| SCOTUS Nov . 4, 2009 Was Nifong a cop?; Cop or prosecutor: my distinction | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 4 2009, 09:28 PM (810 Views) | |
| genny6348 | Nov 5 2009, 01:04 AM Post #16 |
|
Genny6348
|
Hi Tidbits. We missed you!  Calling it a night, but look forward to reading your thread tomorrow.
|
 |
 
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 5 2009, 07:49 AM Post #17 |
|
Key points:
.
IOW, the justices (and even the proponent of immunity here), seem to agree that 1 ) there is a fourth amendment violation if there is wrongful arrest; and 2 ) a prosecutor is just as liable as a police officer if the prosecutor engages in pretrial "police" work |
|
|
|
| Joan Foster | Nov 5 2009, 08:52 AM Post #18 |
|
Hell-ooo-o Justice for Nifong people. Read this and weep. |
|
|
|
| chatham | Nov 5 2009, 08:57 AM Post #19 |
|
Need to print out a copy and send it to nifong. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 5 2009, 09:49 AM Post #20 |
|
Am I understanding this argument of defense, to save that absolute immunity, correctly? It's like a prosecutor gets a Mulligan for ALL prior conduct once the fabricated evidence is presented at a trial. If I did it, it would be at least 2 separate crimes. Edited by kbp, Nov 5 2009, 09:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 5 2009, 10:19 AM Post #21 |
|
Yes, they are trying to argue that if a prosecutor actually goes to trial with evidence he falsified, he still gets immunity, because he has immunity for anything done at trial; whereas if he doesn't go to trial, he has only limited immunity for falsifying evidence. Hence, the "perverse" doctrine, that the greater the wrong, the greater the immunity. And, they wish to argue that if there is no trial, there is no harm done; a defendant was not denied due process because the "process" (that is, the trial) never started in the first place. (This is called "sophistry" where I come from.) IMHO (and apparently in the opinion of at least one of the justices), "due process" starts with the finding of probable cause, during the investigatory phase, not just with the actual trial. However, all parties are agreed that 1 ) there is a Fourth Amendment violation for loss of liberty if someone is arrested falsely (score one for our side) 2 ) a DA is liable for pretrial actions if his role extends beyond that of a prosecutor, and he "investigates" the crime (score another one for our side) The Court will not have its Opinion out on this until the Spring; but I would imagine that it would speak more clearly to the matter of limiting prosecutorial immunity. The argument against limiting it is not one that has anything to do with justice; but only with "societal" needs--that is, keeping the system from being clogged with everyone who was every convicted suing the prosecutor who put him in jail. However, by placing "societal" needs above justice, one reverses the dictum, "Let justice be done though the heavens fall". Instead, one could argue (as I am sure some did) that Dreyfus should have been convicted, just in order to placate society and keep social peace; that Leo Frank should have been lynched for the same reason. And that, "sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization". That doctrine is putrid, and should have nothing to do with any system that has the word "justice" attached. ("We're sorry, we know the DA falsified evidence against you and wrongly convicted you; but we can't let you sue because it would tie up the courts and set a bad precedent; and we know that such cases are extremely rare and that most prosecutors have only the goal of justice, anyway...") Pure bunk... |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 5 2009, 10:34 AM Post #22 |
|
Agreed, good to see Tidbits stirring up the pot! I can't wait for Bill's response on this one! |
|
|
| kbp | Nov 5 2009, 12:34 PM Post #23 |
|
..."societal" needs Better 10 innocent men be hung and 1 guilty prosecutor go free... |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 5 2009, 02:22 PM Post #24 |
|
The Plaintiffs claimed that [DA] Peterson's immunity dissolved when he stepped outside his role as prosecutor and began running the criminal investigation... (snip) The federal judge denied Peterson's motion for summary judgment, saying... "In this case, the circumstantial evidence indicates a concerted pattern by the various investigators and [DA] Peterson to deprive Plaintiffs of one or more of their constitutional rights. The repeated omission of exculpatory evidence by investigators while including inculpatory evidence, inclusion of debatably fabricated evidence, failure to follow obvious and apparent leads which implicated other individuals, and the use of questionable forensic conclusions suggests that the involved Defendants were acting deliberately toward the specific end result prosecution of Williamson and Fritz without regard to the warning signs along the way that their end result was unjust and not supported by the facts of their investigation." An Innocent Man, by John Grisham, p. 414 |
|
|
|
| Bill Anderson | Nov 5 2009, 04:45 PM Post #25 |
|
Earlier this year, I had a couple of columns on the subject of immunity: http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson238.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson239.html Reading these self-serving arguments from the people who claim that those poor, poor prosecutors would be inconvenienced if they actually had to tell the truth once in a while is just sickening. Sickening. This is what our vaunted legal system has become: a repository for liars and criminals. A place where the most dishonest people among us can have the title of "your honor" and be idolized in the media for "keeping us safe." Yes, there are some good prosecutors out there, and some of them might be good people, but the barrel mostly is rotten. It should not surprise anyone that if there are no incentives to be honest and all of the incentives in the world to cut corners and get away with it, people will cut corners. It is human nature. 
|
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Nov 5 2009, 05:16 PM Post #26 |
|
If I am interpreting the information here correctly, this looks like it will be bad for Nifong. AND, if I am understanding this correctly, Nifong and the DPD are working very hard to erase all emails of the discussion and decision to let him take over the investigation. Nifong was clearly acting like a cop (albeit a bad cop) and calling the shots in the investigation. I think Gottlieb's deposition for the Bar Trial should be pretty damaging for Nifong. |
|
|
|
| Bill Anderson | Nov 5 2009, 05:22 PM Post #27 |
|
It is hard to know if that will be the case. First, the courts have shown that they will swallow a lot of perjured testimony from the official (government) side of the aisle. Second, Gottlieb will lie on the stand, just as he always does. So far, the message of the Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape Case has been that agents of the State of North Carolina, the City of Durham, and Duke University never had to worry about telling the truth, as no court would care. I await as to whether this particular federal court cares, either.
|
|
|
|
| Bill Anderson | Nov 5 2009, 05:37 PM Post #28 |
|
Cops and prosecutors are fond of declaring, "If you aren't breaking the law, you don't have to be afraid." Well, we have seen that turned on its head, have we not? A person who did not break the law had to fear the prosecutor who was breaking the law. All of this reminds me of Nixon's statement, "If the president does it, it is not against the law." Now, I know that most Obama supporters would blanch at that declaration, yet Obama and Eric Holder both are in support of the prosecutors on this one. So much for "change you can believe in."
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 5 2009, 05:45 PM Post #29 |
|
Wouldn't surprise me a bit. How much of this evidence will still be accessible and available in a couple of years? How much will the DPD claim to have lost? How much will the defendants claim to have forgotten? Shouldn't it be collected and retained now, with Discovery now, so that the evidence can be preserved? (The DPD is already known to have erased radio rapes requested by the defense; and to have permitted cell phone info to degrade.) If there is no trial it doesn't matter if the evidence is collected and preserved; but if the evidence is permitted to degrade through neglect or deliberate actions, then how much of the responsibility for that does the court share for refusing to order its timely collection and retention? |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Nov 5 2009, 06:50 PM Post #30 |
|
Absolutely! The statement "If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about" is an absolute farce. Look at how three people who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING were vigorously prosecuted by both police and the DA with not a single shred of evidence. In fact, all of the evidence indicated that there was NO crime. And if you read Gottlieb's deposition, these three were indicted -- indicted on charges carrying 30 year sentences -- based on very flaky/flimsy statements by the DPD: she ID'd him AND the time card showed he was not in his Dorm room at the time of the "attack" -- that's grounds for an indictment? That's unbelievable! A three-man gang rape - there should have been a volume of evidence. And not one juror asked about the DNA evidence? Oh, I'm sure they quoted the inSANE nurse to the Grand Jurors BUT her lies could at best only substantiate that a crime occurred -- nothing the inSANE nurse said could implicate a particular person in the crime. SO it all came down to: (1) she ID'd him AND (2) he was not in his Dorm room at the time. And that grounds for an indictment? God help us! Edited by MikeZPU, Nov 6 2009, 11:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
4:23 PM Dec 8
