• Home
  • News
  • Supreme Court Protects Ex-DA Sued by Inmate for Supervision Errors

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Ex-DA Sued by Inmate for Supervision Errors

Posted Jan 26, 2009 10:28 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from suits for mistakes in cases they supervise.

The suit had targeted former Los Angeles District Attorney John Van de Kamp, the Associated Press reports. The suit by inmate Thomas Goldstein had contended Van de Kamp failed to set up a system to make prosecutors aware of the reliability of jailhouse informants and the benefits they had been promised.

Goldstein had spent 24 years in prison for a murder after being convicted with the help of testimony by a jailhouse informant who said Goldstein had confessed, the AP story says. The informant testified he got no benefit from his testimony, but later evidence suggested he had received lenience for the information.

Line prosecutors have immunity for decisions made in preparation for trial, including decisions about whether to disclose informant information. At issue was whether supervising prosecutors also have immunity for improper training and supervision and for failing to establish proper disclosure systems.

“We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims,” said the unanimous opinion (PDF) by Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “We recognize, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits; but the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that Imbler [ v. Pachtman, a case establishing prosecutorial immunity] must apply here."

The case is Van de Kamp v. Goldstein.

Comments

1.

K S in Ohio
Jan 26, 2009 12:31 PM CST

I have not yet read the decision, but speculate that it is 9-0 for immunity from tort liability in a court of law. I, along with Mr. Thomas Goldstein, his family, his attorneys, etc., cannot help but be disappointed with the decision, even though it is now the Law of the Land.

Too many prosecutors have too often put too many innocent defendants away with conduct that is not only unethical, but at times illegal.

WHAT IF?: Some day, through egregiously unethical/illegal conduct, a prosecutor harms the parent(s)/child/children/partner of an innocent defendant, by putting away that defendant for 10-30 years, give or take,

AND that person or persons,

NOT the defendant,

but one now reacting and resolving to get what he or she then perceives as “justice,” by any means possible, including but not limited to, the use of fire, explosives, acid, neuro-toxin cocktails, or other unlawful methods (excluding the use of guns), against the FAMILY or supervising colleagues of the offending prosecutor, whom he or she want to hold accountable?

Of course it would take a “perfect storm” of many circumstances to all concurrently have “action flags” set at one and none set at zero.

Were I a CEO/CFO who chose the use of fourth-world brake fluid and brake components, that were seriously below safety and legal specifications, in my for-hire passenger vehicle fleet; and one of my fleets vehicle went out of control and killed one or persons, due to its brake system failure, which was caused by the substandard system components; you well know, or ought to know, that the estates of the victims would try to hold me accountable.

The vast majority of Ohio’s prosecutors tend to refrain from active or negligent conduct that invites tragedies such as those in the Goldstein case.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.