Timeline for Prosecutorial discretion and jurisdiction
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 29, 2016 at 21:46 | comment | added | ohwilleke | The person providing the tip might be subject to a civil action individually (probably not under 1983) for civil conspiracy to commit a tort, because prosecutorial immunity generally does not extend to collaborating with a criminal and foreseeably injuring someone without official sanction to do so from the DA, and might also be subject to criminal prosecution along the lines of abuse of official office. But, not the DA who simply decided not to prosecute. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 at 21:40 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @gracey209 Actually, prosecutors have absolute immunity from 1983 actions and not just qualified immunity for their charging decisions (they have qualified immunity when involved in pre-prosecution investigatory activities). | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 21:23 | answer | added | feetwet♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 15:53 | comment | added | SkyLeach |
@user662852 I would argue that in the cosby case the fact that an election was required reinforces my argument. Imagine what our law would be like if every criminal case required popular public support before it was pursued!? And this is about a class of criminal in the rich and famous. How do you make anything like that work for non-human entities?
|
|
| Jan 18, 2016 at 23:12 | comment | added | user662852 | Reading this I expected it to be a question about the Bill Cosby rape prosecution in Montgomery county PA. DA Castor decided against prosecution in 2005. DA Steele was just elected (with a vague promise to review - too bad for Cosby he was front page news in November), and is now prosecuting within the statute of limitations. The system works since it was implied to be part of the election? | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 3:17 | comment | added | SkyLeach |
@gracey209 - I fully realize that they have 'qualified immunity'. I also realize that they have no legal obligation to give cause of action in refusal to prosecute. Therein is a key part of the argument. I know that most DAs, my home state's NCDOJ specifically, dismisses out-of-hand charges of criminal conduct brought by non-government institutions against corporate/business entities regardless of evidence submitted unless they are sole-proprietorships. They aren't even considered at all. I consider this to be unjust, and I'm asking if it is arguably illegal.
|
|
| Jan 18, 2016 at 3:13 | comment | added | SkyLeach | @cpast I have been trying to narrow the focus a bit, but your feedback about that is greatly appreciated | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 20:04 | comment | added | gracey209 | No. They have qualified immunity and no duty to prosecute. Just because you believe they have evidence doesn't meant that they have enough evidence to prosecute. If you had proof of bribery, you wouldn't bring suit; the government would under anti-racketeering laws. Section 1983 is reserved for when a gov't actor commits a criminal act under color of law, ie. they use their position to commit a crime against you personally. It is not enough to say you suffered a remote injury. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 17:30 | history | edited | Jason Aller | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor format issues, turned quote into quote
|
| Jan 17, 2016 at 16:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 31, 2016 at 18:34 | |||||
| Jan 17, 2016 at 16:13 | comment | added | cpast | @SkyLeach Your question is really too general -- you keep talking about "these circumstances," but it's unclear what exactly you mean. What law would you seek to have enforced? If you have a specific example in mind and we're guessing, it doesn't really work. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 13:28 | history | edited | feetwet♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
More useful title; clarified content
|
| Jan 17, 2016 at 12:18 | history | edited | SkyLeach | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 485 characters in body
|
| Jan 17, 2016 at 12:05 | comment | added | SkyLeach | @cpast while this does indeed appear to protect prosecutors, it also appears to be a loophole for counties to work around the 14th amendment. Thus I believe you are correct, but I think there may be a real case for suing the county itself under these conditions. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 8:23 | comment | added | cpast | @SkyLeach Almost certainly not. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute for many reasons, including "the interests of justice would not be served." In fact, they have a duty to use their discretion to seek justice rather than seek convictions wherever possible. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 8:07 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 18:47 | comment | added | SkyLeach | Excellent. So I may have a case if the DA refuses to prosecute for any reason other than lack of evidence? (note the stress of may. How the case is refused will, of course, matter). | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 18:45 | comment | added | Viktor | any entity with personhood can be prosecuted. Typically a successful prosecutor results in fines and could potentially have the company seized by the government. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 18:36 | comment | added | SkyLeach | The foundation of the precedent was, of course, the SC headnote in (118 U.S. 394). However built upon that precedent is a clear chain of establishment for criminal liability of 'legal personhood', none of which apply directly but all of which establish the legal precedent that legal personhood is extended to criminal law. I am proposing an argument that if a human being would be prosecuted for the crime, but a legal entity would not, that the rights of the human being have been violated under the 14th amendment. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 18:10 | comment | added | Viktor | Please cite specifically what you read. Also you can't show a lack of equal protection if the authority does not enforce the law at all. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 18:08 | comment | added | SkyLeach | @Viktor actually I did a little research on this. In this case the entity wouldn't matter because the US ammendment for equal protection extended to 'person' already has clear precedent established as being applied to all legal entities where criminal activity is established. Thus equal protection should extend to person vs. legal entity. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 17:58 | comment | added | SkyLeach | @Viktor now see that's a very good observation. Let's run with that. How would one go about showing that there is no equal protection? (in the context of the hypothetical scenario of types of legal entity as opposed to groups of people) | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 17:54 | comment | added | Viktor | Unless you can show there is no equal protection, like they enforce the law for one group of people and not another. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 17:54 | comment | added | Viktor | They don't have such a duty. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 17:48 | history | edited | SkyLeach | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 705 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2016 at 17:32 | comment | added | SkyLeach |
@Viktor thank you for your reply. I do realize that prosecutions are discretionary. I am exploring the possibility of a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 in which personal injury is caused by failure to prosecute in violation of the right to legal redress of grievances. In effect, proving that liberty has been violated by refusal to enforce law to the detriment of the plaintiff.
|
|
| Jan 16, 2016 at 17:12 | comment | added | Viktor | All prosecutions are discretionary. No legal requirement for a prosecutor to actually decide to prosecute that specific case. 42 U.S.C. 1983 is meant to be used when a government agent deprives you of an actual right. Having them prosecute someone is not covered. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 16:40 | history | edited | SkyLeach | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 16, 2016 at 16:20 | history | asked | SkyLeach | CC BY-SA 3.0 |