Absolute Immunity, Total Fuckery

It's SO not fair to hold government officials accountable

Given...certain recent events, there might be a renewed interest in discussing what redress (if any) we might have when a prosecutor misbehaves. Billy Binion of Reason Magazine tackled one of my favorite hobby horses in a highly recommended feature article: Absolute Immunity Puts Prosecutors Above the Law

I've written about the problem of having government officials with no accountability, from the standpoint of Seattle officials deleting evidence and within the context of the doomed over-prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse. Nobody voluntarily seeks accountability when they don't have to, and so there's nothing surprising about the state, with its purported monopoly on violence, choosing to shield one of their viceroys. If you have any interest in fixing this oversight, one of the problems you'll encounter (as I wrote in the APAB post) is how selective the outrage is. Except for the principled civil libertarians screaming into the void, no one else cares about a leopard's diet until the moment the first layer of facial epidermis is being torn off.

Let's set the scene by highlighting Binion's main example:

When a storm flooded Baton Rouge in 2016, Priscilla Lefebure took shelter with her cousin and her cousin's husband, Barrett Boeker, an assistant warden at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. During her stay at her cousin's house on the prison grounds, Lefebure later reported, Boeker raped her twice—first in front of a mirror so she would have to watch, and again days later with a foreign object.

Lefebure's allegations led to a yearslong court battle—not against her accused rapist but against District Attorney Samuel C. D'Aquilla, who seemed determined to make sure that Boeker was never indicted. As the chief prosecutor for West Feliciana Parish, which includes Angola, D'Aquilla sabotaged the case before it began.

When a grand jury considered Lefebure's charges, D'Aquilla declined to present the results of a medical exam that found bruises, redness, and irritation on Lefebure's legs, arms, and cervix. Instead, he offered a police report with his own handwritten notes, which aimed to highlight discrepancies in her story. D'Aquilla opted not to call as witnesses the two investigators on the case, the nurse who took Lefebure's rape kit, or the coroner who stored it. And he refused to meet or speak with Lefebure at all, telling local news outlets he was "uncomfortable" doing so.

After that fiasco, Lefebure sued Samuel D'Aquilla in federal court, saying Boeker falsely claimed his encounters with her were consensual and sought D'Aquilla's assistance in blocking rape charges. According to the lawsuit, D'Aquilla was happy to help. Lefebure accused D'Aquilla of violating her rights to equal protection and due process by deliberately crippling her case against Boeker.

Lefebure's lawsuit against D'Aquilla bounced around for several years before getting denied on the theory that as a prosecutor, D'Aquilla enjoyed absolute legal immunity. If you want to get away with raping someone, it's a boon to have friends in high places that can pull some levers for you. Even better if this friend can get caught pulling levers and nevertheless retain absolute legal immunity for pulling said levers.

Absolute immunity is exactly what it says on the tin, it's absolute. Even though the federal law §1983 allows a lawsuit against "every person", the courts over the years responded with a litany of "well it doesn't really mean that":

The Supreme Court announced the doctrine of absolute immunity for prosecutors in the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman. The Court ruled that a man who had spent years in prison could not sue a prosecutor who allegedly withheld evidence that ultimately exonerated him. The justices approvingly quoted a sentiment that Learned Hand expressed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in 1949: "It has been thought better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation."

I have to admit there is a kernel of reasonableness within this doctrine. Attorneys can be subject to discipline by their licensing authority if it receives a complaint, and probably to nobody's surprise the two fields of law that combined generate almost half of all bar complaints are criminal law and family law (the latter is toxic for its own reasons). I've said before that my clients have almost always done the thing they're accused of, but if you take some of my more sociopathic convicts at their word, it's everyone else's fault. Of course. The only reason they got convicted is because their lawyer sucked, or the judge was biased, or the prosecutor was evil, or whatever. And so on. People sitting in prison have nothing to do, which is why almost a quarter of all federal lawsuits are filed pro se by prisoners. Bar complaints follow a similar pattern.

As a public defender, it's not a matter of if you'll get a bar complaint, but rather when and I've already had a couple myself. Theoretically, it would be dreadful to have to deal with the spectre of retaliation from unhappy defendants that Learned Hand warned about, but all my complaints were summarily dismissed without my input. There is so much garbage shoveled in by bored inmates that a fatigue miasma sets in over the entire disciplinary field. Almost nobody involves takes anything seriously, including potentially some of the meritorious ones. There goes yet another one whining about their rights being violated, sure.

When federal judge Richard Posner retired from the bench in 2017, he cited serious concerns with the deplorable way his fellow judges treated pro se lawsuits. It's that fatigue again, and according to Posner the judges came up with as many roadblocks and technicalities to ensure the definition of a line to be the shortest distance between a pro se lawsuit and the recycling bin. True to his word, he did set up an organization to offer free legal counseling to pro se litigants, only to quickly shut it down after they were drowning with overwhelming demand.

You can see an illustration of how the assembly line shredder plays out in this case out of Louisiana. In the middle of a misdemeanor trial, the judge granted a "mistrial" to help the prosecutor come back with felony charges. This is as crystal clear a textbook violation of the double jeopardy clause as you can get, but every single state appellate judge (who are also protected by absolute immunity) just kept rubber stamping 'DENIED' without providing any explanation. This defendant was lucky enough to actually have a lawyer handle his appeal and he eventually won after sitting in prison for only 840 days. On paper, 28 USC §1657 states that criminal conviction appeals must be expedited. In reality, fuck you. The federal judges on this appeal took their sweet time, and apparently saw nothing wrong with dealing with civil matters first. It's yet another criminal complaining about his rights. Ho-hum.

The reasons SCOTUS outlined in Imbler v. Pachtman in favor of giving prosecutors absolute immunity was a generalized concern that if prosecutors had to worry about personal liability, they might avoid presenting relevant evidence as a pre-emptive precaution. Further, judges dealing with post-conviction appeals might have their focus "blurred by even the subconscious knowledge that a post-trial decision in favor of the accused might result in the prosecutor's being called upon to respond in damages for his error or mistaken judgment". If the way bar complaints and pro se petitions are treated today is any indication, it's not obvious to me that any floodgates would open here. The system already knows how to use a garbage can.

It's also not clear that the purported justification even matters here when the doctrine is blatantly self-serving. You can't sue judges and prosecutors for misconduct because fuck you that's why. Maybe the other reason this doctrine remains is that it's a Faustian bargain. Similar to the justifications for Qualified Immunity, occasionally putting our blindfolds on when an emissary of the sovereign commits a sin is just the price we pay for our undisturbed slumber. Our legal system promises equal treatment under the law, at least on paper. If we can't be selective about allowing only the Right People to pursue legal vindication against our esteemed pillars of the courtroom, it might potentially be used to help actual criminals. And we can't have that, can we?