Immunities of Prosecutors & Judges Evolves

(Ken Anderson)

We hear and see the same scenario all too often. A prosecutor and/or judge tamper with or completely disregard the evidence of a criminal proceeding where an innocent person facing charges could be fully exonerated, but at a moment's notice court officials sign a life away to prison at the command of a gavel with little to no concern for the defendant. An expression in the legal field is that "law is ever evolving."

It has been known for decades that prosecutors and judges alike enjoy the full immunities their occupations provide. Per Ashelman v. Pope, 793 E.2d 1072 (1986):

"Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine outcome of judicial proceedings."

Additionally and according to Norton v. Liddell, 620 F.2d 1375 (1980):

"Prosecutors may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred."

The enjoyment of these immunities are now under scrutiny. In re: Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Ken Anderson, 12-10930-C26 (2012), former prosecutor and judge of the State of Texas Mr. Ken Anderson has been found guilty of tampering with the evidence in a criminal proceeding where the now exonerated Mr. Michael Morton has spent 25 years of his life for a crime he insisted he never committed and of which DNA testing concluded likewise. Mr. Anderson will be relieved of his post, he is sentenced to 10 days in the Williamson County jail, he must perform 500 hours of community service, and will be disbarred from practicing law in the State of Texas evermore. Mr. Morton is now filing a civil suit against Mr. Anderson for this egregious offense.

(Robert Nelson)

Robert Nelson of the State of Missouri has also been recently exonerated after spending 30 years in prison. Court Clerk of 34 years, Sharon Snyder, assisted Mr. Nelson in filing the "proper" paperwork as Mr. Nelson spent years and filed several motions with Judge David Byrn to allow for a DNA testing. This testing concluded he had not committed the crime he was punished for. As punishment for allegedly violating Canon 7, Judge Byrn terminated Snyder. In this case, Mr. Nelson would be perfectly justified to file a complaint with the State BAR of Missouri as Mr. Byrn appears to have failed to conduct himself in a manner consistent with "good faith" where "ordinary care" is owed. The mere justification for Mr. Byrn denying DNA testing to Mr. Nelson twice before was for citing cases that did not substantiate the need for DNA testing in Mr. Byrn's "best of judgment."