Wednesday's hearing was the first time in the Innocence Project's 27-year history it has appeared in court on behalf of a current or former prosecutor. Phil Durst, an attorney representing the Innocence Project, argued that a ruling in favor of Hillman would help enforce the "highest judicial function of making sure that innocent people are not convicted of crimes and sent to prison or worse." Christopher Gale, Hillman's attorney, said the 1985 case was clear that all employees are entitled to protection from being fired if they refuse to commit an illegal act. "My client is not only Mr. Hillman, but defendants, all prosecutors. I think we're arguing for a bigger purpose today," Gale said. The Innocence Project has argued that if Hillman's lawsuit isn't reinstated, it would help create a culture of disregard for the law. As an example, the legal group in court documents highlighted the case of a woman in Nueces County whose 2015 murder conviction was overturned after a judge determined prosecutors had suppressed evidence. Jason LaFond, an assistant solicitor general with the Texas Attorney General's Office, said the state retains immunity from a lawsuit like Hillman's and any intervention that would allow such a case to go forward should be done by the Legislature and not the courts. "There's no evidence there is a systematic problem (with prosecutorial misconduct) here. ... There is no need for this court to act," said LaFond, who added that Hillman should have utilized the Texas Whistleblower Act, which protects public employees. Chief Justice Nathan Hecht seemed skeptical of claims that the state can have such immunity. "It's a little hard to see how a county can come in and argue, 'We can violate the law and there's just nothing you can do about it,'" he said. It's not clear when the court will rule.""

The entire story can be read at: