Enjoyed reading your post! A persuasive argument for avoiding absolute immunity could be made by distinguishing the Florida case from Van de Kamp. The discriminatory policy in Florida is explicitly unconstitutional and directly targets a specific group, whereas the policy in Van de Kamp was about a failure to train and supervise prosecutors, which indirectly affected defendants. By arguing that the Florida prosecutor's policy is fundamentally different from the policy in Van de Kamp, you may be able to convince a court that the Florida case falls outside the scope of absolute immunity. Nonetheless, this argument would be an uphill battle, as the legal precedent strongly supports the application of absolute immunity in cases like this one. I'd give it a try though. Attorney Ron Cromer - Michigan
I think the blatant unconstitutionality of the policy is the underlying thing that will make a court want to conclude that this is outside of the prosecutorial functions, but I don't think the outrageousness can be the actual argument. Brady/Giglio violations are constitutional violations the same way that racial discrimination is a constitutional violation. Absolute immunity cases often have the REALLY BAD stuff happening, like judges accepting bribes.
Enjoyed reading your post! A persuasive argument for avoiding absolute immunity could be made by distinguishing the Florida case from Van de Kamp. The discriminatory policy in Florida is explicitly unconstitutional and directly targets a specific group, whereas the policy in Van de Kamp was about a failure to train and supervise prosecutors, which indirectly affected defendants. By arguing that the Florida prosecutor's policy is fundamentally different from the policy in Van de Kamp, you may be able to convince a court that the Florida case falls outside the scope of absolute immunity. Nonetheless, this argument would be an uphill battle, as the legal precedent strongly supports the application of absolute immunity in cases like this one. I'd give it a try though. Attorney Ron Cromer - Michigan
I think the blatant unconstitutionality of the policy is the underlying thing that will make a court want to conclude that this is outside of the prosecutorial functions, but I don't think the outrageousness can be the actual argument. Brady/Giglio violations are constitutional violations the same way that racial discrimination is a constitutional violation. Absolute immunity cases often have the REALLY BAD stuff happening, like judges accepting bribes.