Does the Constitution protect prosecutors who fabricate evidence? »
Posted By berkeley 1 week, 5 days ago in Political News
"If the court's going to go back to first principles, let's look at the statute Congress passed in 1871. ... This is one of the great civil rights statutes. I think it's clear, from this court's cases, that the police officer that engages in misconduct has committed a grave, grave constitutional violation and ought to be liable. I think the prosecutor who engages in the pretrial misconduct and then doesn't participate in the trial is just as liable as that police officer. And I can't think of a single reason why the only reason a prosecutor would get absolute immunity is if they not only participated in the pretrial misconduct, but completed the scheme by committing further misconduct at trial."
Read Full Story at slate.com »
236 Views Share Story 10 Comments Report
Submitted By:
berkeley
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 10 (view all)
-
-
-
100%
Charlson1 week, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Prosecutors who subvert the justice system to convict people they know are innocent of the crime for whatever reason should be prosecuted themselves and should have their freedom taken away from them and made to pay just compensation out of their own pocket to their victims.
Reply-
100%
Charlson1 week, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "If the court's going to go back to first principles, let's look at the statute Congress passed in 1871. ... This is one of the great civil rights statutes. I think it's clear, from this court's cases, that the police officer that engages in misconduct has committed a grave, grave constitutional violation and ought to be liable. I think the prosecutor who engages in the pretrial misconduct and then doesn't participate in the trial is just as liable as that police officer. And I can't think of a single reason why the only reason a prosecutor would get absolute immunity is if they not only participated in the pretrial misconduct, but completed the scheme by committing further misconduct at trial."
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
dunkirk1 week, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you realize that a prosecutors claim to fame rests in their conviction record you find the motive for it. How many innocent people have received the death penalty because of this and how many guilty have actually gotten away with the crime because the evidence showing they were guilty went against the case the prosecution was building. This happened in Illinois with the Nicarico case. Google that for some interesting reading.
Reply -
-
-
More News
Fox News Politics
The Huffington Post
Esther Wojcicki: Creative Commons In 2009: The Accomplishments In Promoting Worldwide Sharing
Bernard-Henri Lévy: We Must Replay the Match
Kevin Ross: Does This Black Republican Understand Sarah Palin's Appeal? You Betcha!
Dan Agin: How It Was: The Year After the Crash of 1929
Barbara Ann Radnofsky: Authors Of Texas Marriage Amendment: Who Barks The Loudest?
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.