Yet Another Outrage From Our Right-Wing Supreme Court

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, it's fucked up.

However, where is it written that the prosecutor can't be held personally liable?

I'm not sure he can't. Generally, prosecutors are immune from civil suits for misfeasance in the course of their regular employment, i.e., prosecuting people. But I think that, in aggravated cases, they CAN be held personally liable. To be honest, I haven't read the entire opinion yet - I THINK it mainly is protective of the governmental body the prosecutor was working for. I'll check into it a little further and see what happened to the prosecutor himself. Good question.

the award was based on the misfeasance of not training the prosecutors in when they needed to turn over brady material.

But, isn't withholding known information during discovery malfeasance? Have prosecutors been indicted for such behavior?

 

[jillian]

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?

i suspect they couldn't prove that the prosecutors knew they had to turn over brady material, hence them going after the improper training.

 

[jillian]

respondeat superior:

Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.

The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

Respondeat superior legal definition of Respondeat superior. Respondeat superior synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I know this is right up your alley - but you might also want to talk a bit about governmental immunity, because I think that played big in this decision. (I know, devil's advocate here.)

I would have to see the underlying enabling stature. Louisiana isn't like any other state and I wouldn't swear to how their code deals with these things.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

i suspect they couldn't prove that the prosecutors knew they had to turn over brady material, hence them going after the improper training.

I find it highly improbable a prosecutor would not know he had a duty to turn over exculpatory evidence. Deputy prosecutors have supervisors and litigators are not fresh out of law school. I suspect they went after deep pockets, I also thing the prosecutor who tried the case is culpable.

 

[jillian]

But, isn't withholding known information during discovery malfeasance? Have prosecutors been indicted for such behavior?

i suspect they couldn't prove that the prosecutors knew they had to turn over brady material, hence them going after the improper training.

I find it highly improbable a prosecutor would not know he had a duty to turn over exculpatory evidence. Deputy prosecutors have supervisors and litigators are not fresh out of law school. I suspect they went after deep pockets, I also thing the prosecutor who tried the case is culpable.

hence the point of the very large monetary award.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I have to disagree with the SCOTUS on this one. It looks like the DA's office had a long record of "ineptitude" on this one.

If a private business had been this kind of 'inept' there would have been hell to pay.

What makes this worse is that the evidence that was lost would have had him walk 18 years ago.



This is not a case of deliberate malfeasance. This was more a case of incompetence.

Of course, I wonder what happened to his lawyer. Why wasn't the question asked in court about blood type of the blood found at the time?

Defense atty: Officer Dexter, did you find blood on the scene?
Dexter : Yes
Defense atty What type was it?
Dexter B
Defense atty : Did you do a blood test on my client
Dexter : yes
Defense atty : and what type was that?
Dexter : O...........

 

[George Costanza]

This is not a case of deliberate malfeasance. This was more a case of incompetence.

Not so sure I would agree with you there. I don't know, of course - but I have had more than a little experience with prosecutors intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence. Actually, the more common situation is the police withholding exculpatory evidence from the prosecutor. Police are generally more constrained to want to win at any cost.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is not a case of deliberate malfeasance. This was more a case of incompetence.

Not so sure I would agree with you there. I don't know, of course - but I have had more than a little experience with prosecutors intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence. Actually, the more common situation is the police withholding exculpatory evidence from the prosecutor. Police are generally more constrained to want to win at any cost.

My reference being the talking head former prosecutors and the cases of malfeasance brought to the public's eye. And that is that Prosecutors only care about winning and do not give one good God Damn about their oath of Office. The talking head ones are all gas bags with major problems with ignorance and opinionated arrogance.

But to the point. The Government is generally exempt from accountability for simple acts of omission by its employees. With out a HISTORY of omissions, which does not exist here, and an environment of such mistakes, the Government is usually exempt.

So tell me shall we all chant about the Ignorant decision by a Liberal Court in the case of supposed privacy rights giving women the right to murder unborn children?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Where do you find such venal cops?

My dealings with them have been less than cheerful, but I didn't doubt their bona fides.

What I don't like is the fact that they charge outrageous prices for the materials they are supposed to provide the defense. For example, they change $2 per photograph and take three weeks to deliver the pictures. For a thing that costs 19 cents at the photo store and is delivered in an hour, there is something seriously wrong in that. Every chance they get, they are out to shaft the citizen in the pocketbook

 

[Baruch Menachem]

There has been a long line of precedent giving the state the benefit of the doubt in tort matters. Cases going back to prohibition and the first world war where the government doesn't' have to say "sorry" when they screw up

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh boy - I see I'm going to have to get off my ass and actually DELVE INTO this opinion. I'll give it a shot.

Edit Note: Unless, of course, Jillian does it for me . . .

So are you telling us that you posted a diatribe against a Supreme Court decision WITHOUT READING IT? Then on top of that you expect another poster to bail your sorry ass out? Tell us Georgie, did it ever occur to you to actually go to the Supreme Court website AND READ THE ACTUAL DECISION? No, of course not, because you're just another intellectually lazy Liberal hack that's why.

From the Supreme Court site:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

Petitioner the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office concedes that, in prosecuting respondent Thompson for attempted armed robbery, prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, by failing to disclose a crime lab report. Because of his robbery conviction, Thompson elected not to testify at his later murder trial and was convicted. A month before his scheduled execution, the lab report was discovered. A reviewing court vacated both convictions, and Thompson was found not guilty in a retrial on the murder charge. He then filed suit against the district attorney’s office under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging, inter alia, that the Brady violation was caused by the office’s DELIBERATE indifference to an OBVIOUS need to train prosecutors to avoid such constitutional violations. The district court held that, to prove deliberate indifference, Thompson did not need to show a pattern of similar Brady violations when he could demonstrate that the need for training was obvious.

I highlighted deliberate and obvious for a reason because in the decision Justice Thomas stated:

A district attorney’s office may not be held liable under §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation.
Plaintiffs seeking to impose §1983 liability on local governments must prove that their injury was caused by “action pursuant to official municipal policy,” which includes the decisions of a government’s lawmakers, the acts of its policy making officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law

You see that Georgie? You following this? Justice Thomas writes further:

Deliberate indifference in this context requires proof that city policymakers disregarded the “known or obvious consequence” that a particular omission in their training program would cause city employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.
A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is “ordinarily necessary” to demonstrate DELIBERATE indifference. Without notice that a course of training is deficient, decision makers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.

So he has to prove a pattern, you know, MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. You keeping up ok? We're almost done Georgie, concentrate!

Thompson mistakenly relies on the “single-incident” liability hypothesized in Canton, contending that the Brady violation in his case was the “obvious” consequence of failing to provide specific Brady training and that this “obviousness” showing can substitute for the pattern of violations ordinarily necessary to establish municipal culpability.

You see that? The Supreme Court found that:

One Incident DOES NOT EQUAL a "Pattern" and therefore it is NOT "Deliberate and Obvious".

You see Georgie, how the Supreme Court works is that you read and understand the Law as it is written and apply it to case that come before the bench. What you are NOT supposed to do is look at a case and rule in someones favor if you "feel sorry for them" as most Liberals (Like You) who are ruled solely by their emotions do.

Liberal, ACLU Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg stayed wake long enough to write a dissenting opinion if you wanna' read it (Hint: It's at the end of the PDF link.) Or you can just wait for Jillian to tell you what to think about it.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I wasn't talking as much about this particular case as I was expressing the hope that the court continues to rule in favor of the Conservative position for many years.
This man was denied a fair trial and should be compensated for his time in prison. Most states have a set dollar amount they pay to exonerated former prisoners. Texas, I believe pays $50,000/year. Nine hundred grand seems fair...
If I understand the ruling, SCOTUS didn't say the man wasn't entitled to compensation, only that he was not entitled to compensation from the DA's office.

 

[Synthaholic]

We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

Nah - I think neither Thomas or Scalia are long for this world. Fat and doughy usually doesn't add up to a long life.

 

[George Costanza]

We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

Nah - I think neither Thomas or Scalia are long for this world. Fat and doughy usually doesn't add up to a long life.

Well, I don't wish death on either of them, as I am sure you don't either - maybe just early retirement?

But I'm concerned when Ginsberg cashes in, which will be soon. Does Obama have the wherewithall to appoint another Ginsberg? Will the idiots let it happen? If they get one more wingnut on there, we are all screwed.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

I wasn't talking as much about this particular case as I was expressing the hope that the court continues to rule in favor of the Conservative position for many years.
This man was denied a fair trial and should be compensated for his time in prison. Most states have a set dollar amount they pay to exonerated former prisoners. Texas, I believe pays $50,000/year. Nine hundred grand seems fair...
If I understand the ruling, SCOTUS didn't say the man wasn't entitled to compensation, only that he was not entitled to compensation from the DA's office.

OK, now I feel slightly better about your original post here . . .

 

[George Costanza]

Oh boy - I see I'm going to have to get off my ass and actually DELVE INTO this opinion. I'll give it a shot.

Edit Note: Unless, of course, Jillian does it for me . . .

So are you telling us that you posted a diatribe against a Supreme Court decision WITHOUT READING IT? Then on top of that you expect another poster to bail your sorry ass out? Tell us Georgie, did it ever occur to you to actually go to the Supreme Court website AND READ THE ACTUAL DECISION? No, of course not, because you're just another intellectually lazy Liberal hack that's why.

From the Supreme Court site:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

Petitioner the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office concedes that, in prosecuting respondent Thompson for attempted armed robbery, prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, by failing to disclose a crime lab report. Because of his robbery conviction, Thompson elected not to testify at his later murder trial and was convicted. A month before his scheduled execution, the lab report was discovered. A reviewing court vacated both convictions, and Thompson was found not guilty in a retrial on the murder charge. He then filed suit against the district attorney’s office under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging, inter alia, that the Brady violation was caused by the office’s DELIBERATE indifference to an OBVIOUS need to train prosecutors to avoid such constitutional violations. The district court held that, to prove deliberate indifference, Thompson did not need to show a pattern of similar Brady violations when he could demonstrate that the need for training was obvious.

I highlighted deliberate and obvious for a reason because in the decision Justice Thomas stated:
You see that Georgie? You following this? Justice Thomas writes further:

Deliberate indifference in this context requires proof that city policymakers disregarded the “known or obvious consequence” that a particular omission in their training program would cause city employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.
A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is “ordinarily necessary” to demonstrate DELIBERATE indifference. Without notice that a course of training is deficient, decision makers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.

So he has to prove a pattern, you know, MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. You keeping up ok? We're almost done Georgie, concentrate!

Thompson mistakenly relies on the “single-incident” liability hypothesized in Canton, contending that the Brady violation in his case was the “obvious” consequence of failing to provide specific Brady training and that this “obviousness” showing can substitute for the pattern of violations ordinarily necessary to establish municipal culpability.

You see that? The Supreme Court found that:

One Incident DOES NOT EQUAL a "Pattern" and therefore it is NOT "Deliberate and Obvious".

You see Georgie, how the Supreme Court works is that you read and understand the Law as it is written and apply it to case that come before the bench. What you are NOT supposed to do is look at a case and rule in someones favor if you "feel sorry for them" as most Liberals (Like You) who are ruled solely by their emotions do.

Liberal, ACLU Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg stayed wake long enough to write a dissenting opinion if you wanna' read it (Hint: It's at the end of the PDF link.) Or you can just wait for Jillian to tell you what to think about it.

Thanks. You obviously worked hard on this, and it has added to the thread. I have read it with interest.

 

[Truthseeker420]

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

 

[George Costanza]

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

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Did you know that this is the first split decision this term?

By the way, as a person who has been labelled right wing by many people on this board, I resent the implication that I think prosecutors should have immunity in cases of deliberate misconduct.

I wouldn't worry about him getting compensated though, he has a book deal, and a movie deal, which will probably come to a lot more than he would have got out of the city.

 

[Synthaholic]

We are in for decades of rulings such as this.

Nah - I think neither Thomas or Scalia are long for this world. Fat and doughy usually doesn't add up to a long life.

Well, I don't wish death on either of them, as I am sure you don't either - maybe just early retirement?

But I'm concerned when Ginsberg cashes in, which will be soon. Does Obama have the wherewithall to appoint another Ginsberg? Will the idiots let it happen? If they get one more wingnut on there, we are all screwed.

Not wishing death, just saying that they are both fat and out of shape. I think we are looking at just a few more years of these decisions.

I predict that Obama will appoint at least 2 more justices. Ginsburg and one of these two will be leaving us.