Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 58
58 / 251
j , @
54 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370
at 430 n. 81. See, eg. Guerro v. Mulhearn, 498 F.2d
1249, 1256 (1st Cir. 1974); Hampton v. City of Chicago,
484 F.2d 602, 608-09 (7th Cir. 1973); Robichaud v.
Ronan, 351 F.2d 538, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1965). These cases
clearly indicate that when a state prosecutor is perform-
ing investigative rather than advocacy functions, he is
not wrapped with absolute immunity.2° See Briggs,
supra, 569 F.2d at 16-17.
In Hampton I, supra, we’ examined the claim of:
Hanrahan and Jalovec to absolute immunity for their
pre-raid conduct. We concluded that their -
alleged participation in the planning and execution
of a raid of this character has no greater claim to
complete immunity than activities of police officers
allegedly acting under [their] direction.
Hampton I, supra, 484 F.2d at 609. Neither Jmbler,
supra, 424 U.S. at 480, nor our fuller consideration of the
.issue aided by the evidence produced at trial alters that
conclusion.
More difficult questions are presented by the claims of
the defendants from the State’s Attorney’s Office—
Hanrahan, Jalovec, Meltreger, and Sorosky—to absolute
immunity with respect to their post-raid conduct.
Resolution of these claims requires a close analysis of
the nature of the defendants’ activities. We hold that
while some of their actions fall within the ambit of
Imbler’s protection, others do not.
Hanrahan’s decision to file charges against the sur-
vivors of the raid, his presentation of evidence before the
state grand jury, and his deal with Assistant Attorney
General Leonard to drop the state charges all comprise
part of his “quasi-judicial” duties as state prosecutor—
“initiating a prosecution and .. . presenting the State’s
case... .” Imbler, supra, 424 U.S. at 431; Butz, supra at
4962-68. Thus, Hanrahan and any Assistant State’s
30 Our recent decision in Daniels v. Kieser, 586 F.2d 64 (7th
Cir. 1978), is not to the contrary. In Daniels we held that the
prosecutor’s actions were within his “quasi-judicial” functions
and, Prue reason, were absolutely immune from liability.
ad, at 68-69.
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic