5 ms·

What are the typical consequences to the corrupt prosecutor and police department in a case like this?

by Detrus 16y ago

chapel 16y ago
Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. Though as with the guy in this case, he can sue the State/City for wrongful imprisonment and other issues.
- DanI-S 16y ago
  So the guilty party suffers nothing, and the taxpayer foots the bill...
- Detrus 16y ago
  So this guy proving his innocence by exposing corruption does not prove their corruption? There must be some fun technicalities there.
  - rorrr 16y ago
    Nobody is watching (or prosecuting) the prosecutors. That's very very sad.
- rlpb 16y ago
  > Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. It seems to me that they should apply the same burden of proof. If a murderer can be convicted on eyewitness evidence, why should the same eyewitness evidence not be sufficient to demonstrate prosecutor corruption? On the other hand I can understand why they have immunity (although this doesn't affect guilt).
rhizome 16y ago
Prosecutors have absolute immunity for their actions in office, and they also decide whether or not to charge the police on the rare chance that a case makes it past the police's own "internal investigation." In the grand scheme of things, the DA is dependent on the police and it's not common for a prosecutor to survive a loss of confidence by them.
anigbrowl 16y ago
The risk is low for the police department and virtually zero for a corrupt prosecutor or judge - in most cases they enjoy legal immunity because of the nature of their job. It's an imperfect system, but it's worth bearing in mind that taking away prosecutorial immunity would also lead to calls for defense attorneys to be punished if their clients were found guilty. The principle that an attorney can and should pursue every possible legal option on behalf of a defendant, no matter how heinous the crime or how seemingly obvious their guilt, is more recent than many people realize. It was not really established before 1840. I was very surprised to find this, an only learned thanks to a book recommendation from HN member (and attorney) grellas.
- wallflower 16y ago
  I just heard Barry Gibbs tell his story on TheMoth's podcast. > Framed by a corrupt cop, a man spends 19 unjust years in prison. Barry Gibbs was falsely accused of murder, and in 2006, after 19 years in prison, was exonerated with the help of The Innocence Project. New York City recently gave him the largest personal settlement in its history, 9.9 million dollars. The NYPD detective, Louis Eppolito, is now serving life in prison. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Barry_Gibbs.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Barry_Gibbs.php
iwwr 16y ago
Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case was eventually disbarred and faces multi-million dollar lawsuits (which he will lose almost certainly). Although I think that is more the exception. Prosecutors face almost no downside to corruption.
- jonknee 16y ago
  And that's just because there was so much media attention (which was arguably because the accused were rich white guys).
- Symmetry 16y ago
  But on the other hand, Martha Coakley just narrowly lost a senate election, so while there is some rare downside risk to prosecutorial misconduct, there's the potential upside of being elected to high office for being "tough on crime".

What are the typical consequences to the corrupt prosecutor and police department in a case like this?

by Detrus 16y ago

What are the typical consequences to the corrupt prosecutor and police department in a case like this?

Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. Though as with the guy in this case, he can sue the State/City for wrongful imprisonment and other issues.

DanI-S 16y ago
So the guilty party suffers nothing, and the taxpayer foots the bill...
Detrus 16y ago
So this guy proving his innocence by exposing corruption does not prove their corruption? There must be some fun technicalities there.
- rorrr 16y ago
  Nobody is watching (or prosecuting) the prosecutors. That's very very sad.
rlpb 16y ago
> Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. It seems to me that they should apply the same burden of proof. If a murderer can be convicted on eyewitness evidence, why should the same eyewitness evidence not be sufficient to demonstrate prosecutor corruption? On the other hand I can understand why they have immunity (although this doesn't affect guilt).

rhizome 16y ago

Prosecutors have absolute immunity for their actions in office, and they also decide whether or not to charge the police on the rare chance that a case makes it past the police's own "internal investigation." In the grand scheme of things, the DA is dependent on the police and it's not common for a prosecutor to survive a loss of confidence by them.

anigbrowl 16y ago

The risk is low for the police department and virtually zero for a corrupt prosecutor or judge - in most cases they enjoy legal immunity because of the nature of their job. It's an imperfect system, but it's worth bearing in mind that taking away prosecutorial immunity would also lead to calls for defense attorneys to be punished if their clients were found guilty. The principle that an attorney can and should pursue every possible legal option on behalf of a defendant, no matter how heinous the crime or how seemingly obvious their guilt, is more recent than many people realize. It was not really established before 1840. I was very surprised to find this, an only learned thanks to a book recommendation from HN member (and attorney) grellas.

wallflower 16y ago
I just heard Barry Gibbs tell his story on TheMoth's podcast. > Framed by a corrupt cop, a man spends 19 unjust years in prison. Barry Gibbs was falsely accused of murder, and in 2006, after 19 years in prison, was exonerated with the help of The Innocence Project. New York City recently gave him the largest personal settlement in its history, 9.9 million dollars. The NYPD detective, Louis Eppolito, is now serving life in prison. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Barry_Gibbs.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Barry_Gibbs.php

iwwr 16y ago

Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case was eventually disbarred and faces multi-million dollar lawsuits (which he will lose almost certainly). Although I think that is more the exception. Prosecutors face almost no downside to corruption.

jonknee 16y ago
And that's just because there was so much media attention (which was arguably because the accused were rich white guys).
Symmetry 16y ago
But on the other hand, Martha Coakley just narrowly lost a senate election, so while there is some rare downside risk to prosecutorial misconduct, there's the potential upside of being elected to high office for being "tough on crime".