.
About Me
- William J.
- First, I think the birth sign is wrong. 6-21, some papers say Gemini, some Cancer. Guess that means I have so many personalities that I can do group therapy alone. For those that don't know how to read Google profiles I have put what I really mean in ( ). Hot (Good looking enough to be in movies(if I buy at ticket). A body like a God (Buddha). Romantic (Thinks begging is foreplay.) Physically fit (Heart trouble. Put 911 on speed dial before we get initmate.) Good Provider (has good life insurance in case you forget to put 911 on speed dial.) Loyal (has reference letters from Mom and parole officer.) Intelligent (scored 1600 on his SATS but you have to total the scores of the four times that I took the test.) Looking for someone compatible (Be between 30 & 99 and not inflatable.)
4 comments:
I can sort of see both sides as regards suing prosecutors, but I think any prosecutor found to be withholding evidence from the defense should be immediately disbarred. No ifs, ands, or buts. I don't see how any "training" is going to help if they evade the law.
I'm no lawyer, and I don't know what the actual rules are, but I think they should be required to turn over ALL evidence to the defense, and in time for the defense to look into it. Then, if you're a defendant, you just hope you have a good defense lawyer who will take the time to do it.
Hi Pat
I agree with you that the prosecutors withholding evidence should be disbarred but part of the problem is the attorneys are licensed by states so could be barred in one state and then licensed in the others.
I think rules of discovery require evidence to be given to the defense. The prosecution determines what evidence is relevant to the case and there is where the fallacy of the system is.
The training comes in by training the prosecutors about what their responsibilities are. What evidence to turn over, etc. I don't think an hour of training allows for that.
Bill
I continue to find the workings of our justice system appalling, at best.
I'm not sure on suing prosecutors for mistakes, but I do think intentional withholding of evidence and abuse of due process rights may well be grounds for a lawsuit. I definitely think such attorneys should be disbarred and rules should be changed that do not allow him/her to skip over to another state and practice there.
I think any and all evidence should be shared with the defense. Withholding lab reports or contradictory witness statements isn't right. And the prosecution shouldn't have the right to decide what does and doesn't get shared. ALL evidence should be equally available to both sides. It's doubtful either side is totally objective, so one may see something the other doesn't.
As to the fact the attorneys skip out free and profitable, while the victims spend years in prison, often lose their families, have trouble finding jobs, even if they were in a profession or skilled position prior to jail, I find that deplorable. The individual may regain his/her freedom, but rarely his/her life.There's something very wrong with this picture. I wish Ellen visited the blog and could share some of her insight with us.
Hi DR
The USA Today series is just eye opening and also madenning.
I completely agree with you that all evidence should be shared with the defense. I also agree with you that judges or parties that didn't have a dog in the hunt should be the ones determining what evidence the prosecutors need to turn over.
I think there has to be some reward system for those wrongfully convicted. While there are some in existence I don't think they award enough or go far enough.
I imagine Ellen is reading the USA Today series with interest and I also wondered what her take on the articles were.
Bill
Post a Comment