The justice system is a system, in the engineering sense of the word. Like any system in real life, its design involves balancing. The negative impact of false convictions is weighed against the cost and practicality of measures to avoid false convictions. Prosecutors have broad immunity from suit because otherwise the system would be unworkable. Every aggrieved convict would sue his prosecutor for anything he could think of.
The context of this case is a suit for money damages against prosecutors for "concealing" exculpatory evidence. You can't take the word "concealing" at face value. Prosecutors make judgment calls every day about whether evidence is important or not. This case took place long before DNA testing was either effective or common. Prosecutors could have legitimately known about it and considered it "not potentially exculpatory." Scalia's quote from Youngblood simply says that prosecutors can't be sued for such judgment calls unless it can be shown they were not acting in good faith.
One of my big beefs with articles like this one is that they paint everything in hindsight. But if you create a duty on the part of prosecutors to not be negligent, you can't just hear the cases that are neatly wrapped in a package by some wrongful convictions organization. Negligence is a factual determination, and in criminal cases the defendant is entitled to have such facts tried in front of a jury. Convicts will sue saying the police should have swabbed beneath the carpet or whatever, and you have to give them full process.
As an aside, I came across a case yesterday. It's only salience is that it it's close to home and quite recent. It involves a couple who goes on vacation, leaving their three youngest children with a neighbor (husband and wife). When they return, two of the children, girls, tell them that they were sexually assaulted by the husband, Joe. The police work with the father, Michael, and talk Joe into coming over to Michael's house on the premise that he just wants to talk. Joe makes incriminating statements about the sexual assault to Michael, in the presence of the Chief of Police. When Michael decides to press charges, Joe goes ballistic. He stalks the police chief, and the day before his trial goes to Michael's place of work and shoots him in the head. See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1915239094303815....
Nobody is going to write an LA Times Article about Joe Stacey and Michael Walter, about the wife left without a husband, the ten children left without a father, or the two girls who will carry the scars of sexual assault at the hands of someone they trusted.
Comments
The justice system is a system, in the engineering sense of the word. Like any system in real life, its design involves balancing. The negative impact of false convictions is weighed against the cost and practicality of measures to avoid false convictions. Prosecutors have broad immunity from suit because otherwise the system would be unworkable. Every aggrieved convict would sue his prosecutor for anything he could think of.
The context of this case is a suit for money damages against prosecutors for "concealing" exculpatory evidence. You can't take the word "concealing" at face value. Prosecutors make judgment calls every day about whether evidence is important or not. This case took place long before DNA testing was either effective or common. Prosecutors could have legitimately known about it and considered it "not potentially exculpatory." Scalia's quote from Youngblood simply says that prosecutors can't be sued for such judgment calls unless it can be shown they were not acting in good faith.
One of my big beefs with articles like this one is that they paint everything in hindsight. But if you create a duty on the part of prosecutors to not be negligent, you can't just hear the cases that are neatly wrapped in a package by some wrongful convictions organization. Negligence is a factual determination, and in criminal cases the defendant is entitled to have such facts tried in front of a jury. Convicts will sue saying the police should have swabbed beneath the carpet or whatever, and you have to give them full process.
As an aside, I came across a case yesterday. It's only salience is that it it's close to home and quite recent. It involves a couple who goes on vacation, leaving their three youngest children with a neighbor (husband and wife). When they return, two of the children, girls, tell them that they were sexually assaulted by the husband, Joe. The police work with the father, Michael, and talk Joe into coming over to Michael's house on the premise that he just wants to talk. Joe makes incriminating statements about the sexual assault to Michael, in the presence of the Chief of Police. When Michael decides to press charges, Joe goes ballistic. He stalks the police chief, and the day before his trial goes to Michael's place of work and shoots him in the head. See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1915239094303815....
Nobody is going to write an LA Times Article about Joe Stacey and Michael Walter, about the wife left without a husband, the ten children left without a father, or the two girls who will carry the scars of sexual assault at the hands of someone they trusted.