In Los Angeles, a bad hair day is worse than anywhere else in the country.  So when the LA Timesargues that expecting prosecutors to handles the administrative function of their office at least as well as the basic car rental shop is too much of a burden, and accuses federal judges of “hair splitting,” it’s quite a dig.

The suit by Thomas Goldstein against the LA County District Attorney was previously discussed here.  The Supremes have granted cert, making the editorial argument that precedent provides “absolute immunity” for prosecutors rather dim-witted. 

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors have absolute immunity to Section 1983 lawsuits. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote that immunity is rooted in a concern that “harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties” and tempt a prosecutor to “shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of justice required by the public trust.” Powell noted that the law provided other checks on errors or misdeeds by prosecutors.

Someone should have whispered in the editorial writer’s ear that the Supremes make the precedent rather than blindly live by it.  Nonetheless, the argument falls decidedly flat. 

“Harassment by unfounded litigation” is bad for everyone, not just prosecutors.  The legal system tries to weed out frivolous lawsuit, and we hope that lawyers refuse to take on “unfounded litigation.”  If they do, there are “other checks” to stop them.  Fewer lawyers would help too.

But Goldstein’s case isn’t “harassment” or “unfounded”.  In fact, it extremely well-founded, not to mention well-deserved.  The suit is not for a bad outcome, but for the absence of basic administrative systems to prevent the denial of constitutionally required information that would have prevented Goldstein’s lawyer from going into trial blind. 

While I have severe reservations that prosecutors deserve “absolute immunity,” rather than some lesser degree of immunity, the point of the Van de Kamp v. Goldstein is that there are functions involved that bear no relation to the prosecutorial function the arguably deserves a degree of protection.  It’s an office, like any office.  It can have procedures, like any office, that enable it to function with reasonable reliability.  The administration of the office, ranging from losing files to maintaining access to information about personnel, is no different than any office anywhere. 

Any business that does not maintain basic administrative procedures will fail.  It’s “customers” will be dissatisfied.  It’s function will be impaired.  This isn’t a novel concept.  If you can rent a car from one place, return it to another, and every office along the way will be able to immediately access all necessary information about the car and you, then there is no reason under the sun why a prosecutor cannot tell if the snitch in one case has been a snitch in others, and what gifts the snitch was given by his adoring fans.

The LA Times sees none of this.  According to the editorial, running an office, any office, is no different than prosecuting criminals.

Given this precedent, how could the 9th Circuit permit a suit against Van de Kamp? The appeals court noted that the absolute immunity covered only decisions by prosecutors that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” By contrast, the court said, the district attorney’s alleged failure to disseminate information about informants was an “administrative” action not closely related to what went on in court. That strikes us as hairsplitting. Appalling as Goldstein’s ordeal was, it doesn’t alter the fact that he is suing the county’s chief prosecutor for a miscarriage of justice. Unless the Supreme Court wants to dispense with prosecutorial immunity altogether, it’s difficult to see why he should prevail.

If this newspaper can’t distinguish the administrative function from the prosecutorial function, than one has to wonder how anybody there is able to keep the facts of a story straight.  I bet they have a way to determine whether a particular person has been the subject of a story in the past.  Is that journalism, or basic administration? 

On the other hand, I think the LA Times may be on to something when it suggests that if the Supreme Court doesn’t agree that this is “hairsplitting”, may it should dispense with prosecutorial immunity altogether.  Imagine, prosecutors doing their job right.  Even on a bad hair day, those prosecutors would look awfully handsome to me.