Opinion ID: 421796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rationale for According Absolute Immunity to Prosecutors

Text: 19 The justifications offered for according absolute immunity to prosecutors largely track those advanced in support of official immunity. Although, in many cases, these justifications support only a qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has identified certain factors that at once distinguish the prosecutorial function from the functions of other executive officials and justify an absolute shield against the threat of suit. 16 20 First, it has been noted that a prosecutor is especially vulnerable to retaliatory litigation. 17 A prosecutor almost daily brings to bear the enormous power of the state against individuals; the weight of that power and the general opprobrium of the criminal sanction combine to create a [229 U.S.App.D.C. 184] unique potential for vengeful counter suits. Absolute immunity is thus justified by the concern that [prosecutors] ...--required by law to make important decisions regarding the initiation, conduct, and merit of controversies which often excite 'the deepest feelings' of the parties--would be intimidated in the exercise of their discretion by the fear of retaliatory lawsuits brought by angry defendants. Marrero v. City of Hialeah, 625 F.2d 499, 507 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1353, 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981). 21 Second, it has been recognized that built-in safeguards diminish the need for private redress against prosecutorial abuse. 18 Inherent in the judicial process are checks that serve to restrain prosecutorial abuse, and any abuse that does occur is subject to various self-remedying mechanisms of the adversarial process. As Judge Leventhal once aptly observed, 22 the prosecutor's absolute protection, like that of the judge from which it is derived, is both justified and bounded by the judicial traditions and procedures that limit and contain the danger of abuse. Cases holding prosecutors absolutely immune have referred to them as quasi-judicial officers, and the circumstances typically provide alternative instruments of the judicial branch to check misconduct--the discretion of the grand jury, the procedures of a trial, and the potential sanction of discipline imposed by the court itself. 23 Apton v. Wilson, 506 F.2d 83, 93-94 (D.C.Cir.1974) (footnotes omitted). 24 Mindful of the distinctive functional characteristics of a prosecutor's position, we turn to the scope of the prosecutor's absolute immunity. 25