|  | 
	THE DEFENSE NEVER RESTS BLOG         
	January 4th, 2010    ROGUES PAY THEIR 
	DUES          
 Victory for the innocent. The 
	Supreme Court will not be able to rule on whether prosecutors can be sued 
	for suborning perjury. However overall the case is still a win of sorts. 
	Prosecutors agreed to pay $12 million dollars to the wrongfully convicted. 
	This will not return their 30 years of life spent in hell but maybe it will 
	send a message to prosecutors thinking of "tweaking" their cases.
 
 
 By Warren Richey Staff writer / January 4, 2010
 
 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.
 
 “Terry Harrington deserves this after his unwavering patience and 
	perseverance as to his innocence,” said one of Harrington’s lawyers, Doug 
	McCalla of Jackson, Wy. “Cases like Terry’s make it very clear that we need 
	the powerful remedies provided by this country’s civil rights statutes.”
 'I'm innocent'
 
 Harrington and McGhee are both African-American. They were teens when 
	arrested and accused of murdering a recently retired local police officer 
	who was working as a night security guard at a car dealership.
 
 At his sentencing hearing more than 30 years ago in 1978, Harrington 
	insisted that he was not guilty. “I just want you to know that no matter 
	what happens, I know I’m innocent,” he told the court. “As long as, you 
	know, I feel that inside, then I’m going to keep on fighting because I know 
	I can’t see myself locked up for the rest of my life for something I didn’t 
	do.”
 
 Harrington added: “I feel I was judged by the color of my skin and not the 
	content of my character, and I’ll always feel that way until I get, you 
	know, the kind of verdict the testimony shows, and that’s innocent.”
 
 Harrington was arrested at age 17. By the time he was released he was 43.
 An important legal issue
 
 The case presented an important issue in the criminal justice system: To 
	what extent can prosecutors be held responsible for violating the 
	constitutional rights of defendants when they send innocent individuals to 
	prison?
 
 The Obama administration had urged the high court to side with the 
	prosecutors out of concern that a ruling for the innocent defendants might 
	make prosecutors reluctant to aggressively enforce the law.
 
 Attorneys general from 27 states and the District of Columbia filed a friend 
	of the court brief urging the high court to embrace a broad view of immunity 
	for prosecutors.
 
 The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Cato Institute, 
	and the American Civil Liberties Union had argued for a lower level of 
	immunity, so-called qualified immunity, that offers prosecutors protection 
	from most lawsuits except when they have violated a clearly established 
	constitutional right.
 
 Lawyers for the prosecutors had argued that their clients deserved absolute 
	immunity because the wrongful acts didn’t occur until the trial when the 
	false testimony was presented to the jury. Prosecutors traditionally enjoy 
	absolute immunity for their actions at trial.
 
 Lawyers for Harrington and McGhee said the prosecutors participated in the 
	investigation and helped arrange the false testimony well before the trial. 
	These actions should not be shielded by immunity, they argued.
 
 The lawsuit against the prosecutors was filed in 2005. A similar lawsuit 
	against the City of Council Bluff and the local police department is still 
	pending and is expected to go to trial later this year.
 
 CS monitor article.
     . 
	Comments or questions? 
	Send an email.  Answers within a few hours - sometimes instantly.   
 
 
           
 |  |