Adams v. Hanson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18080
6th Cir.2011Background
- Adams was subpoenaed by Hanson, an assistant prosecutor, to testify at a Michigan preliminary examination related to a gang-related case.
- Adams, who was six-and-a-half months pregnant, refused to testify and claimed the statements attributed to her were false.
- Hanson allegedly told the state court Adams would not testify, leading the court to detain Adams without a hearing or bond.
- Adams was detained for twelve days, largely in isolation, without prior opportunity to be heard or counsel.
- The mittimus described Adams as a witness and it was later clarified that she was detained as a material witness, not for contempt.
- Adams filed a §1983 suit alleging Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; Hanson moved for summary judgment based on absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hanson is entitled to absolute immunity for statements to the court at the preliminary examination. | Adams argues Hanson acted as a non-advocate with administrative/complaining-witness role. | Hanson acted within prosecutorial function and is absolute immune. | Yes; Hanson is absolutely immune for prosecutorial advocacy before the court. |
| If immunity applies, is Hanson's conduct prosecutorial rather than administrative or investigative regarding the material-witness detention? | Hanson's statements were off-record, misled the court, and were not prosecutorial advocacy. | Conduct falls within advocacy to secure witness testimony and related judicial proceedings. | Conduct falls within prosecutorial function and is protected. |
| Does Hansen's alleged motive alter the immunity analysis? | Illicit motive could negate immunity. | Motivation does not defeat immunity when actions relate to advocacy. | No; motive does not defeat immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (establishes absolute immunity for prosecutors in initiating and pursuing prosecutions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court 1993) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity; advocacy-related acts protected)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court 1997) (distinguishes sworn vs. unsworn acts; sworn testimony may negate absolute immunity for a witness)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court 1991) (defines scope of absolute immunity for prosecutors; protects advocacy before the court)
- Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes administrative acts from prosecutorial advocacy in terms of immunity)
- Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (cautions against absolute immunity for detainee-related prosecutorial actions; context-dependent)
- al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 563 U.S. __ (Supreme Court 2011) (discusses material-witness detention and motive; clarifies scope of immunity in material-witness context)