Johnson v. Rex

Background

A person sued a prosecutor under the federal civil-rights law (a §1983 suit) after the prosecutor was present during questioning. The prosecutor was not there as an investigator but to advise police and ensure compliance with Miranda rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held the prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity from that civil suit.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court was asked to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision but denied the petition for review. The opinion notes that in an earlier case (Imbler v. Pachtman) the Court recognized absolute immunity for prosecutors when they perform functions closely tied to the criminal process, but left open whether investigative activities by prosecutors fall under that protection. Because the Supreme Court denied review, it did not resolve whether a prosecutor present during questioning to advise on Miranda must be protected by absolute immunity.

Real world impact

The denial of review leaves the Tenth Circuit’s judgment in place, so a prosecutor’s presence during questioning to advise on Miranda can lead to a civil-rights lawsuit without guaranteed absolute immunity. The broader question of when prosecutors performing investigative tasks are protected remains unsettled and could be addressed in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor, dissented from the denial of review and would have granted the case to clarify that a prosecutor acting as an officer of the court to ensure Miranda compliance should receive absolute immunity.