Tony Mauro writes, "Supreme Court Drops Undecided Prosecutorial Immunity Case After Parties Settle," for National Law Journal.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced late Monday that it had dismissed an important pending case over prosecutorial immunity after being alerted that the dispute had been settled. The action stops in its tracks a case that could have produced a landmark decision that many believed would have reined in the longstanding tradition that prosecutors cannot be held liable for their actions as prosecutors.
The case, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington, was brought by Curtis McGhee Jr. and Terry Harrington, who had been found guilty in the 1977 murder of John Schweer, a retired police officer in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The two, who spent 25 years in prison before being freed in 2003, sued Iowa prosecutors for violating their civil rights by falsifying evidence used against them before arrest and at trial. They were released after being able to document the actions taken by prosecutors to doctor evidence and influence testimony to point the finger at them, even though there was another suspect.
As we reported here, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, now with the Washington office of Atlanta-based King & Spalding, took on McGhee and Harrington as clients after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the county's challenge of a lower court decision upholding their suit. In oral arguments in November, it appeared Clement had gone a long way toward weakening the argument in favor of strict immunity for prosecutors, though the outcome was not entirely clear. Some justices appeared concerned that prosecutors would become timid if they had to worry about being sued for their actions, while other justices seemed struck by the abuses perpetrated by the prosecutors in the case.
Warren Richey posts "Supreme Court drops key case on limits of immunity for prosecutors," at the Christian Science Monitor.
The US Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a case over whether prosecutors who knowingly procure false testimony that leads to a wrongful conviction can later be sued for damages.
Lawyers announced that the parties in the underlying lawsuit had agreed to end the case in a $12 million settlement.
The two innocent men, Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee, had spent nearly 26 years in prison for a murder they didn’t commit. After the truth was discovered and they were released, they sued the prosecutors in Pottawattamie County, Iowa.
An investigation revealed that the prosecutors helped assemble and present false testimony that led to their convictions. Messrs. Harrington and McGhee had been sentenced to life in prison at hard labor with no possibility of parole.
The prosecutors fought the civil lawsuit, arguing that they were entitled to absolute immunity from such litigation for actions taken at trial.
The high court heard oral argument in the case on November 4. The case is Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington.
The Los Angeles Times report, "Prosecutor conduct case before Supreme Court is settled," is written by David Savage.
Despite their claims of innocence, the two men were convicted before an all-white jury and sentenced to long prison terms.
Decades later, they were able to obtain official files showing that police and prosecutors Dave Richter and Joe Hrvol coaxed the witness to implicate them, while ignoring evidence that pointed to the white suspect. The sole witness against the two men recanted his testimony.
The Iowa courts overturned their convictions five years ago. Harrington and McGhee then sued the county, prosecutors and police in federal court for violating their civil rights, alleging that the prosecutors knowingly used false testimony to convict them.
The prosecutors said they still believed Harrington and McGhee were guilty.
In the Supreme Court, a lawyer for the prosecutors agreed that police could be sued for fabricating evidence, but not prosecutors, even if they worked together.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that was "a strange proposition."
Justice John Paul Stevens called it "perverse."
Facing a likely loss in the high court, the county moved to settle the case.
Earlier coverage of the case begins with this post.
Comments