US judges have decided that judges and prosecutors have complete legal immunity for anything they may do in pursuit of their duties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity

And this immunity was created out of nothing, backed by nothing. One of the front runners for president in 2020 literally argued in an appeals court that her prosecutors should have been allowed to fabricate and withhold evidence during prosecutions. Instead of being a pariah and banished from public life, there's a decent chance she'll bring this same mentality to the presidency.

I'm assuming you must be talking about Kamala Harris? Do you have a link?

"Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-ho...

This should have ended her career, as it is unforgivable. But she might be the epitome of the downside of "good ol boy" politics.

Wow. That's unconscionable. I've been involved with the legal system enough that little surprises me anymore, but that's a new one.

You have a link that's not an opinion piece? I've searched for this court case and anytime Kamala Harris is mentioned, the articles are blogs or very suspect reporting websites. Also they all have identical content, looking as if each website copy and pasted the content between themselves.

I googled the judge's name plus the name of the case and the first result was the hearing transcript.

If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velas...

I'm indifferent to her in any regard but it would be interesting to see if this gets more attention as we get closer to 2020. Seems fairly straight-forward that she was defending the right of a prosecutor to get away with fabricating evidence.

Actually no, that's not what was being argued.

They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial misconduct.

In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct.

While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable for the state to take this position.

>In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct.

no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is:

" On appeal, however, the People dispute that Murray’s misconduct was outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as it was not physically brutal.

...

According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that misconduct must be “brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a sanction of dismissal. "

May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the "People" ? :)

I agree with your position after reading the findings. Basically Kamala Harris was, acting on behalf of the state, attempting to set a precedent for physical violence being present before a client's case could be dismissed regardless of other prosecutorial misconduct.

That's not what that wikipedia article says. Do you have a source backing up your claim?

The article says that they have immunity from civil prosecution for claims arising from procedural abuses in initiating a prosecution and in stating the state's case. That doesn't sound at all the same as "complete legal immunity". By my read of that sentence, if they commit a crime, they are still liable to criminal prosecution - you just couldn't initiate a civil prosecution against them.

This is just nuts. Prosecutors have been given enormous trust and power by the people so they also should have enormous responsibility and be held to the highest standards.

Not a lawyer, but I believe this generally falls under "obstruction of justice" in the US. It appears to be a felony in most jurisdictions.

Probably tricky to prosecute though, since you would have to prove intent versus, say, incompetence.

The penalties seem pretty low too, and not correlated with the potential damage.