3 ms·

He also lost his license to practice law and this case now serves as a sentencing precedent for such crimes committed in the future. Anderson, being in his 60's

by granos 11y ago

He also lost his license to practice law and this case now serves as a sentencing precedent for such crimes committed in the future. Anderson, being in his 60's, probably wouldn't be practicing for too much longer anyway. The next important step is to get judges to issue standing 'ethical rule orders' as mentioned in the article. That way other malicious prosecutors can be help accountable and removed from practicing much earlier. Also, I'd be shocked if this didn't open Anderson up to civil liability. That's where Morton can seek damages; not in criminal court.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> Also, I'd be shocked if this didn't open Anderson up to civil liability. That's where Morton can seek damages; not in criminal court. Interesting Anderson took a large part of Morton's life. Maybe justice would be served if Morton took a large part of Anderson's money... Something feels uncomfortable about this but I can't quite place it.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  Perhaps because it sounds like blood money. Which has the unfortunate affect of being useful for those with wealth to avoid punishment, but useless for those without, who will still end up in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_(restitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_(restitution)
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    That's the word I was looking for. What about if the penalty was in some way proportional to the wealth/income of the perpetrator?
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps some more research is in order, I imagine that countries and societies that have this actually codified may already have implemented something like this.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Not the same thing but somewhat related. Some European countries have fines for e.g. traffic offences that are proportional to you income for the year the offence is committed in. I think that this works quite well in terms of meaning that rich and poor have the same disincentive not to speed.
DannyBee 11y ago
"Also, I'd be shocked if this didn't open Anderson up to civil liability." FWIW: It doesn't. Prosecutors generally have absolute (not qualified) immunity. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 US 51 (2011) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-571 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-571)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jobu 11y ago
  According to that ruling, the prosecutor's office is not liable, but it doesn't necessarily mean the prosecutor himself is not liable.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    If you want me to cite the other rulings, that's fine. Here's another for you: In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), the Court held that prosecutors performing core prosecutorial functions are entitled to absolute immunity. In this case, it was a core advocative function that was performed. It does not matter if they do it in bad faith, illegally, whatever. They will be given absolute immunity. The only cases you will find otherwise will be around non-core functions, or about the specific act of things like "being bribed around filing criminal charges", and not things part of the core function. You don't have to take my word for it, of course. Look at the decisions of literally every circuit. Or any of the myriad of law review papers detailing the history, etc.

by granos 11y ago

JupiterMoon 11y ago

> Also, I'd be shocked if this didn't open Anderson up to civil liability. That's where Morton can seek damages; not in criminal court. Interesting Anderson took a large part of Morton's life. Maybe justice would be served if Morton took a large part of Anderson's money... Something feels uncomfortable about this but I can't quite place it.

Jtsummers 11y ago
Perhaps because it sounds like blood money. Which has the unfortunate affect of being useful for those with wealth to avoid punishment, but useless for those without, who will still end up in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_(restitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_(restitution)
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  That's the word I was looking for. What about if the penalty was in some way proportional to the wealth/income of the perpetrator?
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps some more research is in order, I imagine that countries and societies that have this actually codified may already have implemented something like this.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Not the same thing but somewhat related. Some European countries have fines for e.g. traffic offences that are proportional to you income for the year the offence is committed in. I think that this works quite well in terms of meaning that rich and poor have the same disincentive not to speed.

DannyBee 11y ago

"Also, I'd be shocked if this didn't open Anderson up to civil liability." FWIW: It doesn't. Prosecutors generally have absolute (not qualified) immunity. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 US 51 (2011) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-571 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-571)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jobu 11y ago
According to that ruling, the prosecutor's office is not liable, but it doesn't necessarily mean the prosecutor himself is not liable.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  If you want me to cite the other rulings, that's fine. Here's another for you: In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), the Court held that prosecutors performing core prosecutorial functions are entitled to absolute immunity. In this case, it was a core advocative function that was performed. It does not matter if they do it in bad faith, illegally, whatever. They will be given absolute immunity. The only cases you will find otherwise will be around non-core functions, or about the specific act of things like "being bribed around filing criminal charges", and not things part of the core function. You don't have to take my word for it, of course. Look at the decisions of literally every circuit. Or any of the myriad of law review papers detailing the history, etc.