Abstract
Objectives
The current study explores public opinion about civil liability for official misconduct by prosecutors by surveying a nationally representative sample of US adults (N = 2000).
Method
Participants read a vignette describing a wrongful conviction and were randomly assigned to read a version where the prosecutor knew about exonerating DNA evidence before trial and did not disclose it or where the prosecutor was unaware of the exonerating evidence before trial. They then decided whether the prosecutor should be liable for money damages and explained their reasoning.
Results
Results showed broad support for civil liability in both conditions. Support was consistent across demographic categories including race, age, and political affiliation. Responses also indicated support for liability for other government actors (e.g., police, prosecutors’ offices).
Conclusions
These results suggest there may be wide public support for policies and legislative initiatives that increase prosecutorial accountability through civil liability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data retrieved on 9/1/2022 from the National Registry of Exonerations detailed case view (https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx).
References
Anderson, W. L., & Stair, A. G. (2018). Protected lying: How the legal doctrine of “absolute immunity” has created a “lemons problem” in American criminal courts. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 21(1), 22–51.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103
Cato Institute. (2020). Poll: 63% of Americans favor eliminating qualified immunity for police. https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/poll-63-americans-favor-eliminating-qualified-immunity-police
Chemerinsky, E. (2014). Absolute immunity: General principles and recent developments. Touro Law Review, 24(3), 473–500.
Colorado Senate Bill 20–217. (2017) https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2020a_217_signed.pdf
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011).
Dimock, M., & Wike, R. (2020). America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/
Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, E. M. (2021). The Law of Torts (Vol. 2). Thomson West.
Ellis, M. J. (2012). The origins of the elected prosecutor. Yale Law Journal, 121(6), 1528–1569.
Goodmark, L. (2019). The impact of prosecutorial misconduct, overreach, and misuse of discretion on gender violence victims. Dickinson Law Review, 123, 627–659.
Gould, J. B., & Leo, R. A. (2010). One hundred years later: Wrongful convictions after a century of research. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
Gross, J. P. (2017). Qualified immunity and the use of force: Making the reckless into the reasonable. Alabama Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Review, 8(1), 67–92.
Hicks, W. D., Mullinix, K. J., & Norris, R. J. (2021). The politics of wrongful conviction legislation. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 21(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2020.4
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).
Johns, M. Z. (2005). Reconsidering absolute prosecutorial immunity. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1(1), 53–154.
Murray, B. M., Gould, J. B., & Heaton, P. (2021). Qualifying prosecutorial immunity through Brady claims. Iowa Law Review, 107, 1–62.
National District Attorneys Association. (2009). National Prosecution Standards. https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/NDAA-NPS-3rd-Ed.-w-Revised-Commentary.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2022.
Nelson, M. J. (2014). Responsive justice? Retention elections, prosecutors and public opinion. Journal of Law and Courts, 2(1), 117–152. https://doi.org/10.1086/674527
Niles, M. (2017). A new balance of evils: Prosecutorial misconduct, Iqbal, and the end of absolute immunity. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 13(2), 137–187. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev
N.M. Stat. § 41–4A-3. (2021) (Testimony of New Mexico). https://casetext.com/statute/new-mexico-statutes-1978/chapter-41-torts/article-4a-new-mexico-civil-rights/section-41-4a-3-claim-for-violation-of-rights-established-pursuant-to-the-bill-of-rights-of-the-constitution-of-new-mexico. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.
Nowotny, J., Shlosberg, A., & McAndrew, T. (2022). Understanding public views of wrongful conviction frequency and government responsibility for compensation: Results from a national sample. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 088740342211067.https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221106747
Pew Research Center. (2020). Majority of public favors giving civilians the power to sue police officers for misconduct. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/07/09/majority-of-public-favors-giving-civilians-the-power-to-sue-police-officers-for-misconduct/
Pew Research Center. (2021). Public trust in government: 1958–2021. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/
Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. In Annual Review of Criminology (Vol. 2, pp. 405–428). Annual Reviews Inc. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024826
Pritchard, D. (1986). Homicide and bargained justice: The agenda-setting effect of crime news on prosecutors. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(2), 143. https://doi.org/10.1086/268971
Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice. (2021). Hidden hazards: Prosecutorial misconduct claims in Pennsylvania, 2000–2016. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/11857-hidden-hazards-prosecutorial-misconduct-claims-in
Ramsey, R. J., & Frank, J. (2007). Wrongful conviction: Perceptions of criminal justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 436–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706286554
Sarma, B. (2016, July 19). After 40 years, Is it time to reconsider absolute immunity for prosecutors? American Constitution Society. https://www.acslaw.org/?post_type=acsblog&p=11579
Schwartz, G. (1994). Reality in the economic analysis of tort law: Does tort law really deter? UCLA Law Review, 42, 377–443.
Shapiro, R. Y. (2011). Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 982–1017. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr053
The National Registry of Exonerations. (2017). John Thompson. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3684
Tolman, B. L. (2020). Deterring prosecutors from abusive behavior: A former federal prosecutor’s view. University of Louisville Law Review, 58(3), 415–434.
Zalman, M., Larson, M. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward wrongful convictions. Criminal Justice Review, 37(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016811428374
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: PH & RM.
Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.
Methodology: PH, RM & RG.
Development or design of methodology; creation of models.
Formal Analysis: PH & RG.
Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.
Investigation: PH & RM.
Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.
Data Curation: PH, RM & RG.
Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse.
Writing – Original Draft: PH, RM & RG.
Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).
Writing – Review & Editing: PH, RM & RG.
Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision–including pre- or postpublication stages.
Visualization: PH, RM & RG.
Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation.
Project Administration: PH, RM & RG.
Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Greenspan, R.L., Miller, R. & Heaton, P. Reform we can agree on: public opinion on prosecutorial liability. J Exp Criminol 20, 255–267 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09533-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09533-x