Nancy, thanks for keeping us so well informed on this case.
If ML is retried and acquitted, can she sue the state for wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment?
She could, but in reviewing the applicable law, IMO she wouldn't prevail.
In 27 states and the District of Columbia, an acquitted person (upon a showing of "actual innocence") is entitled to monetary compensation under state Wrongful Conviction statutes. The payout varies significantly among states. Texas provides $50,000/year incarcerated & $100,000/year incarcerated on death row, whereas Louisiana provides $15,000/year and caps the total payout at $150,000$, regardless of the actual number of years spent incarcerated. Some states include benefits for lost wages and other considerations etc. However, Alaska is one of the states that lacks this kind of statute. In states without these statutes, the wrongfully convicted person can petition the state legislature to consider awarding financial compensation for the wrongful conviction/incarceration. These rewards tend to be infrequently granted and also generally require the person to demonstrate actual innocence (vs. just being found "not guilty"). So, she'd likely have to sue which brings me to your question
She could try to bring a tort claim in civil court. However, Alaska statutes grant immunity from civil liability to state agents for negligence torts, intentional torts and punitive damages, explicitly immunizing them from any of the claims she could conceivably raise against them:
Alaska Statute 9.50.250 provides:
"...
An action may not be brought if the claim arises out of... false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit..."
Prosecutors are generally and absolutely immunized from allegations stemming from actions performed in their official capacities as state agents. Police officers are also protected by immunity privileges. Police officers who commit perjury on the stand are protected; prosecutors who have proffered perjured testimony or fabricated exhibits at trial have been protected by absolute immunity, etc.
.
If the state agents were acting outside the scope of their roles/duties as state agents, they can still be protected by a more limited immunity provision-- qualified immunity. Generally, qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability unless their conduct was "so obviously wrong, in the light of pre-existing law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing." In this case (unless Mechele can provide evidence to prove investigators intentionally fabricated/concealed crucial evidence to secure an indictment), the decision to arrest and prosecute will not be construed as "so obviously wrong" because the prosecutor can make a clear showing he did have probable cause to prosecute her. The original Grand Jury Indictment conferred probable cause as a matter of law. Similarly, conviction at the first trial would also demonstrate probable cause. These immunity provisions would apply in suits brought at either the State or Federal level.
Since she doesn't appear to have a claim under state law, she could try to bring a 1983 claim in Federal Court, alleging that false arrest, malicious prosecution, etc. violated her constitutional rights. She's again going to have trouble here because the state agents are likely to be given absolute or qualified immunity. The one applicable caveat to prosecutorial immunity could be the his statements to media/press conferences but I also don't see that going anywhere.
IMO the only way she could win is if she can show the troopers acted with actual malice and fabricated/concealed evidence or did something else similarly egregious to knowingly, purposely and wrongfully secure a conviction. Like, for example, Linda Branchflower has been deviously sitting on the murder weapon because it had someone else's fingerprints on it, etc.
I tried to find a case in Alaska where someone had successfully sued for wrongful conviction/malicious prosecution etc. and couldn't find any. I think these kinds of suits are very hard to win. This
law review article goes into some detail about the difficulties involved in these suits.
Mechele's supporters seem very convinced that she'll successfully sue the state of Alaska when this is all over, so maybe they have some trick up their sleeve I haven't thought of? :waitasec:
ETA: This is sort of muddled in the middle re: my discussion of absolute/qualified immunity so if you want to know more about those concepts you should definitely look them up because my explanation leaves something to be desired. :rubberducky:
