High Court Weighs Prosecutors' Immunity

Unfortunately public rather blindly believe in our corrupt justice system and put this worrisome thought out of their minds. Even when the tragedy touches them personally and they temporarily wakeup to reality it is not for long... Instead of channeling their experience towards positive changes many choose to put their experience "behind them". Judicial corruption, criminal prosecutorial misconduct and prosecutorial immunity will go on.

This is very reminiscent of what my brother has encountered in Lexington, Ky. While we were sleeping they made these immunity laws which basically make them Kings. We have no recourse against them for not only violating the law but the trust of the people. Ultimately, these laws were the breaking point for myself and my brother and we decided we must become activists and restore the country to the people.

The Domino effect, full circle Circus.
Prosecutor is not prosecutable because he did the best of his ability with manipulated evidence. He believed, the police, and that the victim was abused and telling the truth. But at that time the accused did not know that behind the scene a powerful organization for victims rights was flexing mussel to show how powerful they are by coaching and putting words in the mouth of the supposed victim on how to make believable statement to make police react in their favor. Needless to say that translation was rectifying lies flying in the air. Police are not liable because they acted in good faith and believed the supposed victim. The strong and prestigious organization is liable but they depend of generous financial donation and you will be a fool to sue to recover from this organization because you will be on a dire dilemma. The reality is you the ordinary citizen will be out of your American Dream obtained throughout your live just in few hours. Warning, shark infested waters. Your will be devour in no time.

No immunity for anyone, damnit.

If I were Caesar - every case would be reviewed. The bad prosecutors, of which there are many, would have their crimes exposed - and dealt with.

We need a clean house in the cops and prosecutors work.

Emergency medical people have a clean house. We're all glad to see them when needed. It should be the same with cops.

So far, we have engaged a 'bully-force' - and there are and have been many instances where it is necessary.

If society were a computer design, you'd have some fixing to do.

Wow. What an eye opener. This is disturbing, to say the least. There are hundreds of scenarios that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, that we make assumptions about. One of these would be to assume it to be unlawful to frame someone for murder. And the SC is *thinking* about it? Gee, thanks guys.

So do I understand it correctly that those who supposedly purport to "practice" the administration and execution of fair and balanced jurisprudence, may violate ethics and morality to insure the outcome that they desire by manipulating and fabricating "evidence" to achieve their objective of a conviction?

Indeed, if so have we really have come to the point that truth, honesty and fair play are nothing more than relative subjectivity? In other words, now does "the end justifies the means?"

That the high-court would even consider immunity to those who would use such practices shows absolute discordant disconnect to the values and precepts of our constitution. . . folks, that this is even being considered is beyond the pale.

"Iowa prosecutors, backed by the federal government and prosecutors across the country, contend that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."

Now there's an interesting argument. There's also no freestanding constitutional right not to be raped, maligned, assaulted, or physically abused outside of your home that I'm aware of. There are however, laws against them. The fact that it's a federal or state official that was in error should not prevent a lawsuit from going forward. You and I are always at risk of being sued for doing stupid, ignorant and malicious things in addition to things we have next to no control over e.g an unexpected visitor showing up at your home and then slipping on a child's toy and hurting himself/herself.

The concern about a flood of frivolous lawsuits can easily be managed by indicating specifically what a prosecutor can be sued for and under what conditions.

VERY interesting. Also very disturbing. I am surprised to learn that there is no constitutional protection. The Sixth Amerndment DOES provide for a speedy trial, by an impartial JURY, but it makes no statement about fairness, fabrication of evidence, etc.

HOWEVER, it does state that he has the right to be confronted WITH the "witnesses against him". That gives the defense attorney the right to question their testimony. It also gives them the right to SWEAR them in to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Police are sworn in and their testimony can be questioned, and if they fabricated evidence, they can be prosecuted. So, if what we are saying here is that the Prosecutors can play a role in the CREATION of evidence, then I would say that the 6th Amendment gives the defendent the right to QUESTION the prosecutors in the same manner that they do the police. In that manner, the defense attorney would be able to have the prosecutor swear to tell the truth, and the veracity of the evidence could be questioned. Should it be discovered that the prosecutor played any role in falsifying the evidence, he should be held to the same standard as the police. To say that he is an "innocent receiver of evidence" is ONLY true if they do not manipulate the evidence. Since these lawyers are arguing that they MAY alter the evidence with impunity, then the assumption that they are "innocent receivers of evidence" can no longer be made.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Note that the 5th amendment also states that there shall be "due process of law". Surely having government prosecutors manipulate and falsify evidence violates the concept of DUE PROCESS.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Thanks MFT good too read this.
When Doctors do not have a cure we look for alternative medicine, but when you have no faith and resources for justice. Where do turn to? Of course, lawyer or police hesitate or rarely attack each other. When I went to turn in my police complain to the internal division for my arrest and attempt to testify falsely in court, the officer told me that I have a shady pass and to get off his office.