James@smoke.ARPA (02/08/86)
It is unfortunate that the error occured, but what do you want out of bringing this suit against the city? Money? Revenge? A sincere apology? If you want to correct the situation by bringing public attention to it, then I my thoughts are with you and good luck. If you are doing it for the money, I feel sad for you. In either case I think you should get the best lawyer possible. Jim
JBS%DEEP-THOUGHT@mit-eddie.arpa (Jeff Siegal) (02/08/86)
There are reasons for suing for monitary (sp?) damages. Not being a lawyer, I can't say whether this is legally valid, but common sense says that getting a judgement against the city will tend to make the government less careless when dealing which such things....which, in effect, protects us from such stupid harassment. Jeff Siegal -------
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/10/86)
> If you want to correct the situation by bringing public attention to > it, then I my thoughts are with you and good luck. If you are doing > it for the money, I feel sad for you. In either case I think you > should get the best lawyer possible. The arrest cost him something (time, embarrassment, peace of mind), even if he lost no money. If someone had stolen money from him, and he sued to recover this money, would you feel sad because he was "doing it for the money"? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Hideously disfigured by Indian curse? We can help! Call (511) 338-0959 for an appointment."
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (02/17/86)
In article <39400015@uiucdcs> mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >>If you want to correct the situation by bringing public attention [...] >>In either case I think you should get the best lawyer possible. >The arrest cost him something (time, embarrassment, peace of mind), even >if he lost no money. [...] Scott McEwan Actually, he is rather fortunate in that he CAN sue! I have an acquaintance here in Washington State who is falsely accused of a felony. The laws in this State (I had to look them up to believe it - it's incredible!) grant anybody "participating in the investigation and prosecution of" this particular crime complete and total immunity against prosecution by the defendent, for anything they do! This means that anybody who doesn't like you (or who has any other motive) can perjure themselves with complete impunity. This is happening to my acquaintance. In fact, it turns out that one of the state-employed professionals on this case has been caught coaching witnesses to commit perjury on the witness stand before. The only thing the judge did was to throw the case out of court and seal the files!! Not even a slap on the wrist or a reprimand! Naturally, this tells that "professional" that he can do what he damn well pleases, and he is doing it! This law causes a lot of procedural laziness throughout the system, including the police. In this case (and probably many others) they grabbed the first possible suspect without doing a decent investigation first. And why not? It's less work to try to fit the facts to the suspect, especially since he can't sue for damages afterwards if found not guilty. Besides, extra convictions mean more money in next year's budget! My acquaintance now has to do all the investigative work that the police should have done, paid out of his own pocket, or go to prison. P.S. I should add that bills have been presented to the Washington State legislature to correct these laws. The politicos killed them last week, because there wasn't any money for the State in them. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what your country can do to you!" --
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (02/25/86)
> > I have an acquaintance here in Washington State who is falsely accused of > a felony. The laws in this State (I had to look them up to believe it - it's > incredible!) grant anybody "participating in the investigation and prosecution > of" this particular crime complete and total immunity against prosecution by > the defendent, for anything they do! This means that anybody who doesn't > like you (or who has any other motive) can perjure themselves with complete > impunity. This is happening to my acquaintance. > > This law causes a lot of procedural laziness throughout the system, > including the police. In this case (and probably many others) they grabbed > the first possible suspect without doing a decent investigation first. And > why not? It's less work to try to fit the facts to the suspect, especially > since he can't sue for damages afterwards if found not guilty. Besides, > extra convictions mean more money in next year's budget! I assume since you say prosecution "by the defendant" you are refering to civil suits, not the swearing out of a criminal complaint which is subsequently prosecuted by the *state* after the determination of sufficient cause. If this is the case, its not nearly as terrible as you allege. I cannot believe that false arrest (that is arrest without demonstrable cause) and perjury in a court of law are legal in Washington State. These acts are *criminal* offenses in all legal systems I've had experience with, meaning the state will prosecute and imprison persons guilty of those acts. What I suspect to be the case in Washington is that the law protects public officials from being *sued* by every person who is acquited in court. Having been officially declared "not guilty" for whatever reason they could turn around and sue for being falsely arrested. Suits have nothing to so with criminal prosecution. Most states have some variant of that law. Without it, considering the arrest to conviction ratio, the police would spend all their spare time in civil court! (Of course this may be the way to at last bring about the long-awaited "professionalization" of the police-- the mark of a true American professional is having a huge malpractice insurance premium.) United States rules of evidence are the strictest in the world. I think you would be hard pressed to find any police officer or prosecutor who feels that the system permits alot of "procedural laziness". It is the reponsibility of the state to prove guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence. In reality, of course, if the state enters into a conspiracy to present purgerers as witnesses (as may the case here), the defense will have to present enough counter-witnesses to put a "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury (or judge, in a bench trial). This would force the defense to do the investigations the police should have done, as you point out. Having said all that, I'm sure its very difficult in most cases to pursue a criminal case against a police investigator. To get it before the grand jury requires the District Attorney to present it and he may well be in- volved also! Would the original poster of the article please check that this is indeed protection only from civil, and not criminal, action. If its not I think it violates about a thousand federal laws.
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/05/86)
In article <554@varian.UUCP> fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) writes: >>[...] The laws in this State (I had to look them up [...]) grant >>anybody "participating in the investigation and prosecution of" >>this particular crime complete and total immunity against prosecution >>by the defendent, for anything they do! This means that anybody [...] >>can perjure themselves with complete impunity. This is happening [...] >I assume since you say prosecution "by the defendant" you are refering to >civil suits, not the swearing out of a criminal complaint which is >subsequently prosecuted by the *state* after the determination of sufficient >cause. [...] Fred, This refers to a suit against employees of the state who have overstepped their bounds. I am not sure if that is civil or criminal. What I do know is that (in this case) the State initiated its actions on the flimsiest evidence, and even that is highly questionable, since the "worker" on this case has been found to have "manufactured" evidence before. I do not know why nothing was done, but the files are sealed on that case, the defence attorney won't talk about the case, and neither will the defendent, claiming he's suffered enough from this (and he probably has!). >What I suspect to be the case in Washington is that the law protects >public officials from being *sued* by every person who is acquited in court. >[...] >Would the original poster of the article please check that this is indeed >protection only from civil, and not criminal, action. [...] OK. Here is what it _says_: (1) Any person participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this chapter or testifying as to alleged <crime> in a judicial proceeding shall in so doing be immune from any liability arising out of such reporting or testifying under any law of this state or its political subdivisions. Great. I will even point out that item "in good faith". Why then, when the evidence was found to be manufactured by the State's own people, did the judge seal the files? Why weren't they prosecuted? The _intent_ is clear, but it seems the practice makes the law as worthless as the paper it's written on! This doesn't sound like the State of Washington is acting "in good faith". --
wrf@degas.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (W. Randolph Franklin) (03/05/86)
There was a similar (same?) case mentioned in Newsweek a while back
involving, if I remember rightly, child abuse at a daycare center. The
amount of evidence needed to lay this type of charge compares
unfavorably to the amount of evidence used in Salem Mass in 1692. In
this current case a caseworker was found to have manufactured evidence
but nothing was done beyond the charges being dropped.
-----
Wm. Randolph Franklin, UC Berkeley,
Arpanet: wrf@Berkeley.EDU
USPS: Computer Science Div., 543 Evans, University of California,
Berkeley CA, 94720, USA
Telephone: 415-642-9955
MCI Mail: WRFRANKLIN -- I sign on to MCI and Telex only if I am
Telex: 6501750427 -- expecting to receive a message.ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (03/08/86)
> OK. Here is what it _says_: > (1) Any person participating in good faith in the making of a report > pursuant to this chapter or testifying as to alleged <crime> in > a judicial proceeding shall in so doing be immune from any liability > arising out of such reporting or testifying under any law of this > state or its political subdivisions. As I read this, it doesn't seem to prohibit civil suits if misconduct is committed by an agent of the government. All it means is that you have to sue the municipality or state, rather than suing the individuals. This is very likely what you would want to do anyway, since (1) the government has more money, and (2) it is not necessary for you to sort out the culpability of the various individuals involved in the case. If a private individual makes false statements to the police which lead to your arrest, then you could still sue if you can prove that the person knew the statements were false. This may be hard to prove but I believe that it is a reasonable way to keep witnesses from being intimidated. Kenneth Almquist ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ka (official name) ihnp4!opus!ka (shorter path)