Washington - The US Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to consider an unusual question: Do Americans who have been framed by unscrupulous prosecutors for crimes they did not commit have a right to sue the prosecutors when the fraud is finally exposed?

According to the Obama administration, the answer is no.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits – even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

Those are the allegations in a case from Iowa set for oral argument on Wednesday morning. According to legal briefs filed in the case, prosecutors in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, solicited false testimony implicating two innocent African-American teens in the murder of a recently retired police officer in 1977. At trial, the false testimony led to their convictions. They were sent to prison for life.

When the false testimony and other exculpatory evidence was discovered, the two innocent men, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were released after 25 years in prison. They filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors.

The question before the high court is whether the prosecutors can be held accountable in a civil trial or instead are entitled to absolute immunity from such lawsuits.

"If the allegations here are true, [the Iowa officials] engaged in prosecutorial misconduct of an execrable sort, involving a complete breach of the public trust," Solicitor General Kagan writes in her brief to the court. "But absolute immunity reflects a policy judgment that such conduct is properly addressed not through civil liability, but through a host of other deterrents and punishments."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What's the defense for the Obama Administration on this one?

Poor ACLU, they have so many pending lawsuits, they must be drowning in paper work. They file lawsuits more than posts get reported around here ... oops.

Aizle:

What would your defense be should Obama strangle a kitten on television and post it on his MySpace?

Yes lets not persue the coprruption of the legal system because it might become annoying for a bit.

If they are knowingly introducing testimony they know to be false or pruposefully hindering the introduction of evidence they need to go away (preferrably six feet away).

This is not an Obama issue, this is a government issue.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits – even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, the Solicitor General is Elena Kagan, who was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 19, 2009.

The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting cases in which the government is a party, the Solicitor General's office also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has a significant interest in the legal issue. The Solicitor General's office argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeals, the Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General's office also reviews cases decided against the United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in which the government files an appeal.

Were any other person president, the position of the administration would be the same.

The kitten had it coming.

But regardless of that, what you say is no defense. Essentially, it's like saying: "It's not my problem that I knocked over a liquor store, because other people knock over liquor stores too!" Pointing out that others would do the same does not absolve you of your own responsibilities.

Aizle:

What would your defense be should Obama strangle a kitten on television and post it on his MySpace?

Way to miss the point. I wasn't saying it was a defense. What I was reacting to was the OMG OBAMA IS THE DEBIL!!!!!!11!!!!1!one!!!! undercurrent in the posting.

Yes lets not persue the coprruption of the legal system because it might become annoying for a bit.

If they are knowingly introducing testimony they know to be false or pruposefully hindering the introduction of evidence they need to go away (preferrably six feet away).