Dialdancer
New member
I’ve seen the question asking why Michael did not sue Sneddon for Prosecutorial Misconduct a number of times in a multitude of MJ sites. This should help us to understand why a civil suit would not have been possible especially in Michael's case.
1. Michael was not convicted and therefore could not plead Prosecutorial Misconduct.
2. There is only a two year statute of limitation for filing such a suit.
3. In 2004-2005 Michael’s defense team legally twice petitioned the State Attorney General’s office to “recuse” the Prosecution team and were turned down with the last response a message which basically said “don’t try again”.
Prosecutors are rarely disciplined or criminally prosecuted for their misconduct, and the victims of this misconduct are generally denied any civil remedy because of prosecutorial immunities.
In litigation under the major federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two kinds of immunity apply to prosecutors:
1. Absolute immunity: When prosecutors act as advocates, absolute immunity applies. Under absolute immunity, prosecutors are immunized even when the plaintiff establishes that the prosecutor acted intentionally, in bad faith, and with malice
2. Qualified immunity: When prosecutors act as investigators or administrators, qualified immunity applies.
If Michael had wanted to sue for “Malicious Prosecution” which considered lesser the below are the reason it would not have gone through.
To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements:
(1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff,
(2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case,
(3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and
(4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.
This is how the law applied in 2005 and little has changed since if anything things have gotten worse.
BACKGROUND: The case concerning a prisoner's exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
"Not only did prosecutors in Orleans Parish fail to disclose evidence of his innocence at the time of his trial, they continued to hide it until a private investigator unearthed the evidence as a part of Thompson’s final appeal.
the Supreme Court reversed that award saying “Thompson did not prove that [Connick] was on actual or constructive notice of, and therefore deliberately indifferent.
Actually the way the Supreme Court justified over turning the 14 mil award was; the DA wasn’t hiding the evidence it was a mistake.
http://www.veritasin...ial-misconduct/
http://findarticles....1/ai_n13637493/
1. Michael was not convicted and therefore could not plead Prosecutorial Misconduct.
2. There is only a two year statute of limitation for filing such a suit.
3. In 2004-2005 Michael’s defense team legally twice petitioned the State Attorney General’s office to “recuse” the Prosecution team and were turned down with the last response a message which basically said “don’t try again”.
Prosecutors are rarely disciplined or criminally prosecuted for their misconduct, and the victims of this misconduct are generally denied any civil remedy because of prosecutorial immunities.
In litigation under the major federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two kinds of immunity apply to prosecutors:
1. Absolute immunity: When prosecutors act as advocates, absolute immunity applies. Under absolute immunity, prosecutors are immunized even when the plaintiff establishes that the prosecutor acted intentionally, in bad faith, and with malice
2. Qualified immunity: When prosecutors act as investigators or administrators, qualified immunity applies.
If Michael had wanted to sue for “Malicious Prosecution” which considered lesser the below are the reason it would not have gone through.
To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements:
(1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff,
(2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case,
(3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and
(4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.
This is how the law applied in 2005 and little has changed since if anything things have gotten worse.
BACKGROUND: The case concerning a prisoner's exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
"Not only did prosecutors in Orleans Parish fail to disclose evidence of his innocence at the time of his trial, they continued to hide it until a private investigator unearthed the evidence as a part of Thompson’s final appeal.
the Supreme Court reversed that award saying “Thompson did not prove that [Connick] was on actual or constructive notice of, and therefore deliberately indifferent.
Actually the way the Supreme Court justified over turning the 14 mil award was; the DA wasn’t hiding the evidence it was a mistake.
http://www.veritasin...ial-misconduct/
http://findarticles....1/ai_n13637493/