Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Important! SCOTUS Decided Van de Kamp; Prosecutorial Immunity
Topic Started: Jan 26 2009, 09:46 PM (935 Views)
Acc Esq

After reading the opinion now, it does not seem to me to have any effect on Nifong's immunity. The opinion first reiterates the existing law of absolute immunity. It addressed the scope of one of the exceptions to absolute immunity -- the prosecutor's involvement in administrative decisions. This exception is really not really in play as to the suits against Nifong. The Court's ultimate decision is that administrative activities that are part and parcel of the actual prosecution of a case (as opposed to administrative activities like hiring and firing employees in the prosecutor's office) enjoy absolute immunity. Otherwise, protected prosecutorial decisions could lose absolute immunity by the mere allegation that inadequate procedures failed to check or prevent the decision or action. In other words, the exception could be bootstrapped to eviscerate traditional absolute immunity.

IMO, the impact of this case on the pending claims against Nifong is neutral.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

The stink wafting from Durham is coming from the mess in Nifong's pants.

:bill:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

Acc Esq
Jan 27 2009, 01:06 PM
After reading the opinion now, it does not seem to me to have any effect on Nifong's immunity. The opinion first reiterates the existing law of absolute immunity. It addressed the scope of one of the exceptions to absolute immunity -- the prosecutor's involvement in administrative decisions. This exception is really not really in play as to the suits against Nifong. The Court's ultimate decision is that administrative activities that are part and parcel of the actual prosecution of a case (as opposed to administrative activities like hiring and firing employees in the prosecutor's office) enjoy absolute immunity. Otherwise, protected prosecutorial decisions could lose absolute immunity by the mere allegation that inadequate procedures failed to check or prevent the decision or action. In other words, the exception could be bootstrapped to eviscerate traditional absolute immunity.

IMO, the impact of this case on the pending claims against Nifong is neutral.
It basically restates the law, and clarifies that a panel that includes "the most liberal judge from the most liberal circuit" crossed the line.

It restates the path to Nifong's liability and restrains the urge to make other claims.

What he did was bad enough.

What he is liable for is plenty.

SDSGO's money quote:
Quote:
 
“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),


Nothing new.

Clear. Simple. Recent. SCOTUS 9-0.

IMHO, the Plaintiffs win if they stick with that.

Quote:
 
IMO, the impact of this case on the pending claims against Nifong is neutral.


I sort of agree. But, the recent clarity will help. And, the Plaintiff's will know not to chase the Ninth Circuit concept that turned out to be fools gold. And, SCOTUS did not harm. They didn't save Nifong from his fate.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply