8 ms·

Even in (hypothetical) cases of obvious misconduct or corruption? That seems extremely unlikely.

• DannyBee 14y ago
  Yes. I posted the main case that starts this line in the comment to Chuck, but also see Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012). It's worse than you think. In Rehberg, the accusation was the chief investigator for the DA's office simply presented made up testimony in front of the grand jury, knowing it was false, and the prosecutor knew it was false as well when questioning him/presenting it. They did this 3 times, leading to indictments against folks that were, thankfully, later dismissed by judges. It was also alleged that they both had conspired, pre-indictment, to make up and present this false testimony to the grand jury. Holding: Both are entitled to absolute immunity. This particular case seems more about grand juries, until you realize what was alleged and who was testifying.
  • rosser 14y ago
    The State has had incredibly broad latitude during Grand Jury proceedings since well before these cases. They've also had significantly less freedom to engage in shenanigans in other circumstances, AIUI. (I'll defer to someone with specific knowledge to the contrary, of course. I'm a technologist, not a lawyer.)
  • defen 14y ago
    Regarding the Rehberg v. Paulk case - is that the end of the story? Did the chief investigator or prosecutor suffer any consequences for their actions? How could a prosecutor do that and not get disbarred?
    • DannyBee 14y ago
      Here is what I can find out: Starting with the complicated story here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1531644.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1531644.html Ken Hodges is now a partner in a law firm (Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP). I can find nothing that says he was disciplined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hodges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hodges Kelly Burke resigned, but not because of disgrace, but to run for election elsewhere: http://www.macon.com/2010/02/24/1035453/burke-to-resign.html http://www.macon.com/2010/02/24/1035453/burke-to-resign.html He lost that election, and is now at his own law firm: http://www.burkelasseterllc.com/ http://www.burkelasseterllc.com/ (I'm going by http://www.martindale.com/Mr-Kelly-R-Burke/888392-lawyer.htm http://www.martindale.com/Mr-Kelly-R-Burke/888392-lawyer.htm, which points to this) I can't find out all the details of what happened to James Paulk, but if he was charged, it doesn't show up in the public records I have access to. FWIW: Not all prosecutors are like this. I clerked for a former state's attorney who was a judge on the maryland court of special appeals. I have not the slightest doubt that he would have arrested, charged, and prosecuted all three of these men if something like this ever happened in his state.
      • nullc 14y ago
        That Wikipedia article appears to have been whitewashed. So much for justice.
        • Natsu 14y ago
          Maybe, but for how long? It's wikipedia and this is HN. There have to be a few wiki admins around here who can defend it from reverts and procedural nonsense if someone slips in a few well-sourced edits.
          • chris_wot 14y ago
            I was a former Wikipedia admin (three times, actually), and I can tell you that you don't need to be an admin to correct articles.
            • Natsu 14y ago
              Of course not, but it helps when the corrections are contentious. And this is a biography of a living person, which often involves extra drama. There's already some stuff on the talk page about that, actually.
              • chris_wot 14y ago
                I think you answer the issue partly in your answer to me: discuss it on the talk page and get consensus.
    • rehbergc 14y ago
      Ken Hodges actually even ran for Attorney General of Georgia after doing this, and thankfully lost. Neither Hodges nor Burke were disbarred, nor is their any indication of any bar action at all. The investigator, Paulk, remains today as the chief investigator of the Dougherty County D.A.'s office. There is a documentary about much of this case, see www.DoNoHarmDoc.com . I am Charles Rehberg, the defendant in this case, and would be glad to answer any questions. I am at RehbergC at AOL dot com. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruling in my case opens the door for even more prosecutorial abuse by expanding their immunities.
  • rayiner 14y ago
    To be clear, the specific question answered in Rehberg was whether grand jury witnesses enjoyed absolute immunity. See: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rehberg-v-paulk/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rehberg-v-paulk/ I don't think it's particularly crazy. People focus on the cases where prosecutorial misconduct is protected by immunity, but ignore all the meritless suits and appeals prisoners file against anybody and everybody because they're in prison and have nothing else to do. The justice system is a system. Designing systems is about making trade offs (something that should be obvious to an engineer). Any system of justice is going to put innocent people in jail, just like every drug is going to kill some people who would have otherwise survived. You have to deal with that fact the best you can to construct a workable system.
    • DannyBee 14y ago
      While true, it's only the specific question answered in that case because they already had immunity for things like perjury during trial itself through Briscoe v. Lahue (which applies to all witnesses), and other cases/situations. Essentially, the rest of the conduct in Rehberg was already absolutely immune, this was the only question they could raise in a cert petition that the Supreme Court had a chance of caring enough to take. I'm aware of the goal of justice systems, it was drilled into my head by Prof. Turley during law school. It's very hard to see how extending absolute immunity to prosecutors in most cases serves the system. It certainly doesn't cut down on nuisance lawsuits, since those get filed anyway by prisoners/etc. In any case, qualified immunity would still serve them in cases where they make bad decisions in good faith.
      • rayiner 14y ago
        I wasn't implying you didn't understand the goals of the justice system, but as of late it seems that people forget we're looking at a piece of a larger system and ignore the trade-offs involved.
        • DannyBee 14y ago
          Fair enough. I agree there are definitely a set of tradeoffs here, and yes, sometimes you can't avoid bad results if you want a working system.
  • darkarmani 14y ago
    While bad, it isn't as bad as it sounds, because it was "only" in front of the grand jury for an indictment. It would have been even worse if they had done it in the actual criminal trial. I think you are saying, they still would be immune if they did that in the criminal trial?
    • jessaustin 14y ago
      Yes they would be. See DannyBee's response to rayiner above.
• baddox 14y ago
  It sounds bad to me, but not at all unlikely.