Obama Admin argues that you have no right not to be framed

[Professor Baxter]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519&scum

Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday.

On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.

On the other side are two black men — Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee — men who served 25 years in prison before evidence long hidden in police files resulted in them being freed.

[Chapel The Evergreen]

It boggles the mind to think that this even has to go to court. America and freedom have died a little just because of that.

[Superfreak]

It boggles the mind to think that this even has to go to court. America and freedom have died a little just because of that.

Agreed. Cases like this are quite aggravating. Basic common sense should have had this case resolved before it ever went to court. The state should have simply said... 'we screwed up and will prosecute those who framed you and we will also compensate you for the 25 years in prison'

[Damocles]

As I said in the other thread on this.

You have a right to a fair trial, as well as a speedy trial. To say that this would not be part of that right is beyond ridiculous and flies in the face of the actual law.

If a prosecutor purposefully uses his power to prosecute and imprison somebody they know is innocent, their right to due process, a fair and speedy trial, and liberty have been purposefully taken from them. That prosecutor not only should be capable of being sued, but should be spending time in prison for false imprisonment, kidnapping, and anything else you can stick to the piece of ferguson...

If the courts uphold this inanity and we do nothing to fix it, then we have become that which people fought against to create this nation.

[SmarterthanYou]

qualified immunity. the last refuge of tyrants. aided by the courts of course.

[Professor Baxter]

Meanwhile, defense attorneys are being prosecuted for speaking.

[SmarterthanYou]

seriously people, when can we just start shooting them?

[Socrtease]

My bet is that the court will uphold prosecutorial immunity but fall back on the fact that the frame job was PRIOR to the indictment and that prosecutors and police were in on it from the get go. The fact that after indictment, a prosecutor can subourne perjury and coherse testimony and get away with it is insane. But hey law and order is the most important thing.

[Socrtease]

Once upon a time in Kansas I worked on a case where the head of the anti-drug unit planted drugs on a known drug dealer who was in a clean car. When the officers pulled the guy over, the head of the unit told them not to do anything but wait for him to get there. One of the officers however, got out of his car, took license, registration and insurance and then did a search of the car for officer safety. He searched the entire car. While that was talking place a second unit with a dog arrived, that cop recognized the suspect and got his consent to run a dog over the car. (It was his sisters car, he knew he was being followed by the cops so he wasn't driving his) The dog didn't hit. The cop with the dog got dispatched to another call and shortly thereafter the head of the drug unit showed up, told the original officers they could go, conducted his "own search" and lo he found 34 grams of cocaine. Arrested our guy, never listed the original officers on his police report. Our guy told us he was not stopped by the arresting officer and through subpoena we found out who did stop him. Their testimony completely contradicted the arresting officers. The judge stopped us all in the middle of trial, called counsel to the bench, told us that he would not allow us to impune the reputation of police officer in his court by calling him a liar and then ordered the Prosecutor to dismiss the case. NOTHING ever happened to the cop and as far as I know he is still on the force today.

[Mott the Hoople]

As I said in the other thread on this.

You have a right to a fair trial, as well as a speedy trial. To say that this would not be part of that right is beyond ridiculous and flies in the face of the actual law.

If a prosecutor purposefully uses his power to prosecute and imprison somebody they know is innocent, their right to due process, a fair and speedy trial, and liberty have been purposefully taken from them. That prosecutor not only should be capable of being sued, but should be spending time in prison for false imprisonment, kidnapping, and anything else you can stick to the piece of ferguson...

If the courts uphold this inanity and we do nothing to fix it, then we have become that which people fought against to create this nation.I'm sure that prosecutors will feel that this will impede their ability to prosecute a case more aggresively and would make their jobs more difficult. My heart pumps piss for them in sympothy.

[Chapel The Evergreen]

Once upon a time in Kansas I worked on a case where the head of the anti-drug unit planted drugs on a known drug dealer who was in a clean car. When the officers pulled the guy over, the head of the unit told them not to do anything but wait for him to get there. One of the officers however, got out of his car, took license, registration and insurance and then did a search of the car for officer safety. He searched the entire car. While that was talking place a second unit with a dog arrived, that cop recognized the suspect and got his consent to run a dog over the car. (It was his sisters car, he knew he was being followed by the cops so he wasn't driving his) The dog didn't hit. The cop with the dog got dispatched to another call and shortly thereafter the head of the drug unit showed up, told the original officers they could go, conducted his "own search" and lo he found 34 grams of cocaine. Arrested our guy, never listed the original officers on his police report. Our guy told us he was not stopped by the arresting officer and through subpoena we found out who did stop him. Their testimony completely contradicted the arresting officers. The judge stopped us all in the middle of trial, called counsel to the bench, told us that he would not allow us to impune the reputation of police officer in his court by calling him a liar and then ordered the Prosecutor to dismiss the case. NOTHING ever happened to the cop and as far as I know he is still on the force today.

This, my good friends, is why I will NEVER trust a single police officer as long as I live.

[China Apologist]

28 states?

WTF? How can anyone think this way? I just can't even understand. This is a sociopathic level of evil.

[China Apologist]

Once upon a time in Kansas I worked on a case where the head of the anti-drug unit planted drugs on a known drug dealer who was in a clean car. When the officers pulled the guy over, the head of the unit told them not to do anything but wait for him to get there. One of the officers however, got out of his car, took license, registration and insurance and then did a search of the car for officer safety. He searched the entire car. While that was talking place a second unit with a dog arrived, that cop recognized the suspect and got his consent to run a dog over the car. (It was his sisters car, he knew he was being followed by the cops so he wasn't driving his) The dog didn't hit. The cop with the dog got dispatched to another call and shortly thereafter the head of the drug unit showed up, told the original officers they could go, conducted his "own search" and lo he found 34 grams of cocaine. Arrested our guy, never listed the original officers on his police report. Our guy told us he was not stopped by the arresting officer and through subpoena we found out who did stop him. Their testimony completely contradicted the arresting officers. The judge stopped us all in the middle of trial, called counsel to the bench, told us that he would not allow us to impune the reputation of police officer in his court by calling him a liar and then ordered the Prosecutor to dismiss the case. NOTHING ever happened to the cop and as far as I know he is still on the force today.

Police officers have no right to a good reputation. Reputation is earned, not conferred by title. The law enforcement establishment in America has a huge since of entitlement.

[Professor Baxter]

I'm sure that prosecutors will feel that this will impede their ability to prosecute a case more aggresively and would make their jobs more difficult. My heart pumps piss for them in sympothy.

It's such a silly argument. I am as skeptical of the criminal justice as anyone and would never argue that a prosecutor should be faulted for negligence.

Framing someone in this manner is beyond even gross negligence. They fully intended to harm the defendant. I can't see any good reason why that behavior should be protected.

The product of a justice system should be justice, not just convictions.

[Professor Baxter]

My bet is that the court will uphold prosecutorial immunity but fall back on the fact that the frame job was PRIOR to the indictment and that prosecutors and police were in on it from the get go. The fact that after indictment, a prosecutor can subourne perjury and coherse testimony and get away with it is insane. But hey law and order is the most important thing.

I am not so sure with this right wing court. But, I cannot imagine how they would argue this is not a clear violation of the right to due process. Unless they argue that due process is really just process.

BTW, right wingers are supposed to be distrustful of government power. Why do they fail to apply that in these types of cases? There is no more ominous power of the government than it's ability to imprison or put people to death. It should be given more scrutiny not less.

[christiefan915]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519&scum

Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday.

On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.

On the other side are two black men — Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee — men who served 25 years in prison before evidence long hidden in police files resulted in them being freed.

Why does "They are backed by the Obama administration," take precedence over "28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country."

Seems to me the latter had this opinion for over 25 years, when Obama was a mere teenager not even on anyone's radar.

I strongly disagree with the backers of these prosecutors but fail to see why Obama should be tagged as if he were a principal in the original case.

[Socrtease]

I am not so sure with this right wing court. But, I cannot imagine how they would argue this is not a clear violation of the right to due process. Unless they argue that due process is really just process.

BTW, right wingers are supposed to be distrustful of government power. Why do they fail to apply that in these types of cases? There is no more ominous power of the government than it's ability to imprison or put people to death. It should be given more scrutiny not less.Traditional conservatives are distrustful of government power. Modern day Republicans are pro law and order. In the last 40 years it has been they who have decried Miranda, the exclusion of evidence seized without a warrant, the right to state appointed attorneys, etc. Nothing should stand in the way of the police and the prosecutor gaining a conviction. They are especially angered by evidence seized illegally that is excluded when that evidence points to guilt. Justice Scalia believes that the evidence should be allowed and that the defendant can sue the cop later for violating his 4th amendment rights. Scalia and many conservative jurists want to do away with the exclusionary rule.

[Damocles]

I'm sure that prosecutors will feel that this will impede their ability to prosecute a case more aggresively and would make their jobs more difficult. My heart pumps piss for them in sympothy.
It is supposed to be difficult, the founders didn't trust courts.

[China Apologist]

I am not so sure with this right wing court. But, I cannot imagine how they would argue this is not a clear violation of the right to due process. Unless they argue that due process is really just process.

BTW, right wingers are supposed to be distrustful of government power. Why do they fail to apply that in these types of cases? There is no more ominous power of the government than it's ability to imprison or put people to death. It should be given more scrutiny not less.

That's what gets the rabble-rousing right votes. It doesn't matter if its a good policy or not, just as long as it gets a proles blood rushing.

[SmarterthanYou]

As I said in the other thread on this.

You have a right to a fair trial, as well as a speedy trial. To say that this would not be part of that right is beyond ridiculous and flies in the face of the actual law.

If a prosecutor purposefully uses his power to prosecute and imprison somebody they know is innocent, their right to due process, a fair and speedy trial, and liberty have been purposefully taken from them. That prosecutor not only should be capable of being sued, but should be spending time in prison for false imprisonment, kidnapping, and anything else you can stick to the piece of ferguson...

If the courts uphold this inanity and we do nothing to fix it, then we have become that which people fought against to create this nation.

looks like it was not only upheld, but further solidified that prosecutors do not have to follow the law, can frame and try to execute an innocent person, and never be held liable.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/29/supreme-court-firms-up-state-i

[Damocles]

looks like it was not only upheld, but further solidified that prosecutors do not have to follow the law, can frame and try to execute an innocent person, and never be held liable.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/29/supreme-court-firms-up-state-i

Gross, isn't it? Right now, in CO we're going through whether or not children have rights at school. I mean, wut?

The argument is that the Principal works as loco parentis, however they cannot stand in that position when they are a branch of executive power, expelling, allowing police to question them without representation, strip searching the kids...

It's astounding what we allow in "The Freest Nation"...

[Threedee]

Why does "They are backed by the Obama administration," take precedence over "28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country."

Seems to me the latter had this opinion for over 25 years, when Obama was a mere teenager not even on anyone's radar.

I strongly disagree with the backers of these prosecutors but fail to see why Obama should be tagged as if he were a principal in the original case.

Because you like him?

[tinfoil]

Why does "They are backed by the Obama administration," take precedence over "28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country."

Seems to me the latter had this opinion for over 25 years, when Obama was a mere teenager not even on anyone's radar.

I strongly disagree with the backers of these prosecutors but fail to see why Obama should be tagged as if he were a principal in the original case.

you are an idiot

[tinfoil]

Seriously guys, the courts have ruled that they can violate our rights. It's time to take the power away from these people. they are no longer OUR government

[Rune]

Seriously guys, the courts have ruled that they can violate our rights. It's time to take the power away from these people. they are no longer OUR government

How do you reccomend we proceed?

[SmarterthanYou]

How do you reccomend we proceed?

stop voting for anyone from the two major parties, for starters.