Imbler v. Pachtman

Imbler v. Pachtman

Opinion

 [*410]  [***132]  [**985]    MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

 The question presented in this case is whether a state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that he is not. 500 F. 2d 1301. We affirm.

The events which culminated in this suit span many years and several judicial proceedings. They began in  [*411]  January 1961, when two men attempted to rob a Los  [**986]  Angeles market run by Morris Hasson. One shot and fatally wounded Hasson, and the two fled in different directions. Ten days later Leonard Lingo was killed while attempting a robbery in Pomona, Cal., but his two accomplices escaped. Paul Imbler, petitioner in this case, turned himself in the next day as one of those accomplices. Subsequent investigation led the Los Angeles District Attorney to believe [****5]  that Imbler and Lingo had perpetrated the first crime as well, and that Imbler had killed Hasson. Imbler was charged with first-degree felony murder for Hasson's death.

The State's case consisted of eyewitness testimony from Hasson's wife and identification testimony from three men who had seen Hasson's assailants fleeing after the shooting. Mrs. Hasson was unable to identify the gunman because a hat had obscured his face, but from police photographs she identified the killer's companion as Leonard Lingo. The primary identification witness was Alfred Costello, a passerby on the night of the crime, who testified that he had a clear view both as the gunman emerged from the market and again a few moments later when the fleeing gunman -- after losing his hat -- turned to fire a shot at Costello ² and to shed his coat ³ before  [***133]  continuing on. Costello positively identified Imbler as the gunman. The second identification witness, an attendant at a parking lot through which the gunman ultimately escaped, testified that he had a side and front view as the man passed. Finally, a customer who was leaving Hasson's market as the robbers entered  [*412]  testified that [****6]  he had a good look then and as they exited moments later. All of these witnesses identified Imbler as the gunman, and the customer also identified the second man as Leonard Lingo. Rigorous cross-examination failed to shake any of these witnesses. ⁴ 

Imbler's defense was an alibi.  He claimed to have spent the night of the Hasson killing bar-hopping with several persons, and to have met Lingo for the first time the morning before the attempted robbery in Pomona.This testimony was corroborated by Mayes, the other accomplice in the Pomona robbery, who also claimed to have accompanied Imbler [****7]  on the earlier rounds of the bars. The jury found Imbler guilty and fixed punishment at death. ⁵ On appeal the Supreme Court of California affirmed unanimously over numerous contentions of error. People  v. Imbler,  57 Cal. 2d 711, 371 P. 2d 304 (1962).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.