Wrongfully convicted, man can't sue prosecutor
Headline Legal News
The Supreme Court says a man who was wrongly convicted and spent 24 years in prison may not sue the former Los Angeles district attorney and his chief deputy for violating his civil rights.
The justices, ruling unanimously Monday, say decisions of supervising prosecutors, like the actions of prosecutors at trial, are shielded from civil lawsuits.
In this case, Thomas Goldstein was convicted of a 1979 murder on the strength of a jailhouse informant's testimony that Goldstein had confessed to the crime. The informant testified he received no benefit in return, but evidence that came to light later suggested he had struck a deal to get a lighter sentence.
Goldstein sued former District Attorney John K. Van de Kamp and his former chief deputy, Curt Livesay, claiming that as managers they had a policy of relying on jailhouse informants even though it sometimes led to false evidence.
In this case, the federal appeals court in San Francisco said Van de Kamp and Livesay did not enjoy the absolute immunity from lawsuits that is given to prosecutors because they were acting as administrators, not prosecutors, in failing to put in place a system that would allow information about informants to be shared in their office.
The case is Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 07-854.
Related listings
-
ACLU Challenges Gov't Secrecy in the False Claims Act
Headline Legal News 01/20/2009The federal government has been defrauded of billions of dollars in hundreds of cases it has sealed under the False Claims Act, the ACLU claims in Federal Court. "The result of the secrecy provisions is that the federal court system is home to an ent...
-
Hollywood Firm Dreier Trying to Sever Ties
Headline Legal News 01/07/2009A top Hollywood law firm is quietly but doggedly trying to sever ties with its New York owner in the wake of his arrest on financial fraud charges. Santa Monica-based Dreier Stein, the 40-attorney outpost of Dreier Llp. and home to well-known enterta...
-
Holocaust Survivors' Class Action Dismissed
Headline Legal News 01/05/2009A federal judge dismissed Holocaust survivors' class-action claim that the Republic of France and its railroad company stole thousands of Jews' property as they were being deported to Nazi-run concentration camps. "(T)he court concludes that the boun...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.