THE PROSECUTORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY MOVEMENT
Under a 1976 Supreme Court ruling, a prosecutor who withholds evidence of innocence or knowingly uses false testimony at trial generally cannot be sued for the harm. When misconduct is proven, no federal law requires anyone to review the other cases it touched. PAPTA is a proposed framework to close both gaps while protecting prosecutors acting in good faith.
A nonpartisan education and research initiative of the Justice Restoration Foundation.
1871
Congress enacts the civil-rights law now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Its text grants prosecutors no immunity.
1976
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409. The Supreme Court recognizes absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Today
PAPTA, a proposed framework under development.
THE CASE FOR EXAMINATION
Prosecutors have absolute immunity for courtroom advocacy and qualified immunity for investigative work. The absolute kind traces to a 1976 Supreme Court decision, not to the text of Section 1983, which Congress passed in 1871. The Court acknowledged it could leave a genuinely wronged defendant with no civil remedy. Federal prosecutors face a wider gap: no express federal cause of action exists.
Sources: Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Every federal disclosure duty runs before conviction. When misconduct surfaces years later, nothing requires the government to find the other cases that official handled. Each defendant must discover it alone, file before deadlines that have usually passed, and meet a standard close to proving innocence.
Sources: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), (h) · Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023)
THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
Look back and repair. Look forward and deter. Repair answers what happens to people already harmed. Deterrence answers how to stop the next case. Holding the line at deliberate misconduct means ethical prosecutors have nothing to fear.
REPAIR
DETER
PROTECT
No Immunity for Deliberate Injustice. Protection for Ethical Prosecutors. Repair for the Innocent.
SYSTEMIC CASE REVIEW
The Government's Job to Find, not the Defendant's.
When a prosecutor, agent, or lab analyst is proven to have corrupted one case, it is rarely the only one. The party that caused the harm should be the party that goes to find it.
This is review, not release: a finding triggers a fresh look, not an automatic reversal.
CASE-SPECIFIC REVIEW
Proven misconduct creates a presumption that the official's cases are tainted. The government can rebut it case by case. The more serious and widespread the misconduct, the stronger the presumption.
SYSTEMIC REVIEW IN PRACTICE
None of these reviews was required by federal law. PAPTA would make the duty standard.
2013
The FBI and Justice Department launched a review of cases involving microscopic hair analysis, with independent assistance from the Innocence Project and NACDL. The review ultimately found erroneous statements in testimony or reports from 26 of 28 FBI examiners.
FBI/DOJ Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review
2017
After misconduct by state chemist Annie Dookhan compromised thousands of drug cases, Massachusetts required prosecutors to identify convictions they would dismiss or reprosecute. The result: 21,587 cases were ordered dismissed.
Bridgeman v. District Attorney, 476 Mass. 298
2018
In the Sonja Farak drug-lab litigation, a court found serious misconduct in the handling of exculpatory evidence by the Attorney General's office. The resulting review ultimately led to automatic dismissal of all cases tested at the Amherst Drug Lab from 2009 through 2013.
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Attorney General, 480 Mass. 700
COUNTING THE COST
Federal enforcement can close a business before a case is finally decided. The effects can reach employees, professional practices, families, taxpayers, patients, clients, and entire communities.
JRF's Economic Impact Study is examining those costs through payroll, jobs, tax base, enterprise value, professional-practice disruption, legal costs, and community effects.
FOLLOW THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDYACCOUNTABILITY / RESTORATION
PAPTA addresses accountability before and during a case. Federal expungement addresses what follows it. JRF continues both, because a justice system earns trust at both ends.
JRF's 501(c)(3) leads nonpartisan research, education, and policy development. Legislative advocacy and direct lobbying related to PAPTA are intended to be conducted separately through a separately governed and financed 501(c)(4), following formation and legal review.
GET INVOLVED
JRF is bringing together economists, attorneys, former prosecutors and other public officials, business leaders, physicians, affected families, researchers, and other professionals to examine the evidence, challenge assumptions, and strengthen the proposed framework.
