No Accountability for Wrongful Conviction

Who pays when a deliberately wrongful conviction takes place? A truly outrageous case:

In light of the current controversy on medical marijuana, here is a classic case of law enforcement/prosecutor overreaching just to get a conviction, then claiming immunity so that no one within the justice system is accountable.

On September 27, 2000 about 20 Plumas County, California Sheriff deputies and federal agents with camouflage clothing, ready weapons, roaring vehicles and helicopter swarmed onto the property of Joseph Robinson. They found Robinson and three friends processing marijuana. Although it was determined that all four had medical certification, they were arrested. Deputies also verified that Robinson had formally offered the California Medical Research Center Research Center to distribute Robinson’s excess marijuana to their patients.

Plumas County District Attorney James Reichle prosecuted Robinson in spite of California Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5, which states that Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.

On November 22, December 7, December 14 and December 20, 2001, when Robinson requested that Plumas County Court Officers appoint an attorney to assist Robinson, Judges Garrett Olney, Ira Kaufman and William Pangman conspired, combined and cooperated with prosecutors James Reichle, Jeff Cunan and Gary McGowan to refuse to appoint an attorney for Robinson.

On December 14, 2001, at the preliminary hearing, in spite of Penal Code Section 866.5, which states that a defendant may not be examined unless the defendant has counsel or has waived counsel, Judge Pangman and Prosecutor Cunan examined Robinson. Robinson freely admitted that he intended to distribute some of his marijuana to medical patients and justified this distribution on the ground that most people with the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes have no way other than distribution to obtain the marijuana that a physician had prescribed to ease their suffering.

On August 1, 2001, at trial, Judge Olney and Prosecutor Cunan, prevented Robinson from presenting his justification defense to the jury, in spite of California law, which states that a justification defense may be used for any act. Over Robinson’s written objection, Olney and Cunan deleted the justification part of Robinson’s unlawfully obtained preliminary hearing testimony, gave it to the jury and told them it was a confession. Olney and Cunan instructed the jury that, if they found that Robinson had intended to distribute any of his marijuana, for any purpose, they must find him guilty. The jury obeyed the judge and prosecutor. Olney and Cunan sentenced Robinson to a three-year term in state prison. Robinson appealed his conviction immediately.

On February 18, 2003, Robinson was released from prison on parole.

On March 18, 2003, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed Robinson’s conviction, ruling that the Plumas County Court officers had violated Robinson’s right to the assistance of counsel for reasons that are “without support in California law”, California Penal Code Section 866.5 and “all the rules of fair play”. The California Attorney General did not appeal to the Supreme Court. When the case was remanded back to the Plumas County Court for a fair trial, Judge Olney and Prosecutor Cunan dismissed all charges against Robinson “in the interest of justice”.

On July 4, 2004, Robinson filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court. This court refused to issue Robinson’s lawful summons for California and the Plumas County judges, proclaiming them immune. The prosecutors claimed immunity and moved to dismiss. District Court Judge Burrell dismissed Robinson’s case.

Robinson made administrative complaints to California Governor Schwarzenegger, California Attorney General Lockyer, the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the California State Bar, and the Plumas County Board of Supervisors.
Robinson made criminal complaints to the Plumas County Grand Jury, California Attorney General Lockyer and United States Attorney Mcgregor Scott. All of the aforementioned agencies and individuals acknowledged receipt of Robinson’s administrative and criminal complaints. None investigated.

Robinson’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit requests that court to resolve the following issues:

1. Do people who have been unlawfully convicted and falsely imprisoned have the right to a civil remedy? If no, why not? If yes, who pays?
2. Are judges and prosecutors in a court with subject matter jurisdiction immune from civil liability under all circumstances no matter how outrageous their conduct, without exception?
3. Are the following circumstances narrow enough to constitute an exception to judicial and prosecutorial immunity pursuant to this Court’s conclusion in Ashelman v. Pope that the exceptions to immunity must be narrowly drawn?
* Allegation of judicial/prosecutorial conspiracy to wrongfully convict and imprison a defendant through intentional violation of his right to counsel
* Post-conviction imprisonment
* Appellate court reversal of the conviction for the violation of right to counsel
* Subsequent acquittal or dismissal with prejudice of all charges
4. If not, how narrow does an exception to judicial immunity have to be?
5. Is the state liable under the foregoing circumstances?

The essential question here is: “Who Pays?”

When state judges and prosecutors violate the right to counsel to unlawfully convict and falsely imprison an individual for 567 days and then dismiss all of the charges when the case is reversed upon appeal and remitted back for a fair trial, who pays, the state, the judges and prosecutors, or the individual who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned?

In a one-page memorandum, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California, the judges and the prosecutors are all immune from civil liability to Robinson.

This ruling means that Robinson is not entitled to a civil remedy for the 567 days of false imprisonment that judges and prosecutors and the state are immune no matter how outrageous their conduct, and that the right to the assistance of counsel in a criminal prosecution and all other court-related rights have been abolished.

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)