| Imbler v. Pachtman | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 3, 1975 Decided March 2, 1976 | |
| Full case name | Paul Kern Imbler, Petitioner, v. Richard Pachtman, District Attorney. |
| Citations | 424U.S.409 (more) 96 S. Ct. 984; 47L. Ed. 2d 128; 1976U.S. LEXIS 25 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 500F.2d1301 (9th Cir. 1974);cert. granted,420 U.S. 945 (1975). |
| Holding | |
| A state prosecuting attorney who acts within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State's case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | White, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), was a United StatesSupreme Court case in whichdistrict attorneys orprosecutors were found to have fullimmunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.[1]
Imbler, a defendant in a murder trial, had been convicted and sentenced when the district attorney, Pachtman, revealed new evidence that he said had recently surfaced and whichexonerated Imbler. Imbler used the new evidence to successfully free himself, then brought up a civil suit alleging that Pachtman had withheld evidence. The suit, however, was dismissed on the grounds that Pachtman hadprosecutorial immunity, a finding which the Supreme Court affirmed.
Works related toImbler v. Pachtman at Wikisource | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theBurger Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |