Suing a Prosecutor for Bad Faith & Malicious Prosecution

This is a case called Kim L. Anderson vs. Scott A. Smith. It was decided on December 27, 2012 by the Franklin County Court of Appeals. Mr. Smith is an Assistant County Prosecutor in Franklin County, Ohio. He prosecuted Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Kim L. Anderson has a chip on his shoulder. After getting indicted by a Grand Jury and convicted by a full jury, he decided to try and prosecute his prosecutor. Apparently, Mr. Anderson is a real doozy. He was convicted by a jury of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, theft, forgery, money laundering, and identity fraud as a result of his participation in a mortgage fraud scheme.

He filed a civl case against the prosecutor who took him to trial. The prosecutor won the criminal case. Mr. Anderson sued for “contempt” and lost. The prosecutor went to 2-0. Mr. Anderson appealed to the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. And lost. Prosecutor 3, Mr. Anderson 0.

For a free legal consultation, call 614-884-1100

Mr. Anderson added some new civil claims to yet another lawsuit. That got thrown out by the trial jude. Prosecutor 4, Mr. Anderson 0. On to the Franklin County Court of Appeals again. Citing the “Absolute Immunity Statute” for prosecutor’s doing their job, Mr. Anderson lost again. He’s now 0-4.

Apparently in all his legal research he failed to find R.C. 2744.03(A)(7) which provides that “[t]he political subdivision, and an employee who is a county prosecuting attorney * * * is entitled to any defense or immunity available at common law or established by the Revised Code.” Under the common law, prosecuting attorneys are entitled to absolute immunity “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.”

The immunity so provided extends even to false statements a prosecutor makes. Adams v. Hanson, 656 F.3d 397, 405 (6th Cir.2011), quoting
Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716, 725 (6th Cir.2011) (stating ” ‘prosecutor’s do not forfeit their absolute immunity when they knowingly make false statements while advocating before the court’ “);
Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402, 1417 (3d Cir.1991), citing
Imbler at 424-27, and
Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830 (3d Cir.1976) (noting immunity extends to making false or defamatory statements in judicial proceedings and applies to a prosecutor’s knowing use of perjured testimony in a judicial proceeding).