SCOTUSblog on prosecutorial immunity in the case of Curtis McGhee:

Prosecutors are normally immune from suit for their official actions during a trial. Tomorrow, in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, the Court will consider whether that immunity extends to actions taken in preparation for trial. The stakes in this technical question are high because the prosecutors’ actions at issue in the case resulted in two men – the respondents here – being incarcerated for twenty-five years based on falsified evidence.

In 1978, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington were convicted of murdering a retired police officer in Pottawattamie County, Iowa and sentenced to life in prison. Twenty-five years later, the release of new files in the cases revealed that prosecutors had fabricated the testimony of a lead witness at their trials and failed to disclose evidence about an alternative suspect to the defense. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated Harrington’s sentence, and McGhee pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for time served. Both prisoners were freed.

After their release, McGhee and Harrington sued the prosecutors and the county officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court ruled that the prosecutors could be held liable for violating McGhee and Harrington’s substantive due process rights, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed that conclusion.

Amy Howe has previously written on the certiorari‑stage briefs in the case at SCOTUSwiki; you can read her discussion here.

The two main issues discussed by both parties in their merits briefs are, first, whether the respondents McGhee and Harrington can establish a constitutional violation by the Pottawattamie County prosecutors; and, second, whether the prosecutors have immunity from suit under § 1983 for such a violation.

In 1976, the Supreme Court held in Imbler v. Pachtman that prosecutors have absolute immunity from liability for their official actions during trial. That conclusion rested largely on policy reasons: the Court emphasized that prosecutors must be able to pursue criminals with “courage and independence,” and without worrying about the threat of lawsuits.

Read the rest: How Broad Is Prosecutorial Immunity? | SCOTUSblog

Anyone who knowingly introduces falsified evidence in court and it results in an innocent man's freedom being taken away, especially for that amount of time, ought to be treated like a criminal. I don't see the question here. It's pretty straight forward to me.

Technorati Tags: prosecutorial immunity, scotus, curtis mcghee, prison, crime, law, murder