Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill From: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: arrested.. bummer Message-ID: <635@sigma.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 20:57:29 EST Article-I.D.: sigma.635 Posted: Tue Mar 4 20:57:29 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 08:11:22 EST References: <554@varian.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) Lines: 44 In article <554@varian.UUCP> fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) writes: >>[...] The laws in this State (I had to look them up [...]) 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 [...] >>can perjure themselves with complete impunity. This is happening [...] >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. [...] Fred, This refers to a suit against employees of the state who have overstepped their bounds. I am not sure if that is civil or criminal. What I do know is that (in this case) the State initiated its actions on the flimsiest evidence, and even that is highly questionable, since the "worker" on this case has been found to have "manufactured" evidence before. I do not know why nothing was done, but the files are sealed on that case, the defence attorney won't talk about the case, and neither will the defendent, claiming he's suffered enough from this (and he probably has!). >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. >[...] >Would the original poster of the article please check that this is indeed >protection only from civil, and not criminal, action. [...] OK. Here is what it _says_: (1) Any person participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this chapter or testifying as to alleged in a judicial proceeding shall in so doing be immune from any liability arising out of such reporting or testifying under any law of this state or its political subdivisions. Great. I will even point out that item "in good faith". Why then, when the evidence was found to be manufactured by the State's own people, did the judge seal the files? Why weren't they prosecuted? The _intent_ is clear, but it seems the practice makes the law as worthless as the paper it's written on! This doesn't sound like the State of Washington is acting "in good faith". --