Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
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 . . .
You really need to start following some decent law blogs George. The gist of the decision is that the city cannot be held responsible for a lack of training unless they were aware of the lack.
JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court rejects failure-to-train claim of wrongfully convicted man[W]hen city policymakers are on actual or constructive notice that a particular omission in their training program causes city employees to violate citizens' constitutional rights, the city may be deemed deliberately indifferent if the policymakers choose to retain that program. ... Without notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular respect, decisionmakers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.
I can see the logic, even if I disagree with the result.
It did not address the personal responsibility of the prosecutor because he is dead, and he was not part of this suit.
Last edited: