NCJ Number
110373
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 136 Issue: 3 Dated: (January 1988) Pages: 851-940
Date Published
1988
Length
90 pages
Annotation
Courts should use restraint in applying or extending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Town of Newton v. Rumery, which upheld a bargain between a public prosecutor and a private criminal defendant that was designed to keep the defendant's civil rights claims against the police out of court.
Abstract
Bernard Rumery, Jr., was arrested on charges of witness tampering. He had allegedly made threats of retaliation if the victim in a sexual assault case pressed charges against his former hunting companion. Rumery claimed that he had been wrongfully accused. The prosecutor, concerned that the victim's testimony in the Rumery prosecution would further traumatize her, arranged to dismiss the criminal charges against Rumery in exchange for his release of the officials and the victim from civil liability. Ten months after the release-dismissal agreement Rumery filed a Federal civil rights action against the Town of Newton and its officials, seeking damages for his arrest. The five-member majority in the Rumery decision did not fully explore the dangers of release-dismissal agreements, however. These agreements involve substantial threats of abridging the right to petition for redress of grievances. Moreover, exchanging civil releases for dismissal of criminal charges compromises the idea of the criminal process, the impartiality of the role of prosecutor, and often the criminal justice policy of the states. Thus, releases should be sought, as the Rumery majority stated, only for legitimate reasons directly related to prosecutorial responsibilities. 319 footnotes and appended table showing different jurisdictions' policies regarding release-dismissal agreements.