Supreme Court May Reassess Prosecutorial Immunity, Says Sotomayor

In a recent opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, which often shields prosecutors from accountability for misconduct. This call to action arises from the case of Nickie Miller, a Kentucky man wrongfully implicated in a murder plot by Natasha Martin, who later recanted her testimony, claiming coercion and threats. Miller's experience highlights the severe consequences of prosecutorial actions, as he suffered health setbacks during his wrongful imprisonment. Miller's legal battle against prosecutor Craycraft was met with a district court ruling that granted absolute immunity, despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit acknowledging the troubling nature of Craycraft's alleged misconduct. Sotomayor expressed concern over the implications of protecting such behavior under absolute immunity, particularly when it involves advising a witness to destroy evidence, which she described as "stunning" and unbecoming of a prosecutor. The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, established in the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman, allows for limited exceptions if a prosecutor's actions fall outside their official duties. This was exemplified in the case of Priscilla Lefebure, who sued prosecutor Samuel C. D'Aquilla for sabotaging her rape case. Lefebure argued that D'Aquilla's failures were investigative missteps, not protected prosecutorial actions, suggesting a potential pathway for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to seek justice. Sotomayor's remarks signal a critical moment for the Supreme Court to evaluate the balance between prosecutorial immunity and accountability, particularly in cases where misconduct leads to severe consequences for innocent individuals.