4 ms·
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 imprison
by 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 agoSo the guilty party suffers nothing, and the taxpayer foots the bill...
- Detrus 16y agoSo this guy proving his innocence by exposing corruption does not prove their corruption? There must be some fun technicalities there.
- rorrr 16y agoNobody 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).