Plumas County , California Judges Olney, Kaufman and Pangman conspired with county Prosecutors Cunan and McGowan to wrongfully convict and imprison Joseph Robinson through knowing, willing and malicious violation of his right to counsel and his right to present a defense to the jury while California allowed them to do it and then condoned it.

On July 31, 2001, Cunan and Olney wrongfully convicted and then falsely imprisoned Robinson for 567 days before the California State Prison paroled him. Thirty days later, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed Robinson's conviction because the aforementioned individuals violated his right to counsel. When his case was remitted back to the Plumas County Court for a fair trial, Cunan and Olney dismissed all charges against Robinson.

When Robinson sued the aforementioned individuals and California for monetary damages, they all claimed immunity and United States District Court Judge Burrell ruled that they were all immune from civil liability and ordered the suit to be dismissed.

Robinson's appeal in the Ninth Circuit requests that court to resolve the following issues:

1. Do people who have been unlawfully convicted and falsely imprisoned have the right to a civil remedy? If no, why not? If yes, who pays?

2. Are judges and prosecutors in a court with subject matter jurisdiction immune from civil liability under all circumstances no matter how outrageous their conduct, without exception?

3. Are the following circumstances narrow enough to constitute an exception to judicial and prosecutorial immunity pursuant to this Court's conclusion in Ashelman v. Pope that the exceptions to immunity must be narrowly drawn?

Allegation of judicial/prosecutorial conspiracy to wrongfully convict and imprison a defendant through intentional violation of his right to counsel

· Post-conviction imprisonment

· Appellate court reversal of the conviction for the violation of right to counsel

· Subsequent acquittal or dismissal with prejudice of all charges

4. If not, how narrow does an exception to judicial immunity have to be?

5. Is the state liable under the foregoing circumstances?

The essential question here is: “Who Pays?”

When state judges and prosecutors violate the right to counsel to unlawfully convict and falsely imprison an individual for 567 days and then dismiss all of the charges when the case is reversed upon appeal and remitted back for a fair trial, who pays, the state the judges and prosecutors, or the individual who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned?

Documents:

1. California Appellate Ruling

2. District Court Complaint

3. Appeal Opening Brief

4. Appeal Response Brief

5. Appeal Reply Brief