Yet Another Outrage From Our Right-Wing Supreme Court

[BenNatuf]

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.

Yes I did, and I also read Alito's response to the dissent.

The dissent defers consideration of this question until
page 23 of its opinion. It first devotes considerable space
to allegations that Connick’s prosecutors misunderstood
Brady when asked about it at trial, see post, at 16–18
(opinion of GINSBURG, J.), and to supposed gaps in the
Brady guidance provided by Connick’s office to prosecu-
tors, including deficiencies (unrelated to the specific Brady violation at issue in this case) in a policy manual pub-
lished by Connick’s office three years after Thompson’s
trial, see post, at 18–21. None of that is relevant. Thomp-
son’s failure-to-train theory at trial was not based on a
pervasive culture of indifference to Brady, but rather on
the inevitability of mistakes over enough iterations of
criminal trials. The District Court instructed the jury it
could find Connick deliberately indifferent if:
“First: The District Attorney was certain that prosecu-
tors would confront the situation where they would
have to decide which evidence was required by the
constitution to be provided to an accused[;]
“Second: The situation involved a difficult choice, or
one that prosecutors had a history of mishandling,
such that additional training, supervision, or monitor-
ing was clearly needed[; and]
“Third: The wrong choice by a prosecutor in that
situation will frequently cause a deprivation of an ac-
cused’s constitutional rights.” App. 828.
That theory of deliberate indifference would repeal the
law of Monell1 in favor of the Law of Large Numbers.
Brady mistakes are inevitable. So are all species of error
routinely confronted by prosecutors: authorizing a bad
warrant; losing a Batson2 claim; crossing the line in clos-
ing argument; or eliciting hearsay that violates the Con-
frontation Clause. Nevertheless, we do not have “de facto
respondeat superior liability,” Canton, 489 U. S., at 392,
for each such violation under the rubric of failure-to-train
simply because the municipality does not have a profes-
sional educational program covering the specific violation
in sufficient depth.3

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

It was one case, despite the assertion from Ginsburg that it was not. She was assuming facts not in evidence.

As I have said, I agree with her, and you. That does not make this decision wrong, even if I want it to be. It followed established precedent and was decided on the law, not the facts, or anyone's interpretation of the facts.

Will you agree with me that deciding whether or not the facts showed a sufficient enough "pattern of indifference" was a subjective call?

1 case, 1 set of evedence, 1 discovery, 1 violation. Not much subjective there.

 

[BenNatuf]

I disagree. The Brady violations here were separate, both as to content and as to time.

there was one trial and one set of evedence. Your disagreement is irrelevant

Ginsburg is and always has been an idiot

Not really. Discovery is a singular event. Everything is covered at one time. Any new evedence uncovered after discovery is added to it, not seperate from it.

Again, I think not.

again, what you think is irrelevant.

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a rational discussion here. I see I was mistaken.

If by rational what you mean is I'm supposed to give credence to irellevancies... nah.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a rational discussion here. I see I was mistaken.

ah... you finally figured him out. lol..

and I still haven't seen one single legal argument from you on anything that ammounts to anything more than drivel. When you answer a point with "I think it is", your answer is irrelevant. The argument is not about what you think, or what I think, or what he thinks. It's about the law and how it was applied.

 

[jillian]

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a rational discussion here. I see I was mistaken.

ah... you finally figured him out. lol..

and I still haven't seen one single legal argument from you on anything that ammounts to anything more than drivel. When you answer a point with "I think it is", your answer is irrelevant. The argument is not about what you think, or what I think, or what he thinks. It's about the law and how it was applied.

you just don't understand the arguments as is made even more clear by your responses to George...

so you aren't worth discussing issues with. life's too short to teach pigs to talk... it doesn't work... and it annoys the pig.

got it, oinker?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Will you agree with me that deciding whether or not the facts showed a sufficient enough "pattern of indifference" was a subjective call?

Yes I will. Like I said, I believe that there was a pattern of misconduct that rose to deliberate malfeasance.

OK - when you couple that (subjective call) with the fact that four of the Court's conservative justices concurred in the majority opinion, and top it off with the fact that the end result is protecting The Man from liability owed to Mr. Thompson ( a Little Guy), can you see how someone might think that there is a hidden agenda floating around here somewhere? A hidden agenda designet to further an interest that is much more consistent with conservative principles than liberal principles?

I can. That does not, however, make it true.

 

[BenNatuf]

I disagree. The Brady violations here were separate, both as to content and as to time.

there was one trial and one set of evedence. Your disagreement is irrelevant

Ginsburg is and always has been an idiot

Not really. Discovery is a singular event. Everything is covered at one time. Any new evedence uncovered after discovery is added to it, not seperate from it.

Again, I think not.

again, what you think is irrelevant.

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a rational discussion here. I see I was mistaken.

If you have an argument based on some precedent, some law, some rule of the court that would classify the items in discovery as seperate events instead of items included in the singular act of discovery, bring it forth. If not your personal disageement is irrelevant to the application of the law. The court evidently agrees that discovery is a singular event and that the evendence included in it are a part of the whole. If your entire argument is based on "because I said so" not only is it irrelevant, it's also irrational.

 

[BenNatuf]

ah... you finally figured him out. lol..

and I still haven't seen one single legal argument from you on anything that ammounts to anything more than drivel. When you answer a point with "I think it is", your answer is irrelevant. The argument is not about what you think, or what I think, or what he thinks. It's about the law and how it was applied.

you just don't understand the arguments as is made even more clear by your responses to George...

so you aren't worth discussing issues with. life's too short to teach pigs to talk... it doesn't work... and it annoys the pig.

got it, oinker?

and still nothing but wind... You should send your paralegal certificate back to the university of pheonix.

Perhaps you can tell me what level of care beyond ordinary care is neccessary to avoid liability for negligence? Perhaps you can tell me how the town hiring a lawyer liscenced by the state and in good standing with the state would not constitute ordinary care? Perhaps you can tell me why the town would be responsible for training a lawyer who has an ethical responsibility to keep himself aprised of the law and who's already been certified as trained by the state? Could any of the towns leaders reasonobly be expected to be as aware of the law as the lawyers they hire to practice it on thier behalf? Should the mayor train him personally? The town council? Or maybe he should be required to attend town hall meetings and let the voters train him? Christ sakes, he's a lawyer and an officer of the court, the presumption is that he'll take his ethical responsibilities seriously, and that he would know them.

 

[BenNatuf]

It would seem what we have here is yet another "pout-rage" by leftists who elevate the emotionalism of victimhood over the law. What happenned to this guy was a travesty, and the state and/or town should offer him some reccompence for the injustice of it. In fact, most states do and I have little doubt he was offered some reccompence but declined it in favor of this ill advised suit. Sometimes injustice has no justicialble solution. Here the town did due dilligence in taking ordinary care, and should be shielded from liability due to negligence because of it. The idea that they should become civily liable because thier extra-ordinary care didn't go far enough is IMO absurd.

Further, the idea that each piece of evedence withheld in discovery constitutes a seperate brady violation is, so far, unsupported. Discovery is a singular event, in a singular trial, and despite the emotional appeal using this injustice to overlook that, it would appear the court agrees. Failure to comply with discovery requirements is a singular violation no matter how many pieces are withheld. The argument in favor of seperating out each piece of evedence as a seperate violation of the rules of discovery is nothing more than an attempt to justify elevating the victim over the law, and is akin to charging someone with a seperate assault charge for each kick administered in an ass whoopin'.

 

[Liability]

It would seem what we have here is yet another "pout-rage" by leftists who elevate the emotionalism of victimhood over the law. What happenned to this guy was a travesty, and the state and/or town should offer him some reccompence for the injustice of it. In fact, most states do and I have little doubt he was offered some reccompence but declined it in favor of this ill advised suit. Sometimes injustice has no justicialble solution. Here the town did due dilligence in taking ordinary care, and should be shielded from liability due to negligence because of it. The idea that they should become civily liable because thier extra-ordinary care didn't go far enough is IMO absurd.

Further, the idea that each piece of evedence withheld in discovery constitutes a seperate brady violation is, so far, unsupported. Discovery is a singular event, in a singular trial, and despite the emotional appeal using this injustice to overlook that, it would appear the court agrees. Failure to comply with discovery requirements is a singular violation no many how many pieces are withheld. The argument in favor of seperating out each piece of evedence as a seperate violation of the rules of discovery is nothing more than an attempt to justify elevating the victim over the law, and is akin to charging someone with a seperate assault charge for each kick administered in an ass whoopin'.

The criminal defendant/civil plaintiff got utterly and miserably fucked by the "justice" system.

That kind of pure crap is simply not supposed to happen. On the basis of what happened to him alone, there isn't really much doubt that he deserves compensation.

That said, the form his lawsuit took (a federal §1983 suit) left him in a bad position in the sense that he had to prove that the screwing he received was part of the municipal or state "policy" and that, in turn, came down to the theory of the case. The theory of the case boiled down to a "failure to train."

That was unfortunate. Because even though the jury "found" adequate evidentiary support for that notion, the Courts had some problems with it. And ultimately, AS a "matter of law," but not as a "matter of fact" (very different and important legal notions), the SCOTUS determined that it did not LEGALLY qualify as a valid "failure to train" claim.

You should see what a semi-famous NY attorney, Joel Rudin, has done for some clients who got similarly screwed by prosecutors withholding "Brady material" in some New York State criminal cases.

Civil rights litigation: wrongful conviction and police misconduct lawsuits

* Mr. Rudin has won the largest damage award in New York State history for a wrongful conviction: a $5 million settlement in 2003 for Alberto Ramos, who spent seven years in prison on a false Bronx rape conviction.
* In 2008, he won settlements of $3.5 million for Shih Wei Su and $3.1 million for Sami Leka (along with co-counsel, McDermott Will & Emery), each of whom had served 12 years on false murder convictions.
* Mr. Rudin has won $685,000 and $250,000 settlements from New York City in false arrest and police brutality lawsuits and in 1998 won a $180,000 settlement on behalf of a New York City firefighter who was falsely arrested.

Noteworthy Cases | Joel B. Rudin

There is a concept in the law called "res ipsa loquitor." When an aircraft flying a normal route in perfectly fine weather goes down not having been shot at or blown up, etc., the lack of outside explanations raises an inference that it was either mechanical failure within the craft (suggesting poor maintenance by the airline company) or "pilot error." The inference can be used -- in some cases -- by the plaintiffs (surviving family members of the persons killed in the crash, for example) to get a jury to award them a judgment and damages. I am of the opinion that any conviction and imprisonment of an innocent person that comes about as a result of a Brady violation SHOULD yield a similar presumption in favor of the civil plaintiff.

Nonetheless, the law is what it is and it was what it was in Mr. Thompson's case. The unsatisfying outcome that results from the SCOTUS determination on a matter of law is sad. But it still doesn't support the OP's snide attack on the Justices who made that call.

 

[Immanuel]

It would seem what we have here is yet another "pout-rage" by leftists who elevate the emotionalism of victimhood over the law. What happenned to this guy was a travesty, and the state and/or town should offer him some reccompence for the injustice of it. In fact, most states do and I have little doubt he was offered some reccompence but declined it in favor of this ill advised suit. Sometimes injustice has no justicialble solution. Here the town did due dilligence in taking ordinary care, and should be shielded from liability due to negligence because of it. The idea that they should become civily liable because thier extra-ordinary care didn't go far enough is IMO absurd.

Further, the idea that each piece of evedence withheld in discovery constitutes a seperate brady violation is, so far, unsupported. Discovery is a singular event, in a singular trial, and despite the emotional appeal using this injustice to overlook that, it would appear the court agrees. Failure to comply with discovery requirements is a singular violation no many how many pieces are withheld. The argument in favor of seperating out each piece of evedence as a seperate violation of the rules of discovery is nothing more than an attempt to justify elevating the victim over the law, and is akin to charging someone with a seperate assault charge for each kick administered in an ass whoopin'.

The criminal defendant/civil plaintiff got utterly and miserably fucked by the "justice" system.

{snip for brevity sake}

I am not an attorney and have some questions about this statement. Asking this of Jillian, George and Liability.

From what I have gathered in this thread the Supreme Court did not rule that the defendant was not entitled to any damages, but rather they ruled against the particular argument that the prosecutor was guilty of malfeasance. Is that correct? If that is correct, then does the defendant not also have other avenues to pursue that would bring him compensation? Could he not file another complaint that would bring him compensation?

Immie

 

[Liability]

It would seem what we have here is yet another "pout-rage" by leftists who elevate the emotionalism of victimhood over the law. What happenned to this guy was a travesty, and the state and/or town should offer him some reccompence for the injustice of it. In fact, most states do and I have little doubt he was offered some reccompence but declined it in favor of this ill advised suit. Sometimes injustice has no justicialble solution. Here the town did due dilligence in taking ordinary care, and should be shielded from liability due to negligence because of it. The idea that they should become civily liable because thier extra-ordinary care didn't go far enough is IMO absurd.

Further, the idea that each piece of evedence withheld in discovery constitutes a seperate brady violation is, so far, unsupported. Discovery is a singular event, in a singular trial, and despite the emotional appeal using this injustice to overlook that, it would appear the court agrees. Failure to comply with discovery requirements is a singular violation no many how many pieces are withheld. The argument in favor of seperating out each piece of evedence as a seperate violation of the rules of discovery is nothing more than an attempt to justify elevating the victim over the law, and is akin to charging someone with a seperate assault charge for each kick administered in an ass whoopin'.

The criminal defendant/civil plaintiff got utterly and miserably fucked by the "justice" system.

{snip for brevity sake}

I am not an attorney and have some questions about this statement. Asking this of Jillian, George and Liability.

From what I have gathered in this thread the Supreme Court did not rule that the defendant was not entitled to any damages, but rather they ruled against the particular argument that the prosecutor was guilty of malfeasance. Is that correct? If that is correct, then does the defendant not also have other avenues to pursue that would bring him compensation? Could he not file another complaint that would bring him compensation?

Immie

To clarify: When I said that he got fucked, I was talking about the undeniable fact that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence. That is absolutely not supposed to happen. Period. In his case, it clearly led to the man's conviction and since his blood type was different (the robbery case) it caused him not to testify in the homicide case. All in all, it was a screw job.

When he sued as a civil plaintiff, his suit came in the form of a §1983 claim. According to the SCOTUS decision, that ultimately became his sole legal theory at the civil trial. Thus, when the SCOTUS determined that it LACKED a sufficient legal basis (that is, the "failure to train" theory was inadequate as a matter of law in his case), that left the plaintiff without any verdict or judgment in his favor.

I would have to defer to civil practitioners to answer the question of whether he has any other possible avenues to seek some recompense. But the general rule is that once he has sought his relief by choosing his avenue (i.e., a Federal suit or a State suit), he is not allowed to take a proverbial second bite at the apple.

But again, I don't do plaintiff's work in civil matters, and I'm not doing legal research to make a more authoritative assertion: so I'll defer to others for a more complete answer to that question.

 

[BenNatuf]

It would seem what we have here is yet another "pout-rage" by leftists who elevate the emotionalism of victimhood over the law. What happenned to this guy was a travesty, and the state and/or town should offer him some reccompence for the injustice of it. In fact, most states do and I have little doubt he was offered some reccompence but declined it in favor of this ill advised suit. Sometimes injustice has no justicialble solution. Here the town did due dilligence in taking ordinary care, and should be shielded from liability due to negligence because of it. The idea that they should become civily liable because thier extra-ordinary care didn't go far enough is IMO absurd.

Further, the idea that each piece of evedence withheld in discovery constitutes a seperate brady violation is, so far, unsupported. Discovery is a singular event, in a singular trial, and despite the emotional appeal using this injustice to overlook that, it would appear the court agrees. Failure to comply with discovery requirements is a singular violation no many how many pieces are withheld. The argument in favor of seperating out each piece of evedence as a seperate violation of the rules of discovery is nothing more than an attempt to justify elevating the victim over the law, and is akin to charging someone with a seperate assault charge for each kick administered in an ass whoopin'.

The criminal defendant/civil plaintiff got utterly and miserably fucked by the "justice" system.

That kind of pure crap is simply not supposed to happen. On the basis of what happened to him alone, there isn't really much doubt that he deserves compensation.

No argument from me here, and I agree that the state and/or town should compensate him because it is the right thing to do. Much times whether or not a something is the right thing to do has no bearing on whether or not there is actual liability though. In this case, I see the reasoning of that. It's shitty, but its the law, and we are a nation of laws.

That said, the form his lawsuit took (a federal §1983 suit) left him in a bad position in the sense that he had to prove that the screwing he received was part of the municipal or state "policy" and that, in turn, came down to the theory of the case. The theory of the case boiled down to a "failure to train."

That was unfortunate. Because even though the jury "found" adequate evidentiary support for that notion, the Courts had some problems with it. And ultimately, AS a "matter of law," but not as a "matter of fact" (very different and important legal notions), the SCOTUS determined that it did not LEGALLY qualify as a valid "failure to train" claim.

I would tend to agree with them given the fact that as an attorney and officer of the court he has a personal ethical responsibility over and above the towns responsibility to do due dilligence in hiring him themselves.

You should see what a semi-famous NY attorney, Joel Rudin, has done for some clients who got similarly screwed by prosecutors withholding "Brady material" in some New York State criminal cases.

Civil rights litigation: wrongful conviction and police misconduct lawsuits

* Mr. Rudin has won the largest damage award in New York State history for a wrongful conviction: a $5 million settlement in 2003 for Alberto Ramos, who spent seven years in prison on a false Bronx rape conviction.
* In 2008, he won settlements of $3.5 million for Shih Wei Su and $3.1 million for Sami Leka (along with co-counsel, McDermott Will & Emery), each of whom had served 12 years on false murder convictions.
* Mr. Rudin has won $685,000 and $250,000 settlements from New York City in false arrest and police brutality lawsuits and in 1998 won a $180,000 settlement on behalf of a New York City firefighter who was falsely arrested.

Noteworthy Cases | Joel B. Rudin

My question here is was any evedence withheld as a result of an error by the prosecutor, or was there police malfeasance? If the former and it wasn't the first time for that particular DA's office, then as I said, they should have been aware and IMO liability would attach, if the evedence was withheld by the police then the liability results from a criminal act on the part of the police and not from simple error on the part of the prosecutor, if he was aware of it and continued the withholding then he becomes complicit in the suppression of evedence by the police, and again liability would attach. I don't know enough about the cases to comment on them factually, but in terms of simple justice that makes sense to me.

There is a concept in the law called "res ipsa loquitor." When an aircraft flying a normal route in perfectly fine weather goes down not having been shot at or blown up, etc., the lack of outside explanations raises an inference that it was either mechanical failure within the craft (suggesting poor maintenance by the airline company) or "pilot error." The inference can be used -- in some cases -- by the plaintiffs (surviving family members of the persons killed in the crash, for example) to get a jury to award them a judgment and damages. I am of the opinion that any conviction and imprisonment of an innocent person that comes about as a result of a Brady violation SHOULD yield a similar presumption in favor of the civil plaintiff.

In the case of maintenance of an aircraft that makes sense, maintenance technicians can come to the company untrained and unskilled and it is the airlines responsibility to train them, not to mention there are legally regulated maintenance schedules and procedures that must be met and documented. The pilot's a little different as I believe the plaintiff would be required to establish a pattern of error that went uncorrected either with that pilot or within the organization as a whole that would raise the incident to one where negligent liability attached. I may be wrong on that, but it makes sense to me.

I agree that every single case of wrongful conviction is a travesty. I believe however that liability does not attach to every single one of them as in some cases a person is wrongfully convicted due to no error on anyones part, but just a shitty set of circumstances that make it appear the defendant is guilty sufficient enough for a jury to convict; or, a procedural error that likely would have no bearing on the verdict. Which brings me to one of the things that really bugs me, that being that I believe culturally we have moved from the precept of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to "somebodies gotta pay for this shit". I don't know how that can be fixed, and don't know if it can be fixed; but, I see it as a problem. I guess all we can do is rely on Judges to properly inform juries and hope juries can be more rational than emotional.

Nonetheless, the law is what it is and it was what it was in Mr. Thompson's case. The unsatisfying outcome that results from the SCOTUS determination on a matter of law is sad. But it still doesn't support the OP's snide attack on the Justices who made that call.

I agree, and stand completely on the side of the notion that the state and/or town should offer him a reasonable reccompence for the injustice. Also, perhaps the law should be changed to ensure this can't happen again and that if it does liability does attach for a singular incident. I would not be opposed to that in the least. Seems just.

 

[Immanuel]

The criminal defendant/civil plaintiff got utterly and miserably fucked by the "justice" system.

{snip for brevity sake}

I am not an attorney and have some questions about this statement. Asking this of Jillian, George and Liability.

From what I have gathered in this thread the Supreme Court did not rule that the defendant was not entitled to any damages, but rather they ruled against the particular argument that the prosecutor was guilty of malfeasance. Is that correct? If that is correct, then does the defendant not also have other avenues to pursue that would bring him compensation? Could he not file another complaint that would bring him compensation?

Immie

To clarify: When I said that he got fucked, I was talking about the undeniable fact that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence. That is absolutely not supposed to happen. Period. In his case, it clearly led to the man's conviction and since his blood type was different (the robbery case) it caused him not to testify in the homicide case. All in all, it was a screw job.

When he sued as a civil plaintiff, his suit came in the form of a §1983 claim. According to the SCOTUS decision, that ultimately became his sole legal theory at the civil trial. Thus, when the SCOTUS determined that it LACKED a sufficient legal basis (that is, the "failure to train" theory was inadequate as a matter of law in his case), that left the plaintiff without any verdict or judgment in his favor.

I would have to defer to civil practitioners to answer the question of whether he has any other possible avenues to seek some recompense. But the general rule is that once he has sought his relief by choosing his avenue (i.e., a Federal suit or a State suit), he is not allowed to take a proverbial second bite at the apple.

But again, I don't do plaintiff's work in civil matters, and I'm not doing legal research to make a more authoritative assertion: so I'll defer to others for a more complete answer to that question.

Thanks for your input.

If you are correct and he has no second avenue that just plain sucks. So, evidently he has now been screwed over by the court system twice. Maybe he should just give up, if he tries again, he is likely to end up on death row.

Immie

 

[BenNatuf]

I am not an attorney and have some questions about this statement. Asking this of Jillian, George and Liability.

From what I have gathered in this thread the Supreme Court did not rule that the defendant was not entitled to any damages, but rather they ruled against the particular argument that the prosecutor was guilty of malfeasance. Is that correct? If that is correct, then does the defendant not also have other avenues to pursue that would bring him compensation? Could he not file another complaint that would bring him compensation?

Immie

To clarify: When I said that he got fucked, I was talking about the undeniable fact that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence. That is absolutely not supposed to happen. Period. In his case, it clearly led to the man's conviction and since his blood type was different (the robbery case) it caused him not to testify in the homicide case. All in all, it was a screw job.

When he sued as a civil plaintiff, his suit came in the form of a §1983 claim. According to the SCOTUS decision, that ultimately became his sole legal theory at the civil trial. Thus, when the SCOTUS determined that it LACKED a sufficient legal basis (that is, the "failure to train" theory was inadequate as a matter of law in his case), that left the plaintiff without any verdict or judgment in his favor.

I would have to defer to civil practitioners to answer the question of whether he has any other possible avenues to seek some recompense. But the general rule is that once he has sought his relief by choosing his avenue (i.e., a Federal suit or a State suit), he is not allowed to take a proverbial second bite at the apple.

But again, I don't do plaintiff's work in civil matters, and I'm not doing legal research to make a more authoritative assertion: so I'll defer to others for a more complete answer to that question.

Thanks for your input.

If you are correct and he has no second avenue that just plain sucks. So, evidently he has now been screwed over by the court system twice. Maybe he should just give up, if he tries again, he is likely to end up on death row.

Immie

It does suck, and were I a resident of that town I would be speaking up at town meetings to offer him compensation simply because it's the right thing to do.