The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue
Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Imbler v. Pachtman

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

In 1961, Morris Hasson, a Los Angeles grocery store manager, was shot and killed during a robbery attempt. Paul Imbler was convicted of the murder after three eyewitnesses identified him as the gunman. After the trial, the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Richard Pachtman, wrote to the Governor of California and described newly discovered evidence that undermined the testimony of one of the eyewitnesses. In light of the letter, Imbler challenged his incarceration in state court, where his petition was denied, and later in federal court. The federal district court found that Pachtman had knowingly used false testimony during the trial and suppressed evidence favorable to Imbler, so the district court ordered Imbler released from prison. Imbler then filed an action against Pachtman in federal court under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows a party to recover damages from any person who acts “under color of state law” to deprive another of a constitutional right. The district court held that Pachtman was immune for civil liability for acts done in his capacity as prosecutor and dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on appeal.

Questions

  1. Does a prosecutor have absolute immunity from civil liability for actions taken within the scope of his duties in bringing and pursuing a criminal prosecution?

Conclusions

  1. Yes. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that prosecutors have the same absolute immunity under Section 1983 that they had under common law in malicious prosecution suits. In both situations, there are similar public policy concerns related to the need for prosecutorial independence. The Court declined to consider whether a prosecutor was entitled to similar level of immunity for actions taken in the role of an administrator or investigator.

    Justice Byron R. White wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that a prosecutor is absolutely immune for the knowing or reckless presentation of false testimony, but that absolute immunity should not shield claims against a prosecutor for the unconstitutional suppression of evidence. Justice White argued that the denial of immunity would encourage prosecutors to turn over more information than necessary, which would be beneficial to the judicial process overall. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined the opinion concurring in the judgment.