"High court will jump back into prosecutorial immunity, speedy trial issues," is Marcia Coyle's report for the upcoming edition of National Law Journal.
The U.S. Supreme Court next term will jump back into questions
surrounding prosecutorial immunity and speedy trial requirements in two
cases, one involving prosecutors' immunity from suit for fabricating
evidence in a case's investigative phase, and the other concerning
whether pretrial motion preparation counts under the federal Speedy
Trial Act.
In January, the justices ruled against a man, wrongfully incarcerated for 24 years, who brought a civil rights suit against the Los Angeles district attorney, charging that the prosecution violated its constitutional duty to communicate impeachment information because of the district attorney's failure adequately to train and supervise prosecutors.
The prosecutors, held the court, had absolute immunity. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-852.
The new case also involves civil rights suits by two black men — teenagers at the time — who were wrongfully convicted of the murder of a white police officer and who served 26 years in prison. The men charge that two Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors "through their patently unconstitutional and racially motivated conduct framed, arrested, prosecuted, and convicted" them.
The two prosecutors, Joseph Hrvol, and David Richter, are asking the justices to overturn a ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a prosecutor's procurement of false testimony in the investigative phase of a case — before charges have been filed — violates a defendant's constitutional substantive due process rights, and a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for those acts. Pottawattamie County, Iowa v. Harrington and McGhee, No. 08-1065.
In January, the justices ruled against a man, wrongfully incarcerated for 24 years, who brought a civil rights suit against the Los Angeles district attorney, charging that the prosecution violated its constitutional duty to communicate impeachment information because of the district attorney's failure adequately to train and supervise prosecutors.
The prosecutors, held the court, had absolute immunity. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-852.
The new case also involves civil rights suits by two black men — teenagers at the time — who were wrongfully convicted of the murder of a white police officer and who served 26 years in prison. The men charge that two Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors "through their patently unconstitutional and racially motivated conduct framed, arrested, prosecuted, and convicted" them.
The two prosecutors, Joseph Hrvol, and David Richter, are asking the justices to overturn a ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a prosecutor's procurement of false testimony in the investigative phase of a case — before charges have been filed — violates a defendant's constitutional substantive due process rights, and a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for those acts. Pottawattamie County, Iowa v. Harrington and McGhee, No. 08-1065.
And:
In March, the justices also examined the Speedy Trial Act, ruling
against the criminal defendant in a case from Vermont raising questions
about whether assigned counsel or the state should be held responsible
for certain trial delays. Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88.
The latest case — Bloate v. U.S., No. 08-728 — asks whether time granted to prepare pretrial motions is excludable in calculating the 70 days from indictment or first appearance for bringing a defendant to trial.
Two federal circuits have said no; eight circuits have said yes, including the 8th in this case. The 8th Circuit's yes answer affirmed a district court's decision to deny a motion by Taylor Bloate to dismiss his indictment. He was later convicted of firearm and drug offenses and sentenced to 360 months in jail.
The circuit split focuses on a provision in the law that declares excludable "delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion."
The latest case — Bloate v. U.S., No. 08-728 — asks whether time granted to prepare pretrial motions is excludable in calculating the 70 days from indictment or first appearance for bringing a defendant to trial.
Two federal circuits have said no; eight circuits have said yes, including the 8th in this case. The 8th Circuit's yes answer affirmed a district court's decision to deny a motion by Taylor Bloate to dismiss his indictment. He was later convicted of firearm and drug offenses and sentenced to 360 months in jail.
The circuit split focuses on a provision in the law that declares excludable "delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion."
The Court completes this term's calendar of oral arguments on April 28. The next term begins October 2009.
Comments