Why Michael Did Not Sue Sneddon After The Trial???

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
Dialdancer
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:24 pm

Why Michael Did Not Sue Sneddon After The Trial???

Post by Dialdancer » Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:56 pm

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/






Last edited by Dialdancer on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dialdancer
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:24 pm

Why Michael Did Not Sue Sneddon After The Trial???

Post by Dialdancer » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:27 pm

Here is an example of how long a civil suit of Prosecutorial Misconduct can be prolonged.

Then 14-year-old Michael Crowe was suspected of murdering his 12-year-old sister, Stephanie Crowe, on January 20, 1998 and even confessed to the crime, but was later found to be innocent and released from custody. Crowe's confession had been coerced during a 10-hour set of interrogation over a period of two days without his parents or legal counsel attending. Crowe had repeatedly sworn his innocence until cops began to lie to him about scientific evidence which did not exist.


Family Of Stephanie Crowe To Finally Get Day In Court
January 12, 2011
http://www.kpbs.org/...-get-day-court/

It was not until the family filed a civil suit against the city did the Attorney General's office step in investigate the case prosecute and convict the real killer, someone known to the Police and DA's office throughout the case against the boys.




[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0tdOWZK4AA[/media]
Last edited by Dialdancer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MJ'sTink
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:12 am

Why Michael Did Not Sue Sneddon After The Trial???

Post by MJ'sTink » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:07 am

While dialdancer made excelent points and I have to say I am impressed with your knowledge of the law! I have to say, I think in 2005 all Michael was focused on was getting the hell out of California and not looking back. The day he got his passport back he left for Bahrain and I have to say I don't blame him, after something like that I would have left and never come back.

Dialdancer
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:24 pm

Why Michael Did Not Sue Sneddon After The Trial???

Post by Dialdancer » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:28 pm

[quote="MJ'sTink"]
While dialdancer made excelent points and I have to say I am impressed with your knowledge of the law! I have to say, I think in 2005 all Michael was focused on was getting the hell out of California and not looking back. The day he got his passport back he left for Bahrain and I have to say I don't blame him, after something like that I would have left and never come back.
[/quote]


MJ'sTink,

I agree it was enough, how much is one man suppose to endure? According to information in Ms. Jones' book Conspiracy, Mr. Mesereau advised Michael to leave knowing if he did not Sneddon would find something to charge him with, would create another something to accuse MJ of. In fact Sneddon did attempt to do so around Dec 05, but it was a failure.

Thanks for the compliment, but credit goes to various legal and the Supreme Court database. :whistling
Last edited by Dialdancer on Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MJ'sTink
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:12 am

Why Michael Did Not Sue Sneddon After The Trial???

Post by MJ'sTink » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:42 pm

[quote="Dialdancer"]
MJ'sTink,

I agree it was enough, how much is one man suppose to endure? According to information in Ms. Jones' book Conspiracy, Mr. Mesereau advised Michael to leave knowing if he did not Sneddon would find something to charge him with, would create another something to accuse MJ of. In fact Sneddon did attempt to do so around Dec 05, but it was a failure.

Thanks for the compliment, but credit goes to various legal and the Supreme Court database. :whistling
[/quote]

OMG I had no idea he tried once more in december of 2005! I think Sneddon had an evil personal vendetta that was so sick and twisted. Like my mom said, "I hope you are happy Mr. Sneddon because now all those inner city kids have no where to go to have fun FOR FREE, what now are you going to pay for them to go to Disneyland."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest