United Liberty

Did that title catch you off guard?  When I read that those words came from U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, I was surprised as well.

Last week, I was party to a political conversation with several others that included the subject of the death penalty and stricter mandatory sentencing for first offense felonies.  When I was among the few dissenters as those issues made their way through our conversation, some of the others questioned why I was “being soft on crime.”  After explaining that I think that there are far too many instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct in investigations and trials where new evidence, recanted testimony, or the introduction of DNA evidence exonerates an innocent man or women, I was no longer seen as “soft on crime.”  I am sure that my explanation did not sway a complete shift in the positions of the others conversing, they now have another perspective on the American criminal justice system.

This story further solidifies my stance that today’s justice system is one that seems to have a growing trend of police and prosecutors closing cases and padding statistics rather than ensuring the person jailed is the right person.  In a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Council Bluffs, Iowa prosecutors contend that their misconduct, which includes knowingly withholding evidence that pointed to a different (and white) suspect and relying on a known “liar and perjurer” in a case against two young black men over thirty years ago, should be immune from civil liability.  The official position of these Iowa prosecutors, backed by the federal government and other prosecutors nationwide, is that citizens have no expectation not to be framed by them.

The specifics of this case center around the conviction of Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee.  Both men served twenty five years of a life sentence following their conviction for the murder of a retired police officer that they did not commit.  In the case, prosecutors used the “eyewitness” testimony of a sixteen year old arrested in a stolen vehicle that failed a polygraph, incorrectly identified the scene of the crime, fingered to other men prior to Harrington and McGhee, and incorrectly identified the weapon used as a handgun, then 20 gauge shotgun, and finally a 12-gauge shotgun.  Police records in the case showed that police and prosecutors coached the witness’ story to match the facts, coerced other witnesses into lying, and dropped an investigation into a man seen near the scene wielding a shotgun, as it was easier for them to convict the two young black men of the crime.

After the Iowa Supreme Court overturned their convictions based on those records and the testimony recanted by the other witnesses, Harrington and McGhee sought to file suit against the prosecutors in the case who framed them by using the aforementioned testimony and withholding evidence in the trial, rather than pursuing a white suspect who also happened to be the fire chief’s brother-in-law.  Rather than attending Yale on a football scholarship, Harrington spent his final teen year, his twenties, his thirties and then some in prison.

Previously, the Supreme Court granted absolute immunity to prosecutors for any action after a grand jury returns an indictment, but Harrington and McGhee contend that prosecutors worked alongside police gathering evidence before charges were filed against the pair.  Personally, I find any misconduct detrimental to the lives of innocent men abhorrent, but the precedent is what it is.  Ultimately, this case comes down to defining the line between investigation and trial, but regardless of the outcome, neither Terry Harrington nor Curtis McGhee will be able to live the lives meant for them, lives that were stolen by the prosecutors looking to close a murder case by pinning it on two black boys from across state lines.  Justice in America.