Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!dual!qantel!vlsvax1!zehntel!zinfandel!varian!fred
From: fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: arrested.. bummer
Message-ID: <554@varian.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 17:33:06 EST
Article-I.D.: varian.554
Posted: Mon Feb 24 17:33:06 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 18:51:23 EST
References: <741@brl-smoke.ARPA> <39400015@uiucdcs> <614@sigma.UUCP>
Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 56

> 
> I have an acquaintance here in Washington State who is falsely accused of
> a felony. The laws in this State (I had to look them up to believe it - it's
> incredible!) grant anybody "participating in the investigation and prosecution
> of" this particular crime complete and total immunity against prosecution by
> the defendent, for anything they do! This means that anybody who doesn't
> like you (or who has any other motive) can perjure themselves with complete
> impunity. This is happening to my acquaintance.
> 
> This law causes a lot of procedural laziness throughout the system,
> including the police. In this case (and probably many others) they grabbed
> the first possible suspect without doing a decent investigation first. And
> why not? It's less work to try to fit the facts to the suspect, especially
> since he can't sue for damages afterwards if found not guilty. Besides,
> extra convictions mean more money in next year's budget!

I assume since you say prosecution "by the defendant" you are refering to civil
suits, not the swearing out of a criminal complaint which is subsequently
prosecuted by the *state* after the determination of sufficient cause.  If this
is the case, its not nearly as terrible as you allege.  I cannot believe
that false arrest (that is arrest without demonstrable cause) and perjury in
a court of law are legal in Washington State.  These acts are *criminal* 
offenses in all legal systems I've had experience with, meaning the state will
prosecute and imprison persons guilty of those acts.  

What I suspect to be the case in Washington is that 
the law protects public officials from being *sued*
by every person who is acquited in court.  Having been officially declared 
"not guilty" for whatever reason they could turn around and sue for being
falsely arrested.  Suits have nothing to so with 
criminal prosecution.  Most states have some variant of that law.  Without
it, considering the arrest to conviction ratio, the police 
would spend all their spare time in civil court!  (Of course this may be
the way to at last bring about the long-awaited "professionalization" of
the police--  the mark of a true American professional is having a 
huge malpractice insurance premium.)

United States rules of evidence are the strictest in the world.  I think
you would be hard pressed to find any police officer or prosecutor who
feels that the system permits alot of "procedural laziness".  It is the
reponsibility of the state to prove guilt, not for the defendant to prove
innocence.  In reality, of course, if the state enters into a conspiracy 
to present purgerers as witnesses (as may the case here), the defense
will have to present enough counter-witnesses to put a "reasonable doubt"
in the minds of the jury (or judge, in a bench trial).  This would force
the defense to do the investigations the police should have done, as
you point out.

Having said all that, I'm sure its very difficult in most cases to pursue
a criminal case against a police investigator.  To get it before the grand
jury requires the District Attorney to present it and he may well be in-
volved also!

Would the original poster of the article please check that this is indeed
protection only from civil, and not criminal, action.  If its not I think
it violates about a thousand federal laws.