Supreme Court to hear appeal in immunity case
Los Angeles prosecutors are urging justices to overrule the 9th Circuit's decision allowing a man who was wrongly convicted of murder to sue the case supervisors.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, agreeing today to hear an appeal from prosecutors in Los Angeles, said it will decide whether a district attorney can be sued for an alleged managerial failure that led to a wrongful conviction.
The case tests the long-standing rule that prosecutors have an "absolute immunity" from lawsuits for their courtroom actions. The rule is needed, the high court has said, so prosecutors can bring charges without fear they will be sued later.
But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco cleared the way for Thomas L. Goldstein, who was wrongly convicted of murder, to sue former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. John Van de Kamp.
The suit did not allege that Van de Kamp played a key role in Goldstein being charged with murder in a 1979 shooting in Long Beach. Rather, it alleged that Van de Kamp and his top deputies permitted the widespread use of jailhouse informants, some of whom had lied repeatedly on the witness stand.
In Goldstein's case, a three-time felon was put on the witness stand to testify that he had heard Goldstein confess to the murder when they were together in a holding cell. The trial prosecutor at the time was not aware that the informant had been promised special treatment by another official if he testified against Goldstein.
In its decision, the 9th Circuit said the "absolute immunity" rule protected prosecutors when bringing charges in court, but it did not shield them from lawsuits that involve managerial duties.
But lawyers for Los Angeles County said this exception would swallow the rule. They urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and to overrule the 9th Circuit. If the 9th Circuit's decision were to stand, they said in their appeal, it would "open the floodgates" to lawsuits against district attorneys and other supervisors for alleged managerial lapses.
The California District Attorneys Assn. and the National District Attorneys Assn. also urged the court to take up the case.
Goldstein countered that chief prosecutors had a duty to disclose the promises that were given to jailhouse informants, and Los Angeles County officials failed to carry out that duty. "This is about accountability," he said.
Today, the justices said they had voted to hear the case of Van de Kamp vs. Goldstein. Oral arguments will be scheduled for the fall.
david.savage@latimes.com
