Prosecutorial immunity under fire.
At last.
Monday SCOTUS granted cert., in a pair of companion cases ( here: tinyurl.com/3w8d62 ). One of them is Van de Kamp and Livesay v. Goldstein (07-854) ( here: tinyurl.com/4drrn2 ).
The matter on the table is whether in all instances a prosecuter is entitled to immunity from a wrongful conviction in a murder trial.
Thomas Goldstein was convicted of murder and has served 24 years in prison. He was released in 2004 when the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court upheld a district court ruling that held his conviction was wrongful. The district court found that the prosecutor wrongly relied on testimony from a regular informant in the prison whose received undisclosed sentence reductions for his cooperation. Goldstein then sued compensation in reduced prison time was undisclosed.
Puirsuant to a US Code section 1983 complaint the Ninth Circuit has held ( here: tinyurl.com/52fq5b )that the civil suite can proceed based on the distinction between prosecutorial conduct that is “administrative” as opposed to “prosecutorial.” Finding room for the 1983 matter in the distinction.
“Van De Kamp and Livesay’s alleged conduct was administrative
rather than prosecutorial and, therefore, not entitled
to the protections of absolute immunity.” (tinyurl.com/52fq5b )
Heretofore the Federal courts have been on a land slide to strip the code section of nearly all it’s teeth finding one exception after another where the courts will not allow the people to seek redress for civil rights violations by enforcement.
More here: tinyurl.com/4sbhv5
At last.
Monday SCOTUS granted cert., in a pair of companion cases ( here: tinyurl.com/3w8d62 ). One of them is Van de Kamp and Livesay v. Goldstein (07-854) ( here: tinyurl.com/4drrn2 ).
The matter on the table is whether in all instances a prosecuter is entitled to immunity from a wrongful conviction in a murder trial.
Thomas Goldstein was convicted of murder and has served 24 years in prison. He was released in 2004 when the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court upheld a district court ruling that held his conviction was wrongful. The district court found that the prosecutor wrongly relied on testimony from a regular informant in the prison whose received undisclosed sentence reductions for his cooperation. Goldstein then sued compensation in reduced prison time was undisclosed.
Puirsuant to a US Code section 1983 complaint the Ninth Circuit has held ( here: tinyurl.com/52fq5b )that the civil suite can proceed based on the distinction between prosecutorial conduct that is “administrative” as opposed to “prosecutorial.” Finding room for the 1983 matter in the distinction.
“Van De Kamp and Livesay’s alleged conduct was administrative
rather than prosecutorial and, therefore, not entitled
to the protections of absolute immunity.” (tinyurl.com/52fq5b )
Heretofore the Federal courts have been on a land slide to strip the code section of nearly all it’s teeth finding one exception after another where the courts will not allow the people to seek redress for civil rights violations by enforcement.
More here: tinyurl.com/4sbhv5
posted by:
|
-
Re: Prosecutorial immunity under fire.
Tue, April 15, 2008 - 2:29 PMThe hair that's being split in Van de Camp is the difference between the DA's office's failure to set up procedures to ensure the reliability of jailhouse informants ("administrative") and decision to use such testimony at trial ("prosecutorial").
The claim against Van de Camp is, as DA, he failed to set up such administrative procedures. The claim isn't against the DDA who actually tried the case. -
-
Re: Prosecutorial immunity under fire.
Tue, April 15, 2008 - 4:46 PMI know, don't depress me with facts huh?
I'd like to strip most of the immunity enforcement and the judges have and replace it with a higher standard for both SJ and guilt,.
Maybe "clear and convincing."
-
