Buckley v. Fitzsimmons et al.
509 U.S. 259 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absolute prosecutorial immunity applies only to actions taken in a prosecutor's role as an advocate for the state, which are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. It does not extend to actions taken in an investigative capacity before the establishment of probable cause or to out-of-court statements made to the media.
Facts:
- Following the murder of Jeanine Nicarico, Du Page County prosecutors, including State's Attorney Fitzsimmons, began an investigation.
- A key piece of evidence was a bootprint left on the victim's door.
- Three separate expert analyses from different crime labs failed to make a reliable connection between the bootprint and boots voluntarily supplied by Stephen Buckley.
- Prosecutors then allegedly sought out and obtained a 'positive identification' from an anthropologist, Louise Robbins, who was purportedly known for her willingness to fabricate unreliable expert testimony.
- These actions occurred during the early stages of the investigation, before prosecutors had probable cause to arrest Buckley or anyone else.
- After a grand jury was convened but failed to indict, and with no new evidence, Fitzsimmons announced Buckley's indictment at a press conference just before a primary election.
- At the press conference, Fitzsimmons allegedly made false statements linking Buckley to the crime.
- Buckley was arrested and jailed for three years; charges were eventually dropped after the expert witness died and a third party confessed to the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Buckley filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prosecutors Fitzsimmons, Ryan, and others in the U.S. District Court.
- The defendant prosecutors moved to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds of absolute immunity.
- The District Court held that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for the evidence-fabrication claim but not for Fitzsimmons' statements at the press conference.
- Both Buckley and Fitzsimmons appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled that the prosecutors had absolute immunity on both the evidence-fabrication and press conference claims.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Burns v. Reed.
- On remand, the same divided panel of the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its initial decision granting absolute immunity on both claims.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time to resolve the prosecutorial immunity issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's absolute immunity extend to (1) allegedly fabricating evidence during the preliminary investigation of a crime before there is probable cause to arrest a suspect, and (2) making allegedly false statements during a press conference?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, a prosecutor's absolute immunity does not extend to fabricating evidence before probable cause is established or to making false statements to the media. The Court applies a 'functional approach,' which looks to the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor. When a prosecutor performs investigative functions normally done by a detective or police officer, such as searching for clues to establish probable cause, they are entitled only to qualified immunity. The Court held that a prosecutor is not acting as an 'advocate' before having probable cause to arrest someone; therefore, the alleged fabrication of evidence during this pre-probable cause, investigative phase is not protected by absolute immunity. Similarly, making statements to the press is not functionally tied to the judicial process; it is not part of an advocate's role in initiating or presenting a case. In this capacity, a prosecutor is like any other executive official who deals with the press and is thus only entitled to qualified immunity.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, absolute immunity does not apply to the alleged actions. The justification for granting immunity under § 1983 is to preserve immunities that were well-established at common law when the statute was enacted in 1871. There was no common-law tradition of absolute immunity for a prosecutor fabricating evidence during a preliminary investigation or for making out-of-court statements to the press. Because historical precedent is lacking, the prosecutors' claim to absolute immunity fails. Policy reasons for extending immunity are irrelevant if there is no historical basis, as courts do not have a license to create new immunities.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Kennedy
The answer to the Issue is mixed. No, there is no absolute immunity for statements made during a press conference, and I join that part of the majority's opinion. However, yes, prosecutors should be entitled to absolute immunity for their conduct related to the bootprint evidence. The majority's bright-line rule that advocacy begins only after probable cause is established creates a 'true anomaly' because malicious prosecution, which requires a lack of probable cause, is the classic example of an act for which prosecutors have absolute immunity. A prosecutor's consultation with a potential trial witness, even before indictment, is a classic function of an advocate preparing for trial. Shielding this preparatory work from liability is necessary to avoid chilling a prosecutor's judgment and is consistent with the principles of Imbler v. Pachtman.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity established in Imbler v. Pachtman. By drawing a line between a prosecutor's function as an advocate and their function as an investigator or administrator, the Court made clear that the shield of absolute immunity is not all-encompassing. The decision establishes a temporal and functional boundary, suggesting that actions taken before probable cause exists are presumptively investigative and thus receive only qualified immunity. This holding makes prosecutors more accountable for misconduct during the early, evidence-gathering stages of a case and for their public statements, thereby opening an important avenue for § 1983 civil rights litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Buckley v. Fitzsimmons et al.