Yet Another Outrage From Our Right-Wing Supreme Court

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Mar 10, 2009
5,188
1,160
155
Los Angeles area.
John Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years following a trial during which the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Thompson brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the district attorney's office is liable for failing to properly train its employees on the requirements of Brady.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in favor of assigning liability to the district attorney's office. Petitioners, including District Attorney Harry Connick, appealed to the Supreme Court. Connick claims that there was no obvious need to train prosecutors regarding Brady standards and that liability should not attach to the office when there was no notice that the training program needed reform. Respondent Thompson contends that the prosecutors’ lack of training amounted to a deliberate indifference to preserving constitutional rights and that liability may properly attach to the district attorney's office without a past history of violations.

This decision will determine the extent to which a municipality may be liable for a single action by one of its employees.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-571

That decision is now in, folks. Anyone want to take a stab at how our beloved Supreme Court held? Hint: It was a 5-4 decision. Justice Claence Thomas wrote for the majority. The other four majority justices were (do I have to list them): Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.

So - did the decision support the right of John Thompson to just compensation for having to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because the prosecutor withheld evidence that would have acquitted him, or did it prevent him from getting compensation and protect the prosecutor and the prosecutor's employer?

Once again, our Supreme Court showed it's true colors. Judgment overturned. Take a hike, Mr. Thompson.

Oh, and thank you, George Bush, and all the other conservative presidents involved, for appointing these right wing hacks to our Supreme Court. Brace yourselves, folks. We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

http://themoderatevoice.com/105277/the-false-imprisonment-of-john-thompson-connick-v-thompson/

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/29/35338.htm
 
Last edited:
John Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years following a trial during which the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Thompson brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the district attorney's office is liable for failing to properly train its employees on the requirements of Brady.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in favor of assigning liability to the district attorney's office. Petitioners, including District Attorney Harry Connick, appealed to the Supreme Court. Connick claims that there was no obvious need to train prosecutors regarding Brady standards and that liability should not attach to the office when there was no notice that the training program needed reform. Respondent Thompson contends that the prosecutors’ lack of training amounted to a deliberate indifference to preserving constitutional rights and that liability may properly attach to the district attorney's office without a past history of violations.

This decision will determine the extent to which a municipality may be liable for a single action by one of its employees.

That decision is now in, folks. Anyone want to take a stab at how our beloved Supreme Court held? Hint: It was a 5-4 decision. Justice Claence Thomas wrote for the majority. The other four majority justices were (do I have to list them): Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.

So - did the decision support the right of John Thompson to just compensation for having to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because the prosecutor withheld evidence that would have acquitted him, or did it prevent him from getting compensation and protect the prosecutor and the prosecutor's employer?

Once again, our Supreme Court showed it's true colors. Judgment overturned. Take a hike, Mr. Thompson.

Oh, and thank you, George Bush, and all the other conservative presidents involved, for appointing these right wing hacks to our Supreme Court. Brace yourselves, folks. We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

Damn! I hope so!
 
John Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years following a trial during which the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Thompson brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the district attorney's office is liable for failing to properly train its employees on the requirements of Brady.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in favor of assigning liability to the district attorney's office. Petitioners, including District Attorney Harry Connick, appealed to the Supreme Court. Connick claims that there was no obvious need to train prosecutors regarding Brady standards and that liability should not attach to the office when there was no notice that the training program needed reform. Respondent Thompson contends that the prosecutors’ lack of training amounted to a deliberate indifference to preserving constitutional rights and that liability may properly attach to the district attorney's office without a past history of violations.

This decision will determine the extent to which a municipality may be liable for a single action by one of its employees.

That decision is now in, folks. Anyone want to take a stab at how our beloved Supreme Court held? Hint: It was a 5-4 decision. Justice Claence Thomas wrote for the majority. The other four majority justices were (do I have to list them): Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.

So - did the decision support the right of John Thompson to just compensation for having to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because the prosecutor withheld evidence that would have acquitted him, or did it prevent him from getting compensation and protect the prosecutor and the prosecutor's employer?

Once again, our Supreme Court showed it's true colors. Judgment overturned. Take a hike, Mr. Thompson.

Oh, and thank you, George Bush, and all the other conservative presidents involved, for appointing these right wing hacks to our Supreme Court. Brace yourselves, folks. We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

Damn! I hope so!

why? they prosecutors intentionally didn't turn over exculpatory evidence and took away this guys life.

you can't possibly think this is ok.
 
That decision is now in, folks. Anyone want to take a stab at how our beloved Supreme Court held? Hint: It was a 5-4 decision. Justice Claence Thomas wrote for the majority. The other four majority justices were (do I have to list them): Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.

So - did the decision support the right of John Thompson to just compensation for having to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because the prosecutor withheld evidence that would have acquitted him, or did it prevent him from getting compensation and protect the prosecutor and the prosecutor's employer?

Once again, our Supreme Court showed it's true colors. Judgment overturned. Take a hike, Mr. Thompson.

Oh, and thank you, George Bush, and all the other conservative presidents involved, for appointing these right wing hacks to our Supreme Court. Brace yourselves, folks. We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

Damn! I hope so!

why? they prosecutors intentionally didn't turn over exculpatory evidence and took away this guys life.

you can't possibly think this is ok.

A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jillian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.
 
Last edited:
A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.
Yeah, it's fucked up.

However, where is it written that the prosecutor can't be held personally liable?
 
Damn! I hope so!

why? they prosecutors intentionally didn't turn over exculpatory evidence and took away this guys life.

you can't possibly think this is ok.

A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.

Since reading court decisions always puts me to sleep (why don't they teach writing in law school?) did the court speak to the issue of the prosecutors breach of duty?
 
A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.
Yeah, it's fucked up.

However, where is it written that the prosecutor can't be held personally liable?

I'm not sure he can't. Generally, prosecutors are immune from civil suits for misfeasance in the course of their regular employment, i.e., prosecuting people. But I think that, in aggravated cases, they CAN be held personally liable. To be honest, I haven't read the entire opinion yet - I THINK it mainly is protective of the governmental body the prosecutor was working for. I'll check into it a little further and see what happened to the prosecutor himself. Good question.
 
A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.
Yeah, it's fucked up.

However, where is it written that the prosecutor can't be held personally liable?

:eusa_whistle:

respondeat superior:

Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.

The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

Respondeat superior legal definition of Respondeat superior. Respondeat superior synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
why? they prosecutors intentionally didn't turn over exculpatory evidence and took away this guys life.

you can't possibly think this is ok.

A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.

Since reading court decisions always puts me to sleep (why don't they teach writing in law school?) did the court speak to the issue of the prosecutors breach of duty?

Oh boy - I see I'm going to have to get off my ass and actually DELVE INTO this opinion. I'll give it a shot.

Edit Note: Unless, of course, Jillian does it for me . . .
 
Last edited:
A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.
Yeah, it's fucked up.

However, where is it written that the prosecutor can't be held personally liable?

I'm not sure he can't. Generally, prosecutors are immune from civil suits for misfeasance in the course of their regular employment, i.e., prosecuting people. But I think that, in aggravated cases, they CAN be held personally liable. To be honest, I haven't read the entire opinion yet - I THINK it mainly is protective of the governmental body the prosecutor was working for. I'll check into it a little further and see what happened to the prosecutor himself. Good question.

the award was based on the misfeasance of not training the prosecutors in when they needed to turn over brady material.
 
respondeat superior:

Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.

The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

Respondeat superior legal definition of Respondeat superior. Respondeat superior synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.[/QUOTE]

I know this is right up your alley - but you might also want to talk a bit about governmental immunity, because I think that played big in this decision. (I know, devil's advocate here.)
 
A little detail like that doesn't bother these cons, Jilian. This guy had been ARRESTED and CHARGED, don't you see. Why even HAVE a trial? A little thing like a prosecutor withholding evidence that would have acquitted the guy and prevented him from serving 18 YEARS IN PRISON is merely a side detail.

Sick bastards.
Yeah, it's fucked up.

However, where is it written that the prosecutor can't be held personally liable?

Syllabus


Plain English Issue:
Can a prosecutor’s office be held liable for the illegal conduct of one of its prosecutors, on the theory that the office failed to adequately train its employees, when there has been only one violation resulting from that deficient training? click

They argued the wrong issue. I do think the falsely imprisoned deserve monetary restoration, but the laws have to be argued correctly. Otherwise it's legislation from the bench :eusa_hand:
 
John Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years following a trial during which the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Thompson brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the district attorney's office is liable for failing to properly train its employees on the requirements of Brady.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in favor of assigning liability to the district attorney's office. Petitioners, including District Attorney Harry Connick, appealed to the Supreme Court. Connick claims that there was no obvious need to train prosecutors regarding Brady standards and that liability should not attach to the office when there was no notice that the training program needed reform. Respondent Thompson contends that the prosecutors’ lack of training amounted to a deliberate indifference to preserving constitutional rights and that liability may properly attach to the district attorney's office without a past history of violations.

This decision will determine the extent to which a municipality may be liable for a single action by one of its employees.

Connick v. Thompson (09-571) | LII / Legal Information Institute

That decision is now in, folks. Anyone want to take a stab at how our beloved Supreme Court held? Hint: It was a 5-4 decision. Justice Claence Thomas wrote for the majority. The other four majority justices were (do I have to list them): Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.

So - did the decision support the right of John Thompson to just compensation for having to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because the prosecutor withheld evidence that would have acquitted him, or did it prevent him from getting compensation and protect the prosecutor and the prosecutor's employer?

Once again, our Supreme Court showed it's true colors. Judgment overturned. Take a hike, Mr. Thompson.

Oh, and thank you, George Bush, and all the other conservative presidents involved, for appointing these right wing hacks to our Supreme Court. Brace yourselves, folks. We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

The False Imprisonment Of John Thompson, (Connick v. Thompson) | The Moderate Voice

Courthouse News Service

do you thank republican presidents when they appoint justices who vote on your side of the number line too?:rolleyes:.
 
Damn! I hope so!

And, damn!, I hope that some day you will be on the receiving end of one of their rulings so that you will know what it is like to be in Mr. Thompson's shoes. Check with me then and see how you like it.


It seems more like he should have sued the individual District Attorney for this.

I am not a lawyer and i know that the defense has the right to see all of the materials known by the prosecution and the prosecution has the responsibility to provide it. Failure to supply this seems to be a criminal omission by the individuals and therefore the responsibility, in my view, would rightfully reside there.

From whom was he seeking damages and what was the point of law cited by the justices?
 
Last edited:
I know this is right up your alley - but you might also want to talk a bit about governmental immunity, because I think that played big in this decision. (I know, devil's advocate here.)
Exactly.

Messed up as I find it to be, sovereign immunity is still, more or less, the law of the land.

Seeing as you haven't read the entirety of the decision, there stands the distinct possibility that a statute is being enforced as written, rather than being circumstantially suspended.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top