VAN DE KAMP V. GOLDSTEIN
129 S.Ct. 855 (2009)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the scope of a prosecutor's absolute immunity
from claims asserted under Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Van De Kamp (Ds) appealed a
denial of prosecutorial immunity.
FACTS: Goldstein (P) filed a habeas corpus action claiming that in 1980 he was convicted
of murder; that his conviction depended in critical part upon the testimony of Fink, a
jailhouse informant; that Fink's testimony was unreliable, indeed false; that Fink had
previously received reduced sentences for providing prosecutors with favorable testimony in
other cases and that prosecutors in the D.A's Office knew about the favorable treatment;
that the office had not provided P's attorney with that information; and that, among other
things, the prosecution's failure to provide P's attorney with this potential impeachment
information had led to his erroneous conviction. The court agreed with P and ordered the
State either to grant P a new trial or to release him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The
State decided that, rather than retry P who had already served 24 years of his sentence, it
would release him. P filed this 1983 action against Ds, the former Los Angeles County
district attorney and chief deputy district attorney. Ds, claiming absolute immunity. The
District Court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the conduct asserted amounted
to 'administrative,' not 'prosecutorial,' conduct; hence it fell outside the scope of the
prosecutor's absolute immunity to 1983 claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Court's 'no immunity' determination. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment