The Right to Not Be Framed

Monday's Washington Post reported that "Iowa prosecutors hoping to persuade the Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit against them for allegedly fabricating evidence that led to the 25-year incarceration of two innocent men," opened their brief with this astonishing claim: "There is no Freestanding Constitutional 'Right Not To Be Framed.'"

Today, the Supreme heard arguments in the case, reported by the New York Times. To a non-lawyer, like myself, it's amazing that the proposition should even be subject to litigation. After all, aren't prosecutors expected (by statute in most states) to seek truth and justice? How could seeking truth and justice ever be consistent with the notion that framing an innocent defendant is not a violation of due process?

The bizarre reasoning of the prosecutors facing consequences for framing two innocent men is that they are entitled to absolute immunity, not only for their conduct at trial, but also for conduct leading up to trial. Lawyer Stephen Sanders, arguing on behalf of the prosecutors, claimed ''If a prosecutor's absolute immunity in judicial proceedings means anything, it means that a prosecutor may not be sued because a trial has ended in a conviction.''

According to the report in the Times, some justices seemed to side with Chief Justice John Roberts who said, "We're concerned about the chilling effect on prosecutors."

I suspect most reading this will think that prosecutors should take a chill, should think again, should resist the temptation, should back off, should reconsider, should think about the oath they took to seek truth and justice....instead of framing an innocent defendant.

Not being considered in the case is the responsibility the errant prosecutors carry for letting the real perpetrator of the crime get away with it.