tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post8120090404494092467..comments2024-01-25T14:51:13.377-05:00Comments on Gamso - For the Defense: ConsequenceJeff Gamsohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-82804222372843616702015-06-15T09:07:55.126-04:002015-06-15T09:07:55.126-04:00Of course, it doesn't matter whether he "...Of course, it doesn't matter whether he "believed" Graves to be guilty or innocent, the only question is whether he DELIBERATELY lied, cheated, fabricated evidence, suborned perjury and hid exculpatory evidence, etc., in which case he violated Graves' federal due process rights by a line of cases going back to 1935's Mooney v. Holohan. Since there was a trial here, the violation would be straightforward and unarguable no matter what Sebesta subjectively believed about Graves' guilt or innocence.<br /><br />Disbarring the prosecutor, or prosecuting the prosecutor, doesn't do anything for Graves, but I guess it makes other judges and prosecutors feel better about themselves, although that's not a good thing. We should all be ashamed of what happened here.<br /><br />Absolute immunity has been such a terrible idea. I agree that making them lose is important; but in my view it's even more important to make them pay. It won't be them paying personally, of course, it will be the municipality or the state or some insurance company or a combination of all three, but that's even better because that would start to affect the institutional culture at some point. When large amounts of institutional money have to be paid out because of certain kinds of misconduct, the powers that be take a serious interest in curbing that kind of misconduct. Absent that, you're likely to get empty gestures at best, and that's what the disbarment really is.<br /><br />And making them pay would also compensate Graves, who is absolutely entitled to be compensated handsomely.<br /><br />It's a win-win, and except for that pesky absolute immunity doctrine that's probably how things would pan out.John Reganhttp://strikelawyer.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-12188671754932167042015-06-14T20:40:15.771-04:002015-06-14T20:40:15.771-04:00He's got absolute civil immunity (an invention...He's got absolute civil immunity (an invention by the Supreme Court) for everything he did as a prosecutor. And lying and suborning perjury and hiding exculpatory evidence are things he did as a prosecutor. A few years ago, the Supremes were looking into taking up the question of whether a prosecutor might be liable for intentionally framing a person he knew to be innocent. The case settled and they dismissed it without ever exploring the merits. As far as I know (and there could certainly be things I don't know), there's no evidence that Sebesta actually believed Graves was innocent when he was securing his conviction and death sentence. In fact, he still seems to believe Graves was guilty, though I could be reading too much into his protestations that he did nothing wrong when I say that.<br /><br />As for criminal penalties, for whole bunches of reasons, legal and quasi-political, almost certainly not.<br /><br />So yes, you're correct.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-85619789932724703552015-06-14T19:11:24.979-04:002015-06-14T19:11:24.979-04:00Jeff, I am most likely correct in the assumption t...Jeff, I am most likely correct in the assumption that Sebesta will suffer no civil or criminal penalties beyond this disbarment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com