(58) These official duties include: (1) advising the police; (59) (2) interacting with the media; (60) and (3) testifying as a complaining witness.

Because of his robbery conviction, Thompson elected not to testify at his later murder trial and was convicted. (57) In other circumstances, the Court has granted qualified immunity to provide a "defense of good faith" for prosecutors performing certain official duties. It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology. Timothy Fry * I. I. NTRODUCTION.

(35), Resource limitations make some discretion inevitable, but the modern criminal justice system guarantees wide-ranging discretion. I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like. h޴WyX��I�@BŽ($�`U��K�B��]x�H���(�l h��Y��(��Q��Yl��Ņ���V������ݙLB���{t�ν���9�s�aA�ِ�jCTh��B� "@�wE�o����G���0Z%��KBD���W���� �O{��P�t>&�$���P8� ���u��r|�^�.K����� �uqZ.

Thus, Thompson cannot rely on the lack of an ability to cope with constitutional situations that underlies the Canton hypothetical, but must assert that prosecutors were not trained about particular Brady evidence or the specific scenario related to the violation in his case.

Finally, in Part IV, the Comment turns to a series of modest proposals to incentivize increased Brady-doctrine training. <<91C6E11D70A7B2110A00803981FBFE7F>]/Prev 873783>> That's it. This ensured Thompson would not take the stand in his own defense at the murder trial, (9) where he was convicted and sentenced to death. ", "Prosecutors Get a Mulligan, Wrongfully Convicted Man Gets Squat", "When the Supreme Court Fears Too Much Justice", "Cops Are Stupid, But Prosecutors Are Smart". Monell v. New York City Dept. Failure to train prosecutors in their Brady obligations does not fall within the narrow range of Canton's hypothesized single-incident liability. (30) The theoretical base of discretion is the Anglo-American understanding of free will.

Cruz the Private Lawyer Did Something Else", "Supreme Court rules against exonerated death row inmate who sued prosecutors", "A wrong decision by the Supreme Court on civil rights", "Man Wrongly Convicted: Are Prosecutors Liable? (31) Since people choose whether to exercise their own power, they have discretion to make choices about their actions. (14) The office had no notice of Brady violations to correct through training.

[2], The Supreme Court overturned the $14 million award by a lower court in a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines.

(20) Prosecutors are powerful actors, controlling the criminal justice system with an outsized impact on the wider political system. When a defense investigator discovered these undisclosed facts weeks before Thompson's scheduled execution, the court promptly reversed both of Thompson's convictions.

CONNICK v. THOMPSON ( No. They receive training before entering the profession, must usually satisfy continuing education requirements, often train on the job with more experienced attorneys, and must satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethical obligations. 3768 0 obj 0000007369 00000 n GINSBURG’S .

xref 0000035931 00000 n (26), Prosecutorial discretion--deciding what legal actions to take, if any (27)--is a "residual concept" that leaves prosecutors the opportunity to exercise subjective judgment within the gaps of statutory and judge-made law. 0000008324 00000 n (40) This allows prosecutors to select the prosecutions they pursue and those they do not. CONNICK V. THOMPSON . 3733 0 obj trailer

0000000016 00000 n

(53) This holding was limited to the "judicial phase of the criminal process." (48) This decision became the majority rule in the United States. He then filed suit against the district attorney’s office under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging, inter alia, that the Brady violation was caused by the office’s deliberate indifference to an obvious need to train prosecutors to avoid such constitutional violations.

His codefendant was able to testify that he saw Thompson commit the murder without rebuttal testimony from Thompson. After his picture was published in the newspaper because of the arrest, victims of an unsolved attempted armed robbery identified Thompson as the person involved.

"[11] Wendy Kaminer wrote that "...what's striking about this case, aside from the majority's apparent indifference to practical realities and the actual sufferings of an innocent man wrongfully sentenced to die, is its indifference to the facts of the case outlined by Justice Ginsburg's dissent. (45) Taking charging and plea-bargaining powers together, prosecutors have large discretion in determining criminal sentences. [4] The Supreme Court found for the appellant, Harry Connick, Sr., and ruled that the prosecutor's office is not liable. [7] Dahlia Lithwick wrote "Both Thomas and Scalia have produced what can only be described as a master class in human apathy. (24) Elected prosecutors, despite having a responsibility to their electorates, (25) rarely face punishment at the ballot box because the public usually does not learn of the misconduct and even if it does, it may not care as long as convictions resulted. The Court held that a § 1983 suit could not be used to holda (54), In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court further extended prosecutorial immunity.

Specifically, in Part II, this Comment discusses how prosecutorial discretion can lead to cases of misconduct, which complex procedural doctrines like the Brady doctrine have been unable to eliminate. Syllabus Opinion [Thomas] Concurrence [Scalia] Dissent [Ginsburg] HTML version PDF version: HTML version PDF version: HTML version PDF version: HTML version PDF version Contrary to the holding below, it does not follow that, because Brady has gray areas and some Brady decisions are difficult, prosecutors will so obviously make wrong decisions that failing to train them amounts, as it must, to “a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution.” Canton, 489 U. S., at 395 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 563, public domain material from this U.S government document, "Cruz the Politician Champions the Death Penalty. <>stream

(37) The state level mirrors the federal crime increase.

You could also do it yourself at any point in time. Dissent (Justice Ginsburg) GINSBURG, J., DISSENTING CONNICK V. THOMPSON 563 U. S. ____ (2011) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO.

Dahlia Lithwick wrote "Both Thomas and Scaliahave produced what can only be described as a master class in human apathy. (49) By 1927, the Supreme Court endorsed this rule (50) by affirming per curiam the Second Circuit's holding that a prosecutor "is immune from ... malicious prosecution based on an indictment and prosecution...." (51) The Second Circuit grounded this rule in public policy considerations.

0000006059 00000 n 0000004122 00000 n

(52) In 1976, the Supreme Court extended this common law rule of immunity to [section] 1983 civil rights claims. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. ___ (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.. Without notice that a course of training is deficient, decision makers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights. It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology.

v. Brown, 520 U. S. 397, 410. Since Thompson’s trial, however, we have decided a case that appears to say just the opposite of the training the dissent would require: In Arizona v. Youngblood , 488 U. S. 51 , 58 (1988), we held that “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.”

0000024244 00000 n 0000011426 00000 n

"[10] Andrew Cohen called the majority's argument a "warped rationale. Thus, recurring constitutional violations are not the “obvious consequence” of failing to provide prosecutors with formal in-house training. Here, the prosecutors were familiar with the general Brady rule. 0000030389 00000 n In both trials, the prosecutor's office failed to turn over to the defense material evidence that cast doubt on Thompson's guilt--blood tests that indicated he had not committed the armed robbery and eyewitness testimony suggesting he was not the murderer. Thompson does not contend that he proved a pattern of similar Brady violations, and four reversals by Louisiana courts for dissimilar Brady violations in the 10 years before the robbery trial could not have put the district attorney's office on notice of the need for specific training. Held: A district attorney’s office may not be held liable under §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation. ", "(b) A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is “ordinarily necessary” to demonstrate deliberate indifference. To install click the Add extension button. ", "(a) Plaintiffs seeking to impose §1983 liability on local governments must prove that their injury was caused by “action pursuant to official municipal policy,” which includes the decisions of a government's lawmakers, the acts of its policy making officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law. Healy continued, "[t]he conservative majority preferred to affirm an obvious wrong rather than face the appalling vista of a brutal and corrupt justice system.

Individual prosecutors have received "professional training and [have] ethical obligations" to inform themselves of the Brady doctrine.