Yet Another Outrage From Our Right-Wing Supreme Court

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

[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.

JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court rejects failure-to-train claim of wrongfully convicted man

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I knew we was in trouble after these idiots ruled in the New London vs Kelo case.

Huh???

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I knew we was in trouble after these right wing idiots ruled in the New London vs Kelo case.

Amen, brother. And, sadly, this is just the beginning, which is really the basic point of this thread.

Shame on you George. You should know that Kelo was written by the left wing of the court, and dissented by the right wing. Blaming that miscarriage on the conservative block is a complete misrepresentation of the case.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I knew we was in trouble after these idiots ruled in the New London vs Kelo case.

Huh???

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes that is the case

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I knew we was in trouble after these idiots ruled in the New London vs Kelo case.

Huh???

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes that is the case

I know it is the case. Unlike you, I am not a complete idiot.

If you read the quote I posted you will see that majority position is from the left wing of the court, not the right. It might have gone the other way in an alternate universe, but not this one.

 

[George Costanza]

I knew we was in trouble after these right wing idiots ruled in the New London vs Kelo case.

Amen, brother. And, sadly, this is just the beginning, which is really the basic point of this thread.

Shame on you George. You should know that Kelo was written by the left wing of the court, and dissented by the right wing. Blaming that miscarriage on the conservative block is a complete misrepresentation of the case.

I got jobbed. I was thinking Kelo was a different case. Sorry.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Yeah - tell that to Mr. Thompson.

 

[Annie]

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.

I'm sorry but I thought training prosecutors and defense attorneys would be the job of law schools and continuing education?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I gotta call bullshit on that. It bothers the hell out of me.

I think the prosecutor should also spend 18 years in prison.

Immie

 

[George Costanza]

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.

. . . . .

I can see the logic, even if I disagree with the result.

I disagree with both the result and the logic.

One must ask, WHY was the city unaware of the lack? Shouldn't the city be charged with the responsibility of MONITORING the state of training on a critical thing such as this (just look at the result when the lack of training puts a guy away for 18 years!) and providing that training if it is lacking?

I'm sure you have heard of the phrase, "knew, or should have known." There are situations where even though a party was unaware of something, the law still imposes upon them the responsibility of knowing, i.e., they "should have known" and so, the defense of "I didn't know" doesn't get them off the hook.

Criminal discovery itself is a good example. The police possess information that should be turned over to the defense. They don't turn it over to the prosecutor. When the prosecutor is called on the line for failing to turn over discovery, he cannot be heard to say, "I didn't know it existed - the police had failed to inform me." Discovery in the hands of the police is DEEMED to be also in the hands of the prosecutor, i.e., he is CHARGED WITH the responsibility of getting everything from the police and turning it over to the defense.

So it is here with the city. "We didn't know there was a lack of training." Oh, yeah - well guess what, Mojambo - it is your responsibility to know what the state of training is, and to take action to bring it up to speed if it is lacking. Your failure to do that means you are going to have to compensate Mr. Thompson.

That is what the decision SHOULD have said.

 

[jillian]

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.

I gotta call bullshit on that. It bothers the hell out of me.

I think the prosecutor should also spend 18 years in prison.

Immie

It should bother the hell out of you, Immie. And I don't know if I'd go so far as to wish the eye for an eye thing on the prosecutor. But I do think the victim of their game should have gotten his money.

I'd also point out the responses we have gotten from the more vociferous apologists for this Court.

 

[jillian]

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.

. . . . .

I can see the logic, even if I disagree with the result.

I disagree with both the result and the logic.

One must ask, WHY was the city unaware of the lack? Shouldn't the city be charged with the responsibility of MONITORING the state of training on a critical thing such as this (just look at the result when the lack of training puts a guy away for 18 years!) and providing that training if it is lacking?

I'm sure you have heard of the phrase, "knew, or should have known." There are situations where even though a party was unaware of something, the law still imposes upon them the responsibility of knowing, i.e., they "should have known" and so, the defense of "I didn't know" doesn't get them off the hook.

Criminal discovery itself is a good example. The police possess information that should be turned over to the defense. They don't turn it over to the prosecutor. When the prosecutor is called on the line for failing to turn over discovery, he cannot be heard to say, "I didn't know it existed - the police had failed to inform me." Discovery in the hands of the police is DEEMED to be also in the hands of the prosecutor, i.e., he is CHARGED WITH the responsibility of getting everything from the police and turning it over to the defense.

So it is here with the city. "We didn't know there was a lack of training." Oh, yeah - well guess what, Mojambo - it is your responsibility to know what the state of training is, and to take action to bring it up to speed if it is lacking. Your failure to do that means you are going to have to compensate Mr. Thompson.

That is what the decision SHOULD have said.

pretty much...

unless Louisiana has something specific in its code... and I don't recall even this court saying such a thing.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I gotta call bullshit on that. It bothers the hell out of me.

I think the prosecutor should also spend 18 years in prison.

Immie

It should bother the hell out of you, Immie. And I don't know if I'd go so far as to wish the eye for an eye thing on the prosecutor. But I do think the victim of their game should have gotten his money.

I'd also point out the responses we have gotten from the more vociferous apologists for this Court.

I'll stick with my Eye for an Eye position on this one. Sometimes turning the other cheek is just not as fun! I say give him 18 years, then find the prison that has the largest population of those he incarcerated and send him there!

Immie

 

[Liability]

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

I didn't read all of the linked material, nor did I read the underlying civil pleadings. But it can't possibly be the case that the ONLY basis to sue the DA's Office for failing to comply with the well-known "Brady" Rule was "failure to train." Can it?

Then I quickly read the SCOTUS majority opinion and found this tidbit of information:

The only claim that proceeded to trial was Thompson’s claim under §1983 that the district attorney’s office had violated Brady by failing to disclose the crime lab report in his armed robbery trial.

-- excerpt from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

Now as to WHY that was the sole claim to proceed to trial, I have no idea. But since it was the sole claim to go to trial, the SCOTUS decision has to be judged on that one claim. And here, the claim was that the DA's Office policy of failing to train its prosecutors constituted a pattern of behavior:

Accordingly, the District Court instructed the jury that the “only issue” was whether the nondisclosure was caused by either a policy, practice, or custom of the district attorney’s office or a deliberately indifferent failure to train the office’s prosecutors.

-- excerpt from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

The jury rejected Thompson’s claim that an unconstitu-tional office policy caused the Brady violation, but found the district attorney’s office liable for failing to train the prosecutors.

-- id.

After the verdict, Connick renewed his objection—whichhe had raised on summary judgment—that he could not have been deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for more or different Brady training because there was noevidence that he was aware of a pattern of similar Brady violations. The District Court rejected this argument for the reasons that it had given in the summary judgmentorder. In that order, the court had concluded that a pat-tern of violations is not necessary to prove deliberateindifference when the need for training is “so obvious.” No. Civ. A. 03–2045 (ED La., Nov. 15, 2005), App. to Pet.for Cert. 141a, 2005 WL 3541035, *13. Relying on Canton
v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989), the court had held that Thompson could demonstrate deliberate indifference byproving that “the DA’s office knew to a moral certaintythat assistan[t] [district attorneys] would acquire Bradymaterial, that without training it is not always obviouswhat Brady requires, and that withholding Brady mate-rial will virtually always lead to a substantial violation ofconstitutional rights.”4 App. to Pet. for Cert. 141a, 2005

WL 3541035, *13.

-- id.

The appellate history of the case demonstrates that the key legal issue WAS far from settled.

So this particular criticism of the SCOTUS decision comes down to an expression of disagreement with the Court's legal ruling.

It is suggested by Costanza in his OP -- but nowhere supported -- that Justice Thomas reached this majority opinion for a reason OTHER THAN straightforward legal analysis.

But what George C overlooks is that in order to reach the determination he favors (one many of us would like in terms of our sense of justice) the legal decision would have to be strained. What if DA Connick was right though? What if there was no evidence at the trial that he had ever been effectively put on notice in a way sufficient to make non-disclosure of Brady a governmental "policy?"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey if the fucking government can slap a fine on me for violating some regulation that I didn't know about then the fucking government should be held to the same standard.

 

[jillian]

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

I didn't read all of the linked material, nor did I read the underlying civil pleadings. But it can't possibly be the case that the ONLY basis to sue the DA's Office for failing to comply with the well-known "Brady" Rule was "failure to train." Can it?

Then I quickly read the SCOTUS majority opinion and found this tidbit of information: -- excerpt from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

Now as to WHY that was the sole claim to proceed to trial, I have no idea. But since it was the sole claim to go to trial, the SCOTUS decision has to be judged on that one claim. And here, the claim was that the DA's Office policy of failing to train its prosecutors constituted a pattern of behavior: -- excerpt from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

The jury rejected Thompson’s claim that an unconstitu-tional office policy caused the Brady violation, but found the district attorney’s office liable for failing to train the prosecutors.

-- id.

After the verdict, Connick renewed his objection—whichhe had raised on summary judgment—that he could not have been deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for more or different Brady training because there was noevidence that he was aware of a pattern of similar Brady violations. The District Court rejected this argument for the reasons that it had given in the summary judgmentorder. In that order, the court had concluded that a pat-tern of violations is not necessary to prove deliberateindifference when the need for training is “so obvious.” No. Civ. A. 03–2045 (ED La., Nov. 15, 2005), App. to Pet.for Cert. 141a, 2005 WL 3541035, *13. Relying on Canton
v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989), the court had held that Thompson could demonstrate deliberate indifference byproving that “the DA’s office knew to a moral certaintythat assistan[t] [district attorneys] would acquire Bradymaterial, that without training it is not always obviouswhat Brady requires, and that withholding Brady mate-rial will virtually always lead to a substantial violation ofconstitutional rights.”4 App. to Pet. for Cert. 141a, 2005

WL 3541035, *13.

-- id.

The appellate history of the case demonstrates that the key legal issue WAS far from settled.

So this particular criticism of the SCOTUS decision comes down to an expression of disagreement with the Court's legal ruling.

It is suggested by Costanza in his OP -- but nowhere supported -- that Justice Thomas reached this majority opinion for a reason OTHER THAN straightforward legal analysis.

But what George C overlooks is that in order to reach the determination he favors (one many of us would like in terms of our sense of justice) the legal decision would have to be strained. What if DA Connick was right though? What if there was no evidence at the trial that he had ever been effectively put on notice in a way sufficient to make non-disclosure of Brady a governmental "policy?"

the court said nothing about their being insufficient evidence.

and, ultimately, the supreme court is not there to overturn findings of fact. if there was sufficient evidence at trial (regardless of opposing evidence) for the jury to make a finding then it isn't subject to judicial review.

unless there is a de novo trial, the court is only there to dispose of issues of law.

you know that, right?

 

[George Costanza]

So this particular criticism of the SCOTUS decision comes down to an expression of disagreement with the Court's legal ruling.

It is suggested by Costanza in his OP -- but nowhere supported -- that Justice Thomas reached this majority opinion for a reason OTHER THAN straightforward legal analysis.

But what George C overlooks is that in order to reach the determination he favors (one many of us would like in terms of our sense of justice) the legal decision would have to be strained. What if DA Connick was right though? What if there was no evidence at the trial that he had ever been effectively put on notice in a way sufficient to make non-disclosure of Brady a governmental "policy?"

It seems to me this decision boils down to a policy decision - should municipalities be held to a "knew - or should have known" standard, or is it sufficient for them to hide behind the "we didn't know" defense, since this was "only a single occurrence"? (Never mind the fact that the single occurrence put an innocent man in prison for 18 years.)

Obviously, the decision goes for a policy that favors the Big Guy and screws the Little Guy. That looks an AWFUL lot like Good Old Conservative Policy to me.

As mentioned, I disagree with a policy of this nature. I think municipalities in this situation should be held to the knew or should have known standard, even if this is only the first instance of the problem. A Brady discovery turnover is not rocket science. Hard to imagine a more basic foul up by a prosecutor.

You note: "What if there was no evidence at the trial that he had ever been effectively put on notice in a way sufficient to make non-disclosure of Brady a governmental "policy?" Last time I looked, it was not up to non-legal bureaucrats in some city office, to instruct a licensed attorney (the prosecutor) with regard to the legal duty imposed upon prosecutors by the Brady decision. Seems to me he is kind of required to know that independently of anything the City might tell him.

 

[George Costanza]

unless there is a de novo trial, the court is only there to dispose of issues of law.

you know that, right?

Of course. He's an attorney. Right?

 

[jillian]

unless there is a de novo trial, the court is only there to dispose of issues of law.

you know that, right?

Of course. He's an attorney. Right?

i don't question his bona fides. i just think he gets so caught up in the partisan nonsense that he shoots from the lip.

 

[Liability]

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

I didn't read all of the linked material, nor did I read the underlying civil pleadings. But it can't possibly be the case that the ONLY basis to sue the DA's Office for failing to comply with the well-known "Brady" Rule was "failure to train." Can it?

Then I quickly read the SCOTUS majority opinion and found this tidbit of information: -- excerpt from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

Now as to WHY that was the sole claim to proceed to trial, I have no idea. But since it was the sole claim to go to trial, the SCOTUS decision has to be judged on that one claim. And here, the claim was that the DA's Office policy of failing to train its prosecutors constituted a pattern of behavior: -- excerpt from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

-- id.

After the verdict, Connick renewed his objection—whichhe had raised on summary judgment—that he could not have been deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for more or different Brady training because there was noevidence that he was aware of a pattern of similar Brady violations. The District Court rejected this argument for the reasons that it had given in the summary judgmentorder. In that order, the court had concluded that a pat-tern of violations is not necessary to prove deliberateindifference when the need for training is “so obvious.” No. Civ. A. 03–2045 (ED La., Nov. 15, 2005), App. to Pet.for Cert. 141a, 2005 WL 3541035, *13. Relying on Canton
v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989), the court had held that Thompson could demonstrate deliberate indifference byproving that “the DA’s office knew to a moral certaintythat assistan[t] [district attorneys] would acquire Bradymaterial, that without training it is not always obviouswhat Brady requires, and that withholding Brady mate-rial will virtually always lead to a substantial violation ofconstitutional rights.”4 App. to Pet. for Cert. 141a, 2005

WL 3541035, *13.

-- id.

The appellate history of the case demonstrates that the key legal issue WAS far from settled.

So this particular criticism of the SCOTUS decision comes down to an expression of disagreement with the Court's legal ruling.

It is suggested by Costanza in his OP -- but nowhere supported -- that Justice Thomas reached this majority opinion for a reason OTHER THAN straightforward legal analysis.

But what George C overlooks is that in order to reach the determination he favors (one many of us would like in terms of our sense of justice) the legal decision would have to be strained. What if DA Connick was right though? What if there was no evidence at the trial that he had ever been effectively put on notice in a way sufficient to make non-disclosure of Brady a governmental "policy?"

the court said nothing about their being insufficient evidence.

and, ultimately, the supreme court is not there to overturn findings of fact. if there was sufficient evidence at trial (regardless of opposing evidence) for the jury to make a finding then it isn't subject to judicial review.

unless there is a de novo trial, the court is only there to dispose of issues of law.

you know that, right?

The Court (SCOTUS) DID only review an issue of law.

You know that, right?

And that being the case (and it is) Georgie's implicit criticism of the Court decision was fundamentally disingenuous of him.