Heh. Good one, Radley. Somebody’s quite the comedian tonight.

Racists bastards!

Yeah, I know, good luck getting such common sense into law. : (

I know that in the wake of the Kathryn Johnston incident a lot of drug cases got dismissed due to the involvement of those particular cops.

Prosecutorial immunity from civil damages suits isn’t qualified, it’s absolute. Note that this does not mean it’s absolute in scope; the prosecutor still must be acting within the scope of his “official responsibility” to receive such immunity. Rather, it’s absolute in “level,” meaning that when it applies, it applies to any and every horrible act the prosecutor undertakes within the scope of his “official responsibility.”

The prosecutor who kills a man in the library with a monkey wrench will be on the hook for money damages as the defendant in a wrongful death suit (and, hopefully, criminal murder charges). The prosecutor who hides exculpatory evidence, or lies on the stand during trial, or engages in other repugnant “techniques” to get a precious conviction acts within his “official responsibility” and is thus immune from civil suits for money damages. From a moral perspective, I see no difference between willfully sending an innocent man his death to win a conviction and stabbing a stranger on the street to steal his wallet. But prosecutors who do the former won’t have to pay damages to the victim’s estate, while muggers who do the latter theoretically will (though they’ll often impecunious, and thus judgment-proof).

Also, absolute prosecutorial immunity is entirely a creature of judge-made common law. Congress and the state legislatures could (and should) abolish it by statute. But, unfortunately, the sun will swallow the Earth before that ever happens.

I would say that “a couple articles every month” indicates that you are an extreme optimist. I’d be surprised if there were a couple articles a year in that category.