question a lawyer may be able to answer

[cab67]

For a couple of reasons, I follow the wrongful conviction/exoneration news fairly closely.

Exonerees sometimes sue police and detectives responsible for their wrongful conviction, with varying levels of success - police are entitled to qualified immunity, so the bar to prove deliberate wrongdoing is very high. (Prosecutors can almost never be sued.) But in some cases, the officers involved had died before the suit could be brought, so the lawsuit lists the estate of that officer rather than the officer themself.

If such lawsuits are successful, who would actually be responsible for paying damages? Would it be the heirs of that officer's estate, or would this be covered by former employer's insurance, which in this case would be the police department or sheriff's office?

Just curious here.

[Jacson6]

1. 99% of the time the jurisdiction that employees the person indemnifies them from financial liability.

Otherwise there would be no soldiers or police or firefighters or paramedics if they could be financially ruined for a mistake. If it was intentional then they might not be indemnified. IANAL

[cab67]

2. Thanks.

I'm not at all opposed to indemnification, for exactly the reason you indicate.

These cases usually try to draw a distinction between mistakes and deliberate wrongdoing. Most wrongful convictions involve honest (if tragic) mistakes - witness misidentification, wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time situations, and so on. But if evidence is deliberately planted or withheld from the defense, or if a detective lies on a police report or threatens witnesses, there should be accountability.

This is why absolute immunity for prosecutors is not always a good thing. I can see why they have broad immunity - otherwise, prosecutors would be swamped by lawsuits leveled by anyone they'd ever prosecuted. But in the case that led to the Supreme Court acknowledging absolute immunity, the prosecutor deliberately hid evidence that would have demonstrated innocence. There's a difference between making a mistake and intentionally acting to render a trial unfair.

[Jacson6]

3. There is accountablity

They can be criminally charged for deliberate criminal acts. Having a civil jury decide who pays for civil liability would be a mine field that no one would take as a government employee. It is just the reality we must accept. Or when you have a heart attack or get shot no government cop or paramedic will show up because no one wants a job where they can be financially destroyed for an act. Charging a public employee for a criminal act is fine and they are charged routinely for those acts. Such as the Paramedics that gave an overdose of drugs to a person in Colorado not to long ago. YMMV. IMHO.

[cab67]

4. Such cases fail most of the time even when misconduct is obvious.

People in these lines of work should be held immune from unintentional error. I agree with you completely on this. But not for intentional misconduct, and way too often, there's no accountability - especially for prosecutors.

I was referring to the case of John Richards, who was prosecuted by Harry Connick Sr. in Louisiana of armed robbery and murder. He was tried for the armed robbery first so they could go for the death penalty on the murder charge without having Jackson testify during the second trial. He was convicted both times. But Connick withheld the fact - known to him at the time - that the blood allegedly left by Jackson at the armed robbery scene was the wrong blood type. Jackson was innocent of that crime. And further evidence was withheld in the murder trial. A court held Connick liable for several million dollars for his professional misconduct, only to have the Supreme Court reverse that on the grounds that Connick had absolute immunity.

Jackson died penniless. Connick lived well.

To me, this is an abomination. Jackson spent two decades in prison, part of it on death row, for crimes he didn't commit - and his conviction didn't follow from mistakes. It followed from deliberate efforts to slant the evidence in front of the jury.

I agree that sorting mistake from misconduct can be difficult. But even cases where the misconduct is glaringly obvious (and egregious), accountability is very hard to obtain.