Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
Your synapsis is false, there was a SINGLE Brady violation not a patern of malfeasance. Further the court found exactly as I has said a couple posts ago before I read the decision. A lawyer is expected to be trained, and is a liscenced proffessional, he is also expected to keep himself aware of the law and its requirements. And, in order for their to be any gross negligence on the part of the DA's office pertaining to his training there must be established not only a pattern of malfeasance but also deliberate indifference. How can there ever be any deliberate indifference with regard to training people who come to you as LISCENCED TRAINED proffessionals?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.
That would be why he lostThe obvious need for spe-cific legal training present in Canton’s scenario—police academy ap-plicants are unlikely to be familiar with constitutional constraints on deadly force and, absent training, cannot obtain that knowledge—isabsent here. Attorneys are trained in the law and equipped with the tools to interpret and apply legal principles, understand constitu-tional limits, and exercise legal judgment. They receive training be-fore entering the profession, must usually satisfy continuing educa-tion requirements, often train on the job with more experiencedattorneys, and must satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethicalobligations. Prosecutors not only are equipped but are ethically bound to know what Brady entails and to perform legal research when they are uncertain. Thus, recurring constitutional violationsare not the “obvious consequence” of failing to provide prosecutorswith formal in-house training.
yes they do, and they pay for it. You act as if they get it free and should be appreciative of the great deal their getting.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.
There is no candy in getting less than what you pay for. Once again you speak as if the services they get come without a cost.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.
yes they do, and they pay for it. You act as if they get it free and should be appreciative of the great deal their getting.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.
There is no candy in getting less than what you pay for. Once again you speak as if the services they get come without a cost.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.
No, they should not have to apy a nickel unless you can esatblish neglegence on the same scale that would be required were it not the government being sued. This case did not evedence that kind of negligence as its entirely based on a single incident with no pattern of conduct and establish no indifference on the part of the prosecutors office in the training.
Any culpubility the town may have for the knowledge the attorneys it hires have ends when they see the certificate from the bar. I do believe when the STATE says "this guys a competent attorney", the towns in it can and should expect that that attorney is competent. They have done their due dilligence at that point and practiced ordinary care. If you want to hold someone negligent for his poor training sue the bar that liscenced him.yes they do, and they pay for it. You act as if they get it free and should be appreciative of the great deal their getting.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.
There is no candy in getting less than what you pay for. Once again you speak as if the services they get come without a cost.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.
No, they should not have to apy a nickel unless you can esatblish neglegence on the same scale that would be required were it not the government being sued. This case did not evedence that kind of negligence as its entirely based on a single incident with no pattern of conduct and establish no indifference on the part of the prosecutors office in the training.
It matters not that they pay for the services of the prosecutor. They UTILIZE those services to their benefit.
Your synapsis is false, there was a SINGLE Brady violation not a patern of malfeasance.
A lawyer is expected to be trained, and is a liscenced proffessional, he is also expected to keep himself aware of the law and its requirements. And, in order for their to be any gross negligence on the part of the DA's office pertaining to his training there must be established not only a pattern of malfeasance but also deliberate indifference. How can there ever be any deliberate indifference with regard to training people who come to you as LISCENCED TRAINED proffessionals?
The obvious need for spe-cific legal training present in Canton’s scenario—police academy ap-plicants are unlikely to be familiar with constitutional constraints on deadly force and, absent training, cannot obtain that knowledge—isabsent here. Attorneys are trained in the law and equipped with the tools to interpret and apply legal principles, understand constitu-tional limits, and exercise legal judgment. They receive training be-fore entering the profession, must usually satisfy continuing educa-tion requirements, often train on the job with more experiencedattorneys, and must satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethicalobligations. Prosecutors not only are equipped but are ethically bound to know what Brady entails and to perform legal research when they are uncertain. Thus, recurring constitutional violationsare not the “obvious consequence” of failing to provide prosecutorswith formal in-house training.
That would be why he lost
Any culpubility the town may have for the knowledge the attorneys it hires have ends when they see the certificate from the bar. I do believe when the STATE says "this guys a competent attorney", the towns in it can and should expect that that attorney is competent. They have done their due dilligence at that point and practiced ordinary care. If you want to hold someone negligent for his poor training sue the bar that liscenced him.yes they do, and they pay for it. You act as if they get it free and should be appreciative of the great deal their getting.
There is no candy in getting less than what you pay for. Once again you speak as if the services they get come without a cost.
No, they should not have to apy a nickel unless you can esatblish neglegence on the same scale that would be required were it not the government being sued. This case did not evedence that kind of negligence as its entirely based on a single incident with no pattern of conduct and establish no indifference on the part of the prosecutors office in the training.
It matters not that they pay for the services of the prosecutor. They UTILIZE those services to their benefit.
BTW their is no benefit (increase) in a fee for services arrangement (which is essentially what proffessional salaried employees do). It is an exchange of things of equal value.
yes they do, and they pay for it. You act as if they get it free and should be appreciative of the great deal their getting.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.
There is no candy in getting less than what you pay for. Once again you speak as if the services they get come without a cost.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.
No, they should not have to apy a nickel unless you can esatblish neglegence on the same scale that would be required were it not the government being sued. This case did not evedence that kind of negligence as its entirely based on a single incident with no pattern of conduct and establish no indifference on the part of the prosecutors office in the training.
It matters not that they pay for the services of the prosecutor. They UTILIZE those services to their benefit.
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.
But, isn't withholding known information during discovery malfeasance? Have prosecutors been indicted for such behavior?
Here’s the full opinion"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. That sort of nuance simply cannot support an inference of deliberate indifference here. 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). Pp. 11–19. 578 F. 3d 293, reversed."
Ginsberg is an idiot, the withholding of all of the evedence constitutes a single brady violation, not a violation for each piece of it. They are required to turn over all exculpitory evedence, not each exculpitory evedence. And the training (which shouldn't be required for liscenced proffessionals to begin with as they have a personal ethical responsibility to make themselves aware of the law) is a single instance of not provided training.Your synapsis is false, there was a SINGLE Brady violation not a patern of malfeasance.
Not correct. Take a look at the decision and the dissent, in particular. Numerous Brady violations existed within this one case. True, it was a single case up on appeal, but Ginsburg's point is that, within that single case, there were more than enough Brady violations and other aspects (failure to train, indifference to the problem, etc.) to establish enough of a patter to justify imposing liability.
That would be correct. These are not untrained laymen who come to the DA's office with no knowledge, they are liscenced byb the state and they are proffessionals with a personal ethical responsibility to keep themselves aware of the law as officers of the court.A lawyer is expected to be trained, and is a liscenced proffessional, he is also expected to keep himself aware of the law and its requirements. And, in order for their to be any gross negligence on the part of the DA's office pertaining to his training there must be established not only a pattern of malfeasance but also deliberate indifference. How can there ever be any deliberate indifference with regard to training people who come to you as LISCENCED TRAINED proffessionals?
So you would say that a DA's office and/or the governmental body directly over that office, should NEVER be held liable for malfeasance by a deputy DA in withholding Brady evidence (or whatever) since the deputy DA is a licensed and trained professional?
The obvious need for spe-cific legal training present in Cantons scenariopolice academy ap-plicants are unlikely to be familiar with constitutional constraints on deadly force and, absent training, cannot obtain that knowledgeisabsent here. Attorneys are trained in the law and equipped with the tools to interpret and apply legal principles, understand constitu-tional limits, and exercise legal judgment. They receive training be-fore entering the profession, must usually satisfy continuing educa-tion requirements, often train on the job with more experiencedattorneys, and must satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethicalobligations. Prosecutors not only are equipped but are ethically bound to know what Brady entails and to perform legal research when they are uncertain. Thus, recurring constitutional violationsare not the obvious consequence of failing to provide prosecutorswith formal in-house training.
No, he lost for the reason they said he did, and I posted it above.That would be why he lost
No. He lost because the majority did not feel that the evidence before them was sufficient to establish a pattern of neglect. They characterized the evidence as "one case" and felt that this was not enough. The dissent points out this was not the situation, and there was more than enough evidence to establish a pattern. But the majority consisted of four conservatives and a swing voter. Game over.
^^^look, there it is again^^^They receive training be-fore entering the profession, must usually satisfy continuing educa-tion requirements, often train on the job with more experiencedattorneys, and must satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethicalobligations. Prosecutors not only are equipped but are ethically bound to know what Brady entails and to perform legal research when they are uncertain. Thus, recurring constitutional violationsare not the obvious consequence of failing to provide prosecutorswith formal in-house training
yes they do, and they pay for it. You act as if they get it free and should be appreciative of the great deal their getting.
There is no candy in getting less than what you pay for. Once again you speak as if the services they get come without a cost.
No, they should not have to apy a nickel unless you can esatblish neglegence on the same scale that would be required were it not the government being sued. This case did not evedence that kind of negligence as its entirely based on a single incident with no pattern of conduct and establish no indifference on the part of the prosecutors office in the training.
It matters not that they pay for the services of the prosecutor. They UTILIZE those services to their benefit.
That does not mean the prosecutor has no personal liability.
If a doctor works for a state hospital he can be sued separately from the state.
If an electrician is contracted by the state and his shoddy work causes a fire that kills people then he as well as the state can be sued.
When a woman was killed by falling debris in a Boston tunnel the State agency as well as the contracted companies were sued.
If a prosecutor screws up and sends an innocent man to jail both he and the state should be liable.
Ginsberg is an idiot, the withholding of all of the evedence constitutes a single brady violation, not a violation for each piece of it.
They are required to turn over all exculpitory evedence, not each exculpitory evedence.
And the training (which shouldn't be required for liscenced proffessionals to begin with as they have a personal ethical responsibility to make themselves aware of the law) is a single instance of not provided training.
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.
Oh, come on, Lone Star. Surely you can do better than this. "America - Love It Or Leave It," eh?
Right.
And what makes you think I don't like the way our judicial system works? FYI, I have been an intergral part of that very system for probably more years than you have been on this earth. I think it is the greatest system in the world, bar none. There are individual decisions of courts that I will question - as will most people. There are certain things I would change in the system.
But as for the system as a whole? Best in the world.
You don't like the way our judicial system works. Feel free to find another country that has a better one.
Oh, come on, Lone Star. Surely you can do better than this. "America - Love It Or Leave It," eh?
Right.
And what makes you think I don't like the way our judicial system works? FYI, I have been an intergral part of that very system for probably more years than you have been on this earth. I think it is the greatest system in the world, bar none. There are individual decisions of courts that I will question - as will most people. There are certain things I would change in the system.
But as for the system as a whole? Best in the world.
I'd rather you leave it than hear you tear it down or marginlize any part of it.
I don't give a rat's ass if you been part of the system for a thousand years, it doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else. And what makes me think you don't like the system is your remark about the supreme court showing it's "true colors". The supreme court did the job it's supposed to do. So don't go and try to marginilze them because you don't like their decision.
You don't like the way our judicial system works. Feel free to find another country that has a better one.
Oh, come on, Lone Star. Surely you can do better than this. "America - Love It Or Leave It," eh?
Right.
And what makes you think I don't like the way our judicial system works? FYI, I have been an intergral part of that very system for probably more years than you have been on this earth. I think it is the greatest system in the world, bar none. There are individual decisions of courts that I will question - as will most people. There are certain things I would change in the system.
But as for the system as a whole? Best in the world.
I'd rather you leave it than hear you tear it down or marginlize any part of it.
I don't give a rat's ass if you been part of the system for a thousand years, it doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else. And what makes me think you don't like the system is your remark about the supreme court showing it's "true colors". The supreme court did the job it's supposed to do. So don't go and try to marginilze them because you don't like their decision.
It is difficult to discuss this case with George since he is being unduly stubborn and rather irrational.
What happened to the defendant in that criminal case is unconscionable. He got fucked by prosecutors whose JOB it is to do justice, not to merely seek convictions.
He SHOULD be able to sue for the damage done to him and he SHOULD be able to win and that verdict/judgment and the award of damages SHOULD have been able to stand. In all of that -- every tiny bit -- I believe George is right.
On the OTHER hand his implicit criticism of the SCOTUS decision is ridiculous and not only unsupported, but unsupportable.
As Jillian correctly noted, it is true that lawyers are taught to question rulings. Fine. I have questioned many rulings and will continue to do so. Questioning a ruling -- or its basis -- is perfectly appropriate.
But to "conclude" that the decision "must" have been the product of a political bias because it came from 4 conservatives and one alleged "turncoat" is petty and foolish.
In point of fact, as regrettable as it turns out, the analysis by Justice Thomas seems pretty solid. IF his legal ANALYSIS of the main point of contention is mistaken, then THAT'S the proper basis upon which to criticize the Court's decision. But that's not what Georgie did.
George, you can do better. I have SEEN you do better. In this one, you didn't even try. Until you do, your rhetoric on this topic is quite shallow and unpersuasive.
It is difficult to discuss this case with George since he is being unduly stubborn and rather irrational.
What happened to the defendant in that criminal case is unconscionable. He got fucked by prosecutors whose JOB it is to do justice, not to merely seek convictions.
He SHOULD be able to sue for the damage done to him and he SHOULD be able to win and that verdict/judgment and the award of damages SHOULD have been able to stand. In all of that -- every tiny bit -- I believe George is right.
On the OTHER hand his implicit criticism of the SCOTUS decision is ridiculous and not only unsupported, but unsupportable.
As Jillian correctly noted, it is true that lawyers are taught to question rulings. Fine. I have questioned many rulings and will continue to do so. Questioning a ruling -- or its basis -- is perfectly appropriate.
But to "conclude" that the decision "must" have been the product of a political bias because it came from 4 conservatives and one alleged "turncoat" is petty and foolish.
In point of fact, as regrettable as it turns out, the analysis by Justice Thomas seems pretty solid. IF his legal ANALYSIS of the main point of contention is mistaken, then THAT'S the proper basis upon which to criticize the Court's decision. But that's not what Georgie did.
George, you can do better. I have SEEN you do better. In this one, you didn't even try. Until you do, your rhetoric on this topic is quite shallow and unpersuasive.
All right, old buddy - thank you for at least an ATTEMPT to be civil. I do appreciate it.
Now, listen up. What this decision boils down to is whether or not the evidence was sufficient "to establish a pattern of neglect" or whether the neglect in this case was a single, isolated incident.
In order to determine that, the Court had to examine the evidence. The majority did that, and felt that a pattern of neglect was not established, hence the ruling that came down.
OK - fair enough. But, I think you will have to agree with me, that whether or not the evidence passed muster, is a SUBJECTIVE decision. Different people (justices) can look at the same evidence, and some will feel the pattern has been established, while others will not. Subjective.
You used the word "disingenuous" earlier. I will pull it out now - but I am not directing it at you. I am directing it at the majority. I submit they are being disingenuous in this decision by SUBJECTIVELY finding no pattern of neglect in order to get the job done, i.e., let the DA's office and the municipality off the hook because that's what good conservatives do.
You can dismiss my thoughts on this all you wish - it does not change those thoughts or the arguments that support them. I guess we will just have to leave it to other readers of this thread to make their own judgments on that point.
Oh, come on, Lone Star. Surely you can do better than this. "America - Love It Or Leave It," eh?
Right.
And what makes you think I don't like the way our judicial system works? FYI, I have been an intergral part of that very system for probably more years than you have been on this earth. I think it is the greatest system in the world, bar none. There are individual decisions of courts that I will question - as will most people. There are certain things I would change in the system.
But as for the system as a whole? Best in the world.
I'd rather you leave it than hear you tear it down or marginlize any part of it.
I don't give a rat's ass if you been part of the system for a thousand years, it doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else. And what makes me think you don't like the system is your remark about the supreme court showing it's "true colors". The supreme court did the job it's supposed to do. So don't go and try to marginilze them because you don't like their decision.
he was far more polite to you than you deserve.
just for the record... every lawyer is taught to question EVERY case. Some we agree with. Some we don't.
How do you study law if you don't criticize it? That's absurd.
