« Intriguing new poll on 2016 Californian perspectives on the death penalty | Main | "The End of the Death Penalty Isn't Near" »
January 15, 2016
Supreme Court grants cert on high-profile political corruption case and to explore malicious prosecution suits
As reported in this extended post by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court granted certiorari review on eight new cases this afternoon. None of the cases involve sentencing issues, but there are two cases with criminal justice elements. Here are excerpts of Lyle's account of these grants and their place within the Court's overall docket:
Taking no action on the Obama administration’s plea for approval of its new immigration policy, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review the claim by former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell that he is innocent of corruption or fraud because he did not take any official action to benefit a friend and benefactor. The Court also added seven other cases to its docket for decisions this Term.
The new orders filled some remaining slots for argument, presumably in March or April, but there were not enough to complete the full calendar. That means some cases could be granted next week and still be decided before the current Term ends in late June, especially if the briefing schedule were expedited....
The case involving the former governor of Virginia (McDonnell v. United States) was a high-profile prosecution that had appeared to remove him from any future chance of becoming a national leader in the Republican Party. Both he and his wife were convicted of corruption charges based on prosecutors’ claims that the governor used the powers of his office to help a Richmond businessman approach state agencies for help in promoting a health supplement his company was producing. The governor was sentenced to two years in prison, and Maureen McDonnell was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. She currently has an appeal pending in a lower court.
His appeal raised two issues, but the Court agreed to rule only on his claim that prosecutors used too expansive an interpretation of the “official acts” provision used in corruption cases under three federal bribery or fraud laws. The Court chose not to hear McDonnell’s claim that the trial judge did not do enough to bar jurors who might have been influenced by the heavy publicity that surrounded his case, before and during trial. McDonnell has been allowed by the Court to remain out of prison until his appeal of his conviction is decided by the Justices....
Manuel v. Joliet, Ill.: Does an individual who claims to have been a victim of police fabrication of evidence have a right to sue for discriminatory prosecution under the Fourth Amendment — an issue left open previously by the Court.
January 15, 2016 at 06:25 PM | Permalink
Comments
He should be able to sue for malpractice and not some concocted civil rights work around. To deter. This is an intentional tort. It deserves exemplary damages if proven. He will be lucky to get attorneys' fees. Why does this Court repeatedly immunize and privilege the intentional tortfeasor? It is not only unfair. It fully justifies violent vengeance in formal logic. Formal logic has less uncertainty than the laws of physics.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 15, 2016 7:24:21 PM
Because of duties of prosecutors enumerated in the Rules of Conduct, and their having the force of law , being written by the top court of the state, the tort of the prosecutor should be per se .
Nor should the taxpayer pay for this malfeasance. Each prosecutor should be forced to carry large liability coverage, at his own expense, as so many others are mandated to do so.
Because punishment is the sole tool of the law, prosecution fully qualifies for strict liability. However, that would extinguish this valuable enterprise. So, professional standards of due care should apply. That would give prosecutors the chance to regulate themselves.
As an advocate of the cluster of factors theory of catastrophes, I would support spending money to do a crash style a analysis. Then, spend to alter the system to prevent future torts.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 16, 2016 9:11:37 AM
Jake might be interested in the last case.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/trentrock/4997753501
Posted by: Joe | Jan 16, 2016 3:35:12 PM
Does an individual who claims to have been a victim of police fabrication of evidence have a right to sue for discriminatory prosecution under the Fourth Amendment …?
? If not , then why not auction the vital organs of the rogue LEO’s relatives* on the black market and distribute the proceeds to the victim ?
Two degrees in the ascendancy and the descendancy .
Posted by: Docile Jim Brady „ the Nemo Me ☺ Impune Lacessit guy in Oregon ‼ | Jan 17, 2016 2:34:03 AM
Does an individual who claims to have been a victim of police fabrication of evidence have a right to sue for discriminatory prosecution under the Fourth Amendment …?
That's a question? The answer has to be HELL, YES. The only concern I can see is the potential for abuse by guilty-as-hell prisoners with nothing better to do. I would therefore suggest that the court, on receiving such a suit, have the right to throw it out at an early stage on some kind of "lack of apparent merit" standard.
Posted by: William | Jan 17, 2016 9:54:07 AM
