Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing. Though as with the guy in this case, he can sue the State/City for wrongful imprisonment and other issues.
> Unless they blatantly broke the law in some provable way, probably nothing.
It seems to me that they should apply the same burden of proof. If a murderer can be convicted on eyewitness evidence, why should the same eyewitness evidence not be sufficient to demonstrate prosecutor corruption?
On the other hand I can understand why they have immunity (although this doesn't affect guilt).
