4 ms·
"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
by 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 agoAccording to that ruling, the prosecutor's office is not liable, but it doesn't necessarily mean the prosecutor himself is not liable.
- DannyBee 11y agoIf 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.