Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to disclose information to defendants that could help establish their innocence. But there’s a big debate in criminal justice circles about when police misconduct allegations in unrelated cases fall under that requirement.

Contrast that with Prosecutorial immunity

>Prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights, and this willful misconduct results in an innocent person spending decades behind bars for a crime of which they are subsequently exonerated—the prosecutor remains immune from civil liability.[0]

What incentive do they have to provide the evidence? If prosecutor happens to be caught hiding evidence the remedy is dropped charges nothing more. They'll move onto the next case and do the exact same thing.

[0] https://fedsoc.org/events/prosecutorial-immunity

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity



I assume they can still be disbarred for professional misconduct.

In general the justice system seems to have extensive functionality built to prevent its inner workings from facing the kind of personal liability that everyone else faces.


There are two extremes: (a) hiding evidence that helps defendants; (b) prosecutorial discretion to help their allies by not pressing charges. One may get disbarred for(a); however, no one gets disbarred for (b).


They can. As in, it is a possibility contemplated, and almost never implemented.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: