Yet Another Outrage From Our Right-Wing Supreme Court

[Liability]

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?

You claim to be one, too.

And assuming that you are, you know you should be at least a little more interested in being honest about a critique of a SCOTUS decision.

All they did WAS to review an issue of law.

Did you really not figure that out?

 

[George Costanza]

In her well written dissent, Justice Ginsburg disagrees with the marjority, largely on a factual basis. She points out that the record clearly shows a pattern of Brady violations, sufficient enough to trigger liability on the part of the DA's office. Scalia thinks that pattern is not shown; Ginsberg disagrees, and cites numerous examples.

Frankly, I had kind of thought she would rely more on a legal analysis than a factual one. I would have preferred that she concentrate on what ought to be vicaious liability of the municipality in a situation such as this, i.e., the "knew or should have known" premise I have previously referred to.

In sum, despite JUSTICE SCALIA’s protestations to the contrary, ante, at 1, 5, the Brady violations in Thompson’s prosecutions were not singular and they were not aberrational. They were just what one would expect given the attitude toward Brady pervasive in the District Attorney’s Office.

 

[George Costanza]

You claim to be one, too.

Ah, but I AM an attorney.

 

[George Costanza]

All they did WAS to review an issue of law.

That's what appellate courts do. In fact, that is ALL they do. Once again, you should know that.

Edit Note: Let me qualify that. Appellate courts can CONSIDER factual evidence, and decide whether or not the factual evidence supports the verdict, but they cannot DECIDE factual matters. They must work within the evidence that goes up on appeal to them, and assume that it is true. That is what the Court did in this case.

Where is it written that I, or anyone, cannot criticize a court opinion, whether it is factual or evidentiary? Does the fact that this is a decision on an issue of law render it immune from comment or cticicism? Of course not.

Get back on track.

 

[Liability]

You claim to be one, too.

Ah, but I AM an attorney.

Ah. So you CLAIM.

 

[Liability]

All they did WAS to review an issue of law.

That's what appellate courts do. In fact, that is ALL they do. Once again, you should know that.

Edit Note: Let me qualify that. Appellate courts can CONSIDER factual evidence, and decide whether or not the factual evidence supports the verdict or not, but they cannot DECIDE factual matters. They must work within the evidence that goes up on appeal to them, and assume that it is true. That is what the Court did in this case.

Where is it written that I, or anyone, cannot criticize a court opinion, whether it is factual or evidentiary? Does the fact that this is a decision on an issue of law render it immune from comment or cticicism? Of course not.

Get back on track.

Yes. We all know, even many non lawyers know that appellate courts primarily review issues of law.

And I said nothing that even remotely said otherwise. So while you are busy arguing against a straw man creation of your choosing, for reasons all your own, the FACT remains that your implicit criticism of the SCOTUS ruling was unfair and invalid.

We may not care for the outcome (i.e., we might all wish to see a guy wrongly convicted on the basis of withheld exculpatory evidence getting some kind of vindication in his civil action). But the fact that the outcome is unsatisfying does not mean that the Court reached that determination (as you invalidly and implicitly contended) by way of partisan ploitics. Indeed, there's no reason to believe that any of the Justices who sided with the majority decision enjoyed having to rule that way.

YOU should know that.

GET on track.

 

[George Costanza]

All they did WAS to review an issue of law.

That's what appellate courts do. In fact, that is ALL they do. Once again, you should know that.

Edit Note: Let me qualify that. Appellate courts can CONSIDER factual evidence, and decide whether or not the factual evidence supports the verdict or not, but they cannot DECIDE factual matters. They must work within the evidence that goes up on appeal to them, and assume that it is true. That is what the Court did in this case.

Where is it written that I, or anyone, cannot criticize a court opinion, whether it is factual or evidentiary? Does the fact that this is a decision on an issue of law render it immune from comment or cticicism? Of course not.

Get back on track.

Yes. We all know, even many non lawyers know that appellate courts primarily review issues of law.

And I said nothing that even remotely said otherwise. So while you are busy arguing against a straw man creation of your choosing, for reasons all your own, the FACT remains that your implicit criticism of the SCOTUS ruling was unfair and invalid.

We may not care for the outcome (i.e., we might all wish to see a guy wrongly convicted on the basis of withheld exculpatory evidence getting some kind of vindication in his civil action). But the fact that the outcome is unsatisfying does not mean that the Court reached that determination (as you invalidly and implicitly contended) by way of partisan ploitics. Indeed, there's no reason to believe that any of the Justices who sided with the majority decision enjoyed having to rule that way.

YOU should know that.

GET on track.

Well, I just don't think so. Consider who made up the majority - Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and (turncoat) Kennedy. Come on, give me a BREAK. This is a conservative politics oriented decision. If it were not, I submit that you would have seen a bi-partisan presence in both the majority and the minority.

It looks to me as if the majority simply found a way to get the job done, in spite of the evidence. Check out the dissent.

 

[Liability]

That's what appellate courts do. In fact, that is ALL they do. Once again, you should know that.

Edit Note: Let me qualify that. Appellate courts can CONSIDER factual evidence, and decide whether or not the factual evidence supports the verdict or not, but they cannot DECIDE factual matters. They must work within the evidence that goes up on appeal to them, and assume that it is true. That is what the Court did in this case.

Where is it written that I, or anyone, cannot criticize a court opinion, whether it is factual or evidentiary? Does the fact that this is a decision on an issue of law render it immune from comment or cticicism? Of course not.

Get back on track.

Yes. We all know, even many non lawyers know that appellate courts primarily review issues of law.

And I said nothing that even remotely said otherwise. So while you are busy arguing against a straw man creation of your choosing, for reasons all your own, the FACT remains that your implicit criticism of the SCOTUS ruling was unfair and invalid.

We may not care for the outcome (i.e., we might all wish to see a guy wrongly convicted on the basis of withheld exculpatory evidence getting some kind of vindication in his civil action). But the fact that the outcome is unsatisfying does not mean that the Court reached that determination (as you invalidly and implicitly contended) by way of partisan ploitics. Indeed, there's no reason to believe that any of the Justices who sided with the majority decision enjoyed having to rule that way.

YOU should know that.

GET on track.

Well, I just don't think so. Consider who made up the majority - Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and (turncoat) Kennedy. Come on, give me a BREAK. This is a conservative politics oriented decision. If it were not, I submit that you would have seen a bi-partisan presence in both the majority and the minority.

It looks to me as if the majority simply found a way to get the job done, in spite of the evidence. Check out the dissent.

Well, I just do think so. And the Jurists constituting the majority are conservatives who have the remarkable ability, willingness and tendency to adhere to the actual law.

Give us ALL a break.

You see everything through your partisan filters. That doesn't make you "right." It just makes you a partisan hack.

The dissent just happens (what a surprise) to agree with your preconceived notions. That doesn't make it correct. If you were to ACT like a real lawyer for a moment you MIGHT focus on the legal question presented at the SCOTUS level. Then, tell me why and how the Thomas decision came to the "wrong" legal conclusion about it. And even if you could manage that, you'd still fall woefully short of demonstrating that the majority reached their conclusion for any reason OTHER THAN the one they articulated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I already said I don't agree with it.

The real problem here is that the law he sued under required a burden he really did not meet. My guess is that the problem probably was pervasive, but the fact that they did not find any other cases made it impossible to prove that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I tend to agree, but the law said that the only way that he could win is if there was a pattern of misconduct. One case does not make a pattern, that makes the problem with the law, not the court that followed it. Just because SCOTUS comes down with a decision I do not like, it does not mean they are ignoring the law, which they did in Kelo.

 

[Skull Pilot]

if a prosecutor fucks up and an innocent person gets screwed over then why shouldn't the idiot lawyer get sued?

The fact that government employees can act without consequences is unacceptable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They quoted the part of the law they felt was applicable. It required Thompson to prove that there was a history or pattern (not a quote) of abuse. They felt that a single case did not meet that standard.

Personally, I think the city should have to prove that they took reasonable steps to prevent it from happening.

 

[Sallow]

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!

So one day your riding along minding your own business when you come upon a guy lying in the streets dying of gunshot wounds. Being a concerned citizen..you stop and try to help the guy..but he dies. You seen the gun near by..pick it up and put it into a bag so the police can examine it. While calling the police..a cop happens to see you and orders you to lie on the ground. In the station you tell your story..and thinking you won't need a lawyer because you know your innocent you submit to a gun powder test. It comes back negative.

Fast forward to the trial. The prosecutor points out that you were at the seen of the crime and had blood on your hands. The gun has your prints all over it. Lo and behold..the gunpowder tests never come up.

You spend 20 years of your life in jail..until some young lawyer hears your case and investigates. He finds that the prosecutor withheld the test on purpose because he "had a feeling" you were the guy. You win the right to be compensated..but the case gets bumped up to the Supreme Court. In a narrow decision..they say you don't.

Sound fair?

 

[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.

I tend to agree, but the law said that the only way that he could win is if there was a pattern of misconduct. One case does not make a pattern, that makes the problem with the law, not the court that followed it. Just because SCOTUS comes down with a decision I do not like, it does not mean they are ignoring the law, which they did in Kelo.

Take a look at the dissent and/or my post summarizing the dissent, above (somewhere). Jusice Ginsburg says this is not "one case." She points out that the record establishes more than sufficient enough of a pattern of Brady violations to trigger liability, entirely within this single case alone. It wasn't just withholding the results of the blood test.

The majority simply interpreted the evidence differently - an entirely subjective call that (golly, big surprise) went in favor of the Big Guy and screwed the Little Guy.

 

[jillian]

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.

-- 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.

i know they did. it wasn't their review i took issue with. it was the issues you raised.

his criticism wasn't disingenuous. *your* questioning whether or not the evidence was there WAS disingenuous... no matter what Levin told you today.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

There is a difference between thinking it's OK and thinking taxpayors should be held liable for the actions of one of their employees due to his lack of training as a lawyer, which would be HIS responsibility, not there's.

 

[George Costanza]

Yes. We all know, even many non lawyers know that appellate courts primarily review issues of law.

And I said nothing that even remotely said otherwise. So while you are busy arguing against a straw man creation of your choosing, for reasons all your own, the FACT remains that your implicit criticism of the SCOTUS ruling was unfair and invalid.

We may not care for the outcome (i.e., we might all wish to see a guy wrongly convicted on the basis of withheld exculpatory evidence getting some kind of vindication in his civil action). But the fact that the outcome is unsatisfying does not mean that the Court reached that determination (as you invalidly and implicitly contended) by way of partisan ploitics. Indeed, there's no reason to believe that any of the Justices who sided with the majority decision enjoyed having to rule that way.

YOU should know that.

GET on track.

Well, I just don't think so. Consider who made up the majority - Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and (turncoat) Kennedy. Come on, give me a BREAK. This is a conservative politics oriented decision. If it were not, I submit that you would have seen a bi-partisan presence in both the majority and the minority.

It looks to me as if the majority simply found a way to get the job done, in spite of the evidence. Check out the dissent.

Well, I just do think so. And the Jurists constituting the majority are conservatives who have the remarkable ability, willingness and tendency to adhere to the actual law.

Give us ALL a break.

You see everything through your partisan filters. That doesn't make you "right." It just makes you a partisan hack.

The dissent just happens (what a surprise) to agree with your preconceived notions. That doesn't make it correct. If you were to ACT like a real lawyer for a moment you MIGHT focus on the legal question presented at the SCOTUS level. Then, tell me why and how the Thomas decision came to the "wrong" legal conclusion about it. And even if you could manage that, you'd still fall woefully short of demonstrating that the majority reached their conclusion for any reason OTHER THAN the one they articulated.

Let's see - four clearly conservative justices and one turncoat liberal render a questionable decision based on a subjective interpretation of the evidence, a decision that is right in line with conservative policy (favor the establishment and screw the individual who has been victimized by the establishment), you defend the decision, and you have the nerve to call ME a "partisan hack"?

Get your priorities in order and also learn some manners. It isn't necessary to insult others in order to make a point. In fact, all it does is cause you to lose credibility.

 

[George Costanza]

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

There is nothing "implicit" about my cricicism of the Court - I am flat saying it was a BAD DECISION, generated by conservative, political thinking. Is that direct enough for you?

You keep trying to gloss this one over as if, since it is an "issue of law," it is beyond criticism. In the first place, it is a legal decision which is based entirely on a review of the evidence presented in the trial court. The majority interprets that evidence as insufficient to establish a pattern of neglect in understanding, implementing and instructing DA's on the Brady decision. I once again point out, that this is an entirely subjective interpretation - an interpretation that I (and Justice Ginsburg) disagree with. In fact, I disagree with the decision on two grounds, not just one. She only mentions one ground in her dissent.

How you get "disingenuous" out of that, I don't know.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

You don't like the way our judicial system works. Feel free to find another country that has a better one.

 

[George Costanza]

There is a difference between thinking it's OK and thinking taxpayors should be held liable for the actions of one of their employees due to his lack of training as a lawyer, which would be HIS responsibility, not there's.

Taxpayers are more than willing to reap the benefits of actions by prosecutors on their behalf. Remember, the plaintiff in criminal cases in most states is "The People." And, obviously, putting bad guys behind bars is most certainly a benefit to the taxpayers.

If they are willing to reap those benefits, shouldn't they also be responsible when one of their agents messes up, as happened in this case?

Sounds to me like you want all the candy and none of the dog poop.