Court Opinion

ID: 9426282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:28.071104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.052978
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall join, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment of the Court and in much of its reasoning. I agree with the Court that the gravamen of the complaint in this case is that the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony; and that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit for money damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for presentation of testimony later determined to have been false, where the presentation of such testimony is 'alleged to have been unjconstitutional solely because the prosecutor did not believe it or should not have believed it to be true. ’ I write, however, because I believe that the Court’s opinion may be read as *433extending to a prosecutor an immunity broader than that to which he was entitled at common law; broader than is necessary to decide this case; and broader than is necessary to protect the judicial process. Most seriously, I disagree with any implication that absolute immunity for prosecutors extends to suits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of evidence because I believe such a rule would threaten to injure the judicial process and to interfere with Congress’ purpose in enacting 42 U. S. C. § 1983, without any support in statutory language or history.
I
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
As the language itself makes clear, the central purpose of § 1983 is to “give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities by an official’s abuse of his position.” Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 172 (1961) (emphasis added). The United States Constitution among other things, places substantial limitations upon state action, and the cause of action provided in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is fundamentally one for “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 326 (1941). It is manifest then that all state *434officials as a class cannot be immune absolutely from damage suits under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and that to extend absolute immunity to any group of state officials is to negate pro tanto the very remedy which it appears Congress sought to create. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 243 (1974). Thus, as there is no language in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 extending any immunity to any state officials, the Court has not extended absolute immunity to such officials in the absence of the most convincing showing that the immunity is necessary. Accordingly, we have declined to construe § 1983 to extend absolute immunity from damage suits to a variety of state officials, Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1976) (school board members) ; Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra (various executive officers, including the State’s chief executive officer); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967) (policemen); and this notwithstanding the fact that, at least with respect to high executive officers, absolute immunity from suit for damages would have applied at common law. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483 (1896); Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U. S. 106 (1913). Instead, we have construed the statute to extend only a qualified immunity to these officials, and they may be held liable for unconstitutional conduct absent “good faith.” Wood v. Strickland, supra, at 315. Any other result would “deny much of the promise of § 1983.” Id., at 322. Nonetheless, there are certain absolute immunities so firmly rooted in the common law and supported by such strong policy reasons that the Court has been unwilling to infer that Congress meant to abolish them in enacting 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Thus, we have held state legislators to be absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983 for their legislative acts, Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951),1 and state *435judges to be absolutely immune from liability for their judicial acts, Pierson v. Ray, supra.2
In justifying absolute immunity for certain officials, both at common law and under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, courts have invariably rested their decisions on the proposition that such immunity is necessary to protect the decision-making process in which the official is engaged. Thus legislative immunity was justified on the ground that such immunity was essential to protect “freedom of speech and action in the legislature” from the dampening effects of threatened lawsuits. Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 372. Similarly, absolute immunity for judges was justified on the ground that no matter how high the standard of proof is set, the burden of defending damage suits brought by disappointed litigants would “contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.” Pierson v. Ray, supra, at 554. In Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347 (1872), the Court stated:
“For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to every one who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge, would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy that inde*436pendence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful. . .
See also cases discussed in Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d 396, 399-401 (CA2 1926), summarily aff’d, 275 U. S. 503 (1927).
The majority articulates other adverse consequences which may result from permitting suits to be maintained against public officials. Such suits may expose the official to an unjust damage award, ante, at 425; such suits will be expensive to defend even if the official prevails and will take the official’s time away from his job, ante, at 425; and the liability of a prosecutor for unconstitutional behavior might induce a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding to deny a valid constitutional claim in order to protect the prosecutor, ante, at 427. However, these adverse consequences are present with respect to suits against policemen, school teachers, and other executives, and have never before been thought sufficient to immunize an official absolutely no matter how outrageous his conduct. Indeed, these reasons are present with respect to suits against all state officials3 and must necessarily have been rejected by Congress as a basis for absolute immunity under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for its en*437actment is a clear indication that at least some officials should be accountable in damages for their official acts. Thus, unless the threat of suit is also thought to injure the governmental decisionmaking process, the other unfortunate consequences flowing from damage suits against state officials are sufficient only to extend a qualified immunity to the official in question. Accordingly, the question whether a prosecutor enjoys an absolute immunity from damage suits under § 1983, or only a qualified immunity, depends upon whether the common law and reason support the proposition that extending absolute immunity is necessary to protect the judicial process.
II
The public prosecutor’s absolute immunity from suit at common law is not so firmly entrenched as a judge’s, but it has considerable support. The general rule was, and is, that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit for malicious prosecution. 1 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 4.3, p. 305 n. 7 (1956) (hereafter Harper & James), and cases there cited; Yaselli v. Goff, supra; Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579 (CA2 1949); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F. 2d 1270 (CA3 1970); Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F. 2d 581 (CA3 1965); Tyler v. Witkowski, 511 F. 2d 449 (CA7 1975); Hampton v. City of Chicago, 484 F. 2d 602 (CA7 1973); Barnes v. Dorsey, 480 F. 2d 1057 (CA8 1973); Duba v. McIntyre, 501 F. 2d 590 (CA8 1974); Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F. 2d 533 (CA9 1965). But see Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362 (1916). The rule, like the rule extending absolute immunity to judges, rests on the proposition that absolute immunity is necessary to protect the judicial process. Absent immunity, “ ‘it would be but human that they [prosecutors] might refrain from presenting to a grand jury or prosecuting a matter which in their judgment called for action; but *438which a jury might possibly determine otherwise.’ ” 1 Harper & James §4.3, pp. 305-306, quoting Yaselli v. Goff, 8 F. 2d 161, 162 (SDNY 1925). Indeed, in deciding whether or not to prosecute, the prosecutor performs a “quasi-judicial” function. 1 Harper & James 305; Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d, at 404. Judicial immunity had always been extended to grand jurors with respect to their actions in returning an indictment, id., at 403, and “ ‘the public prosecutor, in deciding whether a particular prosecution shall be instituted . . . performs much the same function as a grand jury.’ ” Id., at 404, quoting Smith v. Parman, 101 Kan. 115, 165 P. 633 (1917). The analogy to judicial immunity is a strong one; Moreover, the risk of injury to the judicial process from a rule permitting malicious prosecution suits against prosecutors is real. There is no one to sue the prosecutor for an erroneous decision not to prosecute. If suits for malicious prosecution were permitted,4 the prosecutor’s incentive would always be not to bring charges. Moreover, the “fear of being harassed by a' vexatious suit, for acting according to their consciences” would always be the greater “where powerful” men are involved, 1 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 349 (6th ed. 1787). Accordingly, I agree with the majority that, with respect to suits based on claims that the prosecutor’s decision to prosecute was malicious and without probable cause — at least where there is no independent allegation that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory information from a grand jury or the court, see Part III, infra — the judicial process is better served by absolute immunity than by any other rule.
*439Public prosecutors were also absolutely immune at common law from suits for defamatory remarks made during and relevant to a judicial proceeding, 1 Harper & James §§5.21, 5.22; Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d, at 402-403; and this immunity was also based on the policy of protecting the judicial process. Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Judicial Proceedings, 9 Col. L. Rev. 463 (1909). The immunity was not special to public prosecutors but extended to lawyers accused of making false and defamatory statements, or of eliciting false and defamatory testimony from witnesses; and it applied to suits against witnesses themselves for delivering false and defamatory testimony. 1 Harper & James § 5.22, pp. 423-424. and cases there cited; King v. Skinner, Lofft 55, 98 Eng. Rep. 529, 530 (K. B. 1772) (per Lord Mansfield); Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d, at 403. The reasons for this rule are also substantial. It is precisely the function of a judicial procéeding to determine where the truth lies. The ability of courts, under Garefully developed procedures, to separate truth from falsity, and the importance of accurately resolving factual disputes in criminal (and civil) cases are such that those involved in judicial proceedings should be “given every encouragement to make a full disclosure of all pertinent information within their knowledge.” 1 Harper & James § 5.22, p. 424. For a witness, this means he must be permitted to testify without fear of being sued if his testimony is disbelieved. For a lawyer, it means that he must be permitted to call witnesses without fear of being sued if the witness is disbelieved and it is alleged that the lawyer knew or should have known that the witness’ testimony was false. Of course, witnesses. should not be encouraged to testify falsely nor lawyers encouraged to call witnesses who testify falsely. However, if the risk of having to defend a civil damage suit is added to the deterrent against such *440conduct already provided by criminal laws against perjury and subornation of perjury, the risk of self-censorship becomes too great. This is particularly so because it is very difficult if not impossible for attorneys to be absolutely certain of the objective truth or falsity of the testimony which they present. A prosecutor faced with a decision whether or not to call a witness whom he believes, but whose credibility he knows will be in doubt and whose testimony may be disbelieved by the jury, should be given every incentive to submit that witness’ testimony to the crucible of the judicial process so that the factfinder may consider it, after cross-examination, together with the other evidence in the case to determine where the truth lies.
“Absolute privilege has been conceded on obvious grounds of public policy to insure freedom of speech where it is essential that freedom of speech should exist. It is essential to the ends of justice that all persons participating in judicial proceedings (to take a typical class for illustration) should enjoy freedom of speech in the discharge of their public duties or in pursuing their rights, without fear of consequences.” Veeder, supra, 9 Col. L. Rev., at 469.
For the above-stated reasons, I agree with the majority that history and policy support an absolute immunity for prosecutors from suits based solely on claims5 that they knew or should have known that the testimony of a witness called by the prosecution was false; and I would not attribute to Congress an intention to remove such immunity in enacting 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
*441Since the gravamen of the complaint in this case is that the prosecutor knew or should have known that certain testimony of a witness called by him was untrue and since — for reasons set forth below — the other allegations in the complaint fail to state a cause of action on any other theory, I concur in the judgment in this case. However, insofar as the majority’s opinion implies an absolute immunity from suits for constitutional violations other than those based on the prosecutor’s decision to initiate proceedings or his actions in bringing information or argument to the court, I disagree. Most particularly I disagree with any implication that the absolute immunity extends to suits charging unconstitutional suppression of evidence. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963).
III
There was no absolute immunity at common law for prosecutors other than absolute immunity from suits for malicious prosecution and defamation. There were simply no other causes of action at common law brought against prosecutors for conduct committed in their official capacity.6 There is, for example, no reported case of a suit at common law against a prosecutor for suppression or nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence. Thus, even if this Court had accepted the proposition, which *442it has not, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974), that Congress incorporated in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 all immunities existing at common law, it would not follow that prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for all unconstitutional acts committed in the course of doing their jobs. Secondly, it is by no means true that such blanket absolute immunity is necessary or even helpful in protecting the judicial process. It should hardly need stating that, ordinarily, liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was precisely the proposition upon which § 1983 was enacted. Absent special circumstances, such as those discussed in Part II, supra, with respect to actions attacking the decision to prosecute or the bringing of evidence or argument to the court, one would expect that the judicial process would be protected — and indeed its integrity enhanced — by denial of immunity to prosecutors who engage in unconstitutional conduct.
The absolute immunity extended to prosecutors in defamation cases is designed to encourage them to bring information to the court which will resolve the criminal case. That is its single justification. Lest they withhold valuable but questionable evidence or refrain from making valuable but questionable arguments, prosecutors are protected from liability for submitting before the court information later determined to have been false to their knowledge.7 It would stand this immunity rule on its head, however, to apply it to a suit based on a claim that *443the prosecutor unconstitutionally withheld information from the court. Immunity from a suit based upon a claim that the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence would discourage precisely the disclosure of evidence sought to be encouraged by the rule granting prosecutors immunity from defamation suits. Denial of immunity for unconstitutional withholding of evidence would encourage such disclosure. A prosecutor seeking to protect himself from liability for failure to disclose evidence may be induced to disclose more than is required. But, this will hardly injure the judicial process.8 Indeed, it will help it. Accordingly, lower courts have held that unconstitutional suppression of exculpatory evidence is beyond the scope of “duties constituting an integral part of the judicial process” and have refused to extend absolute immunity to suits based on such claims. Hilliard v. Williams, 465 F. 2d 1212, 1218 (CA6), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1029 (1972); Haaf v. Grams, 355 F. Supp. 542, 545 (Minn. 1973); Peterson v. Stanczak, 48 F. R. D. 426 (ND Ill. 1969). Contra, Barnes v. Dorsey, 480 F. 2d 1057 (CA8 1973).
Equally important, unlike constitutional violations committed in the courtroom — improper summations, introduction of hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause, knowing presentation of false testimony — which truly are an “integral part of the judicial process,” ante, at 416, the judicial process has no way to prevent or correct the constitutional violation of suppressing evidence. The judicial process will by definition be ignorant of the violation when it occurs; and it is *444reasonable to suspect that most such violations never surface. It is all the more important, then, to deter such violations by permitting damage actions under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 to be maintained in instances where violations do surface.
The stakes are high. In Hilliard v. Williams, supra, a woman was convicted of second-degree murder upon entirely circumstantial evidence. The most incriminating item of evidence was the fact that the jacket worn by the defendant at the time of arrest — and some curtains — appeared to have bloodstains on them. The defendant denied that the stains were bloodstains but was convicted and subsequently spent a year in jail. Fortunately, in that case, the defendant later found out that an FBI report — of which the prosecutor had knowledge at the time of the trial and the existence of which he instructed a state investigator not to mention during his testimony — concluded, after testing, that the stains were not bloodstains. On retrial, the defendant was acquitted. She sued the prosecutor and the state investigator under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that the FBI report was unconstitutionally withheld under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), and obtained a damage award against both after trial. The prosecutor’s petition for certiorari is now pending before this Court. Hilliard v. Williams, 616 F. 2d 1344 (CA6 1975), cert. pending, No. 75-272. The state investigator’s petition, in which he claimed that he had only followed the prosecutor’s orders, has been denied. Clark v. Hilliard, 423 U. S. 1066 (1976). It is apparent that the injury to a defendant which can be caused by an unconstitutional suppression of exculpatory evidence is substantial, particularly if the evidence is never uncovered. It is virtually impossible to identify any injury to the judicial process resulting from a rule permitting suits for such unconstitutional *445conduct, and it is very easy to identify an injury to the process resulting from a rule which does not permit such suits. Where the reason for the rule extending absolute immunity to prosecutors disappears, it would truly be “monstrous to deny recovery.” Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d, at 581.
IV
The complaint in this case, while fundamentally based on the claim that the prosecutor knew or should have known that his witness had testified falsely in certain respects, does contain some allegations that exculpatory evidence and evidence relating to the witness’ credibility had been suppressed. Insofar as the complaint is based oil allegations of suppression or failure to disclose, the prosecutor should not, for the reasons set forth above, be absolutely immune. However, as the majority notes, the suppression of fingerprint evidence and the alleged suppression of information relating to certain pretrial lineups is not alleged to have been known in fact to the prosecutor — it is simply claimed that the suppression is legally chargeable to him. While this may be so as a matter of federal habeas corpus law, it is untrue in a civil damage action. The result of a lie-detector test claimed to have been suppressed was allegedly known to respondent, but it would have been inadmissible at Imbler’s trial and is thus not constitutionally required to be disclosed. The alteration of the police artist’s composite sketch after Imbler was designated as the defendant is not alleged to have been suppressed— and in fact appears not to have been suppressed. The opinion of the California Supreme Court on direct review of Imbler’s conviction states that “the picture was modified later, following suggestions of Costello and other witnesses,” and that court presumably had before it only the trial record. The other items allegedly sup*446pressed all relate to background information about only one of the three eyewitnesses to testify for the State, and were in large part coneededly known to the defense and thus may not be accurately described as suppressed. The single alleged fact not coneededly known to the defense which might have been helpful to the defense was that the State’s witness had written some bad checks for small amounts and that a criminal charge based on one check was outstanding against him. However, the witness had an extensive criminal record which was known to but not fully used by the defense. Thus, even taken as true, the failure to disclose the check charges is patently insufficient to support a . claim of unconstitutional suppression of evidence.9 The Court *447has in the past, having due regard for the fact that the obligation of the government to disclose exculpatory evidence is an exception to the normal operation of an adversary system of justice, imposed on state prosecutors a constitutional obligation to turn over such evidence only when the evidence is of far greater significance than that involved here. See Moore v. Illinois, 408 U. S. 786 (1972). Thus, the only constitutional violation adequately alleged against the prosecutor is that he knew in his mind that testimony presented by him was false; and from a suit based on such a violation, without more, the prosecutor is absolutely immune. For this reason, I concur in the judgment reached by the majority in this case.

 The Court emphasized that the immunity had a lengthy history at common law, and was written into the United States Constitution *435in the “Speech or Debate Clause” and into many state constitutions as well. 341 U. S., at 372-373.

 The Court concluded that “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872).” 386 U. S., at 553-554.

 Even the risk that decisions in habeas corpus proceedings will be skewed is applicable in the case of policemen; and if it supplies a sufficient reason to extend absolute immunity to prosecutors,- it should have been a sufficient reason to extend such immunity to policemen. Indeed, it is fair to sa.y that far more habeas corpus petitions turn on the constitutionality of action taken by policemen than turn on the constitutionality of action taken by prosecutors. We simply rely on the ability of federal judges correctly to apply the law to the facts with the knowledge that the overturning of a conviction on constitutional grounds hardly dooms the official in question to payment of a damage award in light of the qualified immunity which he possesses, and the inapplicability of the res judicata doctrine, ante, at 428 n. 27.

 1 agree with the majority that it is not sufficient merely to set the standard of proof in a malicious prosecution case very high. If this were done, it might be possible to eliminate the danger of an unjust damage award against a prosecutor. However, the risk of having to defend a suit — even if certain of ultimate vindication— would remain a substantial deterrent to fearless prosecution.

 For the reasons set forth in Part III, infra, absolute immunity would not apply to independent claims that the prosecutor has withheld facts tending to demonstrate the falsity of his witness’ testimony where the alleged facts are sufficiently important to justify a finding of unconstitutional conduct on the part of the prosecutor.

 Immunity of public officials for false arrest was, unlike immunity of public officials for malicious prosecution, not absolute, 1 Harper & James §§ 3.17 and 3.18; and when prosecutors were sued for that tort, they were not held absolutely immune. Schneider v. Shepherd, 192 Mich. 82, 158 N. W. 182 (1916). A similar result has obtained in the lower courts in suits under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against prosecutors for initiating unconstitutional arrests. Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F. 2d 533 (CA9 1965); Hampton v. Chicago, 484 F. 2d 602 (CA7 1973); Wilhelm v. Turner, 431 F. 2d 177, 180-183 (CA8 1970) (dictum); Balistrieri v. Warren, 314 F. Supp. 824 (WD Wis. 1970). See also Ames v. Vavreck, 356 F. Supp. 931 (Minn. 1973).

 The reasons for making a prosecutor absolutely immune from suits for defamation would apply with equal force to other suits based solely upon the prosecutor’s conduct in the courtroom designed either to bring facts or arguments to the attention of the court. Thus, a prosecutor would be immune from a suit based on a claim that his summation was unconstitutional or that he deliberately elicited hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

 There may be circumstances in which ongoing investigations or even the life of an informant might be jeopardized by public disclosure of information thought possibly to be exculpatory. However, these situations may adequately be dealt with by in camera disclosure to the trial judge. These considerations do not militate against disclosure, but merely affect the manner of disclosure.

 The majority points out that the knowing use of perjured testimony is as reprehensible as the deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence. This is beside the point. The reason for permitting suits against prosecutors for suppressing evidence is not that suppression is especially reprehensible but that the only effect on the process of permitting such suits will be a beneficial one — more information will be disclosed to the court; whereas one of the effects of permitting suits for knowing use of perjured testimony will be detrimental to the process — prosecutors may withhold questionable but valuable testimony from the court.
The majority argues that any “claim of using perjured testimony simply may be reframed and asserted as a claim of suppression.” Our treatment of the allegations in this case conclusively refutes .the argument. It is relatively easy to allege that a government witness testified falsely and that the prosecutor did not believe the witness; and, if the prosecutor’s subjective belief is a sufficient basis for liability, the case would almost certainly have to go to trial. If such suits were'permitted, this case would have to go to trial. It is another matter entirely to allege specific objective facts known to the prosecutor of sufficient importance to justify a conclusion that he violated a constitutional duty to disclose. It is no coincidence that petitioner failed to make any such allegations in this case. More to the point — and quite apart from the relative difficulty of pleading a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 *447(1963) — a rule permitting suits based on withholding of specific facts unlike suits based on the prosecutor’s disbelief of a witness’ testimony will have no detrimental effect on the process. Risk of being sued for suppression will impel the prosecutor to err if at all on the side of overdisclosure. Risk of being sued for disbelieving a witness will impel the prosecutor to err on the side of withholding questionable evidence. The majority does not appear to respond to this point. Any suggestion that the distinction between suits based' on suppression of facts helpful to the defense and suits based on other kinds of constitutional violations cannot be understood by district judges who would have to apply the rule is mystifying. The distinction is a simple one.
Finally, the majority states that the rule suggested in this concurring opinion “would place upon the prosecutor a duty exceeding the disclosure requirements of Brady and its progeny.” The rule suggested in this opinion does no such thing. The constitutional obligation of the prosecutor remains utterly unchanged. We would simply not grant him absolute immunity from suits for committing violations of pre-existing constitutional disclosure requirements, if he committed those violations in bad faith.