question a lawyer may be able to answer

[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.