Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Important! SCOTUS Decided Van de Kamp; Prosecutorial Immunity
Topic Started: Jan 26 2009, 09:46 PM (936 Views)
Tidbits

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-854.pdf

9-0
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

SCOTUS staff summary.

Quote:
 


No. 07–854. Argued November 5, 2008—Decided January 26, 2009
Respondent Goldstein was released from a California prison after hefiled a successful federal habeas petition alleging that his murder conviction depended, in critical part, on the false testimony of a jail-house informant (Fink), who had received reduced sentences for pro-viding prosecutors with favorable testimony in other cases; that prosecutors knew, but failed to give his attorney, this potential im-peachment information; and that, among other things, that failure had led to his erroneous conviction. Once released, Goldstein filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, asserting the prosecution violatedits constitutional duty to communicate impeachment information, see Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 154, due to the failure of peti-tioners, supervisory prosecutors, to properly train or supervise prose-cutors or to establish an information system containing potential im-peachment material about informants. Claiming absolute immunity, petitioners asked the District Court to dismiss the complaint, but thecourt declined, finding that the conduct was “administrative,” not“prosecutorial,” and hence fell outside the scope of an absolute im-munity claim. The Ninth Circuit, on interlocutory appeal, affirmed.
Held: Petitioners are entitled to absolute immunity in respect to Gold-stein’s supervision, training, and information-system management claims. Pp. 3–12.
(a) Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability in §1983 suitsbrought against prosecutorial actions that are “intimately associatedwith the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 428, 430, because of “concern that harassment by un-founded litigation” could both “cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties” and lead him to “shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his applywhen a prosecutor is not acting as “an officer of the court,” but is in-stead engaged in, say, investigative or administrative tasks. Id., at 431, n. 33. To decide whether absolute immunity attaches to a par-ticular prosecutorial activity, one must take account of Imbler’s “functional” considerations. The fact that one constitutional duty in Imbler was positive (the duty to supply “information relevant to thedefense”) rather than negative (the duty not to “use . . . perjured tes-timony”) was not critical to the finding of absolute immunity. Pp. 3–
6.
(b)
Although Goldstein challenges administrative procedures, they are procedures that are directly connected with a trial’s conduct. A prosecutor’s error in a specific criminal trial constitutes an essentialelement of the plaintiff’s claim. The obligations here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, e.g., workplace hiring. Moreover, they necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of relateddiscretion, e.g., in determining what information should be includedin training, supervision, or information-system management. Given these features, absolute immunity must follow. Pp. 6–12.
(1)
Had Goldstein brought a suit directly attacking supervisory prosecutors’ actions related to an individual trial, instead of one in-volving administration, all the prosecutors would have enjoyed abso-lute immunity under Imbler. Their behavior, individually or sepa-rately, would have involved “[p]reparation . . . for . . . trial,” 424 U. S.,at 431, n. 33, and would have been “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” id., at 430. The only differ-ence between Imbler and the hypothetical, i.e., that a supervisor or colleague might be liable instead of the trial prosecutor, is not criti-cal. Pp. 7–8.
(2)
Just as supervisory prosecutors are immune in a suit directly attacking their actions in an individual trial, they are immune here. The fact that the office’s general supervision and training methodsare at issue is not a critical difference for present purposes. The rele-vant management tasks concern how and when to make impeach-ment information available at trial, and, thus, are directly connectedwith a prosecutor’s basic trial advocacy duties. In terms of Imbler’s functional concerns, a suit claiming that a supervisor made a mistakedirectly related to a particular trial and one claiming that a supervi-sor trained and supervised inadequately seem very much alike. The type of “faulty training” claim here rests in part on a consequent er-ror by an individual prosecutor in the midst of trial. If, as Imbler says, the threat of damages liability for such an error could lead a trial prosecutor to take account of that risk when making trial-related decisions, so, too, could the threat of more widespread liabilprosecutors to take account of such a risk. Because better training or supervision might prevent most prosecutorial errors at trial, permis-sion to bring suit here would grant criminal defendants permission tobring claims for other trial-related training or supervisory failings. Further, such suits could “pose substantial danger of liability even tothe honest prosecutor.” Imbler, 425 U. S., at 425. And defendingprosecutorial decisions, often years later, could impose “unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hun-dreds of indictments and trials.” Id., at 425–426. Permitting this suit to go forward would also create practical anomalies. A trial prosecutor would remain immune for intentional misconduct, whileher supervisor might be liable for negligent training or supervision. And the ease with which a plaintiff could restyle a complaint charg-ing trial failure to one charging a training or supervision failure would eviscerate Imbler. Pp. 8–11.
(3) The differences between an information management system and training or supervision do not require a different outcome, for the critical element of any information system is the information it con-tains. Deciding what to include and what not to include is little dif-ferent from making similar decisions regarding training, for it re-quires knowledge of the law. Moreover, were this claim allowed, a court would have to review the office’s legal judgments, not simply about whether to have an information system but also about what kind of system is appropriate, and whether an appropriate systemwould have included Giglio-related information about one particular kind of informant. Such decisions—whether made before or duringtrial—are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the crimi-nal process,” Imbler, supra, at 430, and all Imbler’s functional considerations apply. Pp. 11–12.
481 F. 3d 1170, reversed and remanded.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.



Edited by Tidbits, Jan 26 2009, 09:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
The jailhouse informant was named Edward Fink. :thud:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

Quote:
 
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here consider the scope of a prosecutor’s absoluteimmunity from claims asserted under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42
U. S. C. §1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976). We ask whether that immunity extends to claimsthat the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment mate-rial, see Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), dueto: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to estab-lish an information system containing potential impeach-ment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

wingedwheel
Jan 26 2009, 09:56 PM
The jailhouse informant was named Edward Fink. :thud:
Probably Ima's son.
Edited by Tidbits, Jan 26 2009, 09:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

I meant to post this on the Liestoppers thread. Maybe someone with magic powers can move it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

The court basically reaffirmed:

“that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, see Burns, supra, at 496, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 277 (1993), or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application.”

But it clarified the meaning of administrative duties:

“The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. “

:toast:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

sdsgo
Jan 26 2009, 10:41 PM
The court basically reaffirmed:

“that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, see Burns, supra, at 496, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 277 (1993), or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application.”

But it clarified the meaning of administrative duties:

“The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. “

:toast:
Yup.

(Were they thinking "Nifong" when that draft was circulated?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

So is this what I think it is? Another Nail in the coffin of absolute immunity for Herr Nifong?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

Baldo
Jan 26 2009, 10:51 PM
So is this what I think it is? Another Nail in the coffin of absolute immunity for Herr Nifong?

It reaffirms the law, and draws lines.

It is now easier to stay on the right side of the line while making claims.

If the Plaintiffs are smart, they will.

They are smart.

So, ....

Yes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

Tidbits
Jan 26 2009, 10:45 PM
sdsgo
Jan 26 2009, 10:41 PM
The court basically reaffirmed:

“that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, see Burns, supra, at 496, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 277 (1993), or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application.”

But it clarified the meaning of administrative duties:

“The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. “

:toast:
Yup.

(Were they thinking "Nifong" when that draft was circulated?)
As we used to say back in my school days, it’s time for Nifong to assume the nuclear position (i.e. bend over, put his head between his knees, and kiss his ass good-bye).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

sdsgo
Jan 26 2009, 11:00 PM
Tidbits
Jan 26 2009, 10:45 PM
sdsgo
Jan 26 2009, 10:41 PM
The court basically reaffirmed:

“that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, see Burns, supra, at 496, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 277 (1993), or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application.”

But it clarified the meaning of administrative duties:

“The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. “

:toast:
Yup.

(Were they thinking "Nifong" when that draft was circulated?)
As we used to say back in my school days, it’s time for Nifong to assume the nuclear position (i.e. bend over, put his head between his knees, and kiss his ass good-bye).

I should know better by now than to have a drink at my computer while reading LS. :roflmao:
Edited by Kerri P., Jan 26 2009, 11:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

sdsgo
Jan 26 2009, 11:00 PM
As we used to say back in my school days, it’s time for Nifong to assume the nuclear position (i.e. bend over, put his head between his knees, and kiss his ass good-bye).

What a pleasant image!

Do you think the "world's greatest ex-Durham attorney" might be having second thoughts on those indictments?

It still boggles my mind he stated in that March 27 briefing with Gottlieb & Himan 'We're F*cked!" Then goes out and makes declarative statements a rape happened to the Press.

I guess he might regret that phone call on March 24th to take over the case and the March 31 order to set up a third photo line-up.

He doesn't have absolute Immunity, he had Absolute Stupidity!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

thanks for moving this over!

Nifong's defense has really been hurt by these SCOTUS Decisions in the last week. I look forward to the responses by the Plaintiffs attorneys.

He is a rat cornered!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Tidbits
Jan 26 2009, 10:45 PM
sdsgo
Jan 26 2009, 10:41 PM
The court basically reaffirmed:

“that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, see Burns, supra, at 496, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U. S. 259, 277 (1993), or when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application.”

But it clarified the meaning of administrative duties:

“The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. “

:toast:
Yup.

(Were they thinking "Nifong" when that draft was circulated?)
We know that Justice Alito was well aware of the Lacrosse case when he showed up for the UPI signing in Washington DC last year. I am sure the rest of the "Brethren" must also have followed the legal aspects of the case.

Nifong is toast.

It's just a shame he, Gottlieb, Levicy and a few others are not facing criminal charges due to the cowardliness of Anna Mills Wagoner and the Bush Department of Justice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply