reason.com: $12 Million Prevents a Supreme Court Ruling in Prosecutorial Abuse Case

[ACW]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/05/12-million-prevents-a-supreme

Yesterday a settlement ended Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, a Supreme Court case that raised the question of when prosecutors can be held personally liable for misconduct they commit while accumulating evidence against a defendant. Terry Harrington and Curtis W. McGhee, who served 25 years for the 1978 murder of a retired police officer before being released, sued Dave Richter and Joseph Hrvol, the Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors who sent them to prison, accusing them of fabricating evidence, coercing witnesses, and hiding exculpatory evidence. The issue before the Court, which heard the case in November, was whether Richter and Hrvol committed these abuses in their roles as prosecutors, in which case longstanding precedent would make them immune from lawsuits, or in their roles as investigators, in which case they could be held personally liable. The $12 million settlement by the prosecutors and the county suggests they feared the Court would reach the latter conclusion.

Radley Balko discussed the case here and here.

[Thanks to Mark Lambert for the tip.]

Damn cowards. I wanted SCOTUS to decide this one :mad:

[Thiebear]

Why shouldn't they anyway?

The legal precedent wasn't decided. they were just paid off?

[gbear]

Thiebear, I believe there is no longer a case for the Supreme Court to resolve once the parties agree to settle.

There are a lot of issues that take forever to reach the Supreme Court because they only look at cases before them to decide which cases they will hear.

[twa]

There are a lot of issues that take forever to reach the Supreme Court because they only look at cases before them to decide which cases they will hear.

Which is good in that it prevents direct legislating from the court.

Otherwise they could pick any subject and rule at will.

[gbear]

agreed.

There is still a large part of me that wishes the case had not been settled. Having clearly defined rules for how far a prosecutor, a representative of our government, can go to get a conviction would have served our legal system well. This case was so far over the top, I don't think many thought what the prosecutor did was "justice." The court however couldn't simply say he is wrong so pay. They would have had to set boundaries and set precident for future cases. I'm thinking Miranda type of ruling which influenced how far we as a society could go in seeking to determine facts.

[Fergasun]

Interesting. I guess to the guys that settled the value of our Consitution is worth less than $12M (if they split the settlementh, $6M).

[Chachie]

Interesting. I guess to the guys that settled the value of our Consitution is worth less than $12M (if they split the settlementh, $6M).

Although I agree with you 100% in principal, I don't think I'd trust a system that had already wrongly imprisoned me for so many years. I'd want money with my new-found freedom.

[Corcaigh]

Is there a clear demarcation between investigating a case and prosecuting it?

I would hope that people could always be prosecuted for misbehavior outside the courtroom, but not what they do in sight of the judge and jury.