Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
Oral argument: Oct. 6, 2010
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (Aug. 10, 2009)
42 U.S.C. ¤ 1983, BRADY VIOLATION, MUNICIPAL LIABILITY, FAILURE-
TO-TRAIN LIABILITY
John Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years following a
trial during which the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence,
in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Thompson brought suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ¤ 1983 alleging that the district
attorney's office is liable for failing to properly train its
employees on the requirements of Brady. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in favor of assigning
liability to the district attorney's office. Petitioners,
including District Attorney Harry Connick, appealed to the
Supreme Court. Connick claims that there was no obvious need to
train prosecutors regarding Brady standards and that liability
should not attach to the office when there was no notice that
the training program needed reform. Respondent Thompson contends
that the prosecutors' lack of training amounted to a deliberate
indifference to preserving constitutional rights and that
liability may properly attach to the district attorney's office
without a past history of violations. This decision will
determine the extent to which a municipality may be liable for a
single action by one of its employees.
continues at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-571
Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:35 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Connick v. Thompson
by admin » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:15 pm
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Connick v. Thompson, which centers on the right of a defendant to sue prosecutors' offices for their failure to train staff on the legal obligation to turn over evidence pointing to innocence.
The Innocence Network filed a brief http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=aQOZcHA4qPrvwWHwJ7aQmQ.. on Thompson's behalf. Read transcripts and media coverage here. http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=315m5BF20LMV-1PvTBDbTw..
The Innocence Network filed a brief http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=aQOZcHA4qPrvwWHwJ7aQmQ.. on Thompson's behalf. Read transcripts and media coverage here. http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=315m5BF20LMV-1PvTBDbTw..
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:50 pm
CONNICK v. THOMPSON
(No. 09-571)
Web-accessible at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-571.ZS.html
Argued: October 6, 2010
Decided: March 29, 2011
Opinion author: Thomas
===============================================================
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. sec.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. The jury found the district attorney's office
liable for failure to train and awarded Thompson damages.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed by an equally divided court.
Held: A district attorney's office may not be held liable
under sec.1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based
on a single Brady violation. Pp. 6-20.
(a) Plaintiffs seeking to impose sec.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 policymaking officials, and practices so persistent
and widespread as to practically have the force of law.
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. , 436 U.
S. 658 . A local government's decision not to train certain
employees about their legal duty to avoid violating citizens'
rights may rise to the level of an official government
policy for sec.1983 purposes, but the failure to train
must amount to "deliberate indifference to the rights of
persons with whom the [untrained employees] come into contact."
Canton v. Harris , 489 U. S. 378 . 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. Board of Comm'rs
of Bryan Cty. v. Brown , 520 U. S. 397 . Pp. 6-9.
(b) A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained
employees is "ordinarily necessary" to demonstrate deliberate
indifference. Bryan Cty., supra , at 409. Without notice
that a course of training is deficient, decisionmakers
can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training
program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.
Thompson does not contend that he proved a pattern of similar
Brady violations, and four reversals by Louisiana courts
for dissimilar Brady violations in the 10 years before
the robbery trial could not have put the district attorney's
office on notice of the need for specific training. Pp.
9-10.
(c) 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. In Canton , the Court theorized that if a
city armed its police force and deployed them into the
public to capture fleeing felons without training the officers
in the constitutional limitation on the use of deadly force,
the failure to train could reflect the city's deliberate
indifference to the highly predictable consequence, namely,
violations of constitutional rights. Failure to train prosecutors
in their Brady obligations does not fall within the narrow
range of Canton 's hypothesized single-incident liability.
The obvious need for specific legal training present in
Canton 's scenario--police academy applicants are unlikely
to be familiar with constitutional constraints on deadly
force and, absent training, cannot obtain that knowledge--is
absent here. Attorneys are trained in the law and equipped
with the tools to interpret and apply legal principles,
understand constitutional limits, and exercise legal judgment.
They receive training before entering the profession, must
usually satisfy continuing education requirements, often
train on the job with more experienced attorneys, and must
satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethical obligations.
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
violations are not the "obvious consequence" of failing
to provide prosecutors with formal in-house training. The
nuance of the allegedly necessary training also distinguishes
the case from the example in Canton . Here, the prosecutors
were familiar with the general Brady rule. Thus, 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.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined.
Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito,
J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
(No. 09-571)
Web-accessible at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-571.ZS.html
Argued: October 6, 2010
Decided: March 29, 2011
Opinion author: Thomas
===============================================================
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. sec.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. The jury found the district attorney's office
liable for failure to train and awarded Thompson damages.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed by an equally divided court.
Held: A district attorney's office may not be held liable
under sec.1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based
on a single Brady violation. Pp. 6-20.
(a) Plaintiffs seeking to impose sec.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 policymaking officials, and practices so persistent
and widespread as to practically have the force of law.
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. , 436 U.
S. 658 . A local government's decision not to train certain
employees about their legal duty to avoid violating citizens'
rights may rise to the level of an official government
policy for sec.1983 purposes, but the failure to train
must amount to "deliberate indifference to the rights of
persons with whom the [untrained employees] come into contact."
Canton v. Harris , 489 U. S. 378 . 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. Board of Comm'rs
of Bryan Cty. v. Brown , 520 U. S. 397 . Pp. 6-9.
(b) A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained
employees is "ordinarily necessary" to demonstrate deliberate
indifference. Bryan Cty., supra , at 409. Without notice
that a course of training is deficient, decisionmakers
can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training
program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.
Thompson does not contend that he proved a pattern of similar
Brady violations, and four reversals by Louisiana courts
for dissimilar Brady violations in the 10 years before
the robbery trial could not have put the district attorney's
office on notice of the need for specific training. Pp.
9-10.
(c) 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. In Canton , the Court theorized that if a
city armed its police force and deployed them into the
public to capture fleeing felons without training the officers
in the constitutional limitation on the use of deadly force,
the failure to train could reflect the city's deliberate
indifference to the highly predictable consequence, namely,
violations of constitutional rights. Failure to train prosecutors
in their Brady obligations does not fall within the narrow
range of Canton 's hypothesized single-incident liability.
The obvious need for specific legal training present in
Canton 's scenario--police academy applicants are unlikely
to be familiar with constitutional constraints on deadly
force and, absent training, cannot obtain that knowledge--is
absent here. Attorneys are trained in the law and equipped
with the tools to interpret and apply legal principles,
understand constitutional limits, and exercise legal judgment.
They receive training before entering the profession, must
usually satisfy continuing education requirements, often
train on the job with more experienced attorneys, and must
satisfy licensing standards and ongoing ethical obligations.
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
violations are not the "obvious consequence" of failing
to provide prosecutors with formal in-house training. The
nuance of the allegedly necessary training also distinguishes
the case from the example in Canton . Here, the prosecutors
were familiar with the general Brady rule. Thus, 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.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined.
Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito,
J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:24 am
Supreme Court shields prosecutors in wrongful convictions
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
david.savage@latimes.com
April 3, 2011
Though new DNA testing has shown hundreds of convicts to be innocent, the court has protected prosecutors from lawsuits and balked at letting prisoners reopen cases.
A jury awarded John Thompson $14 million in his lawsuit against prosecutors after he was freed from death row. The Supreme Court threw it out. Above, Thompson speaks at a New Orleans news conference. (Patrick Semansky, Associated Press / March 29, 2011)
Full text at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7335.story .
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
david.savage@latimes.com
April 3, 2011
Though new DNA testing has shown hundreds of convicts to be innocent, the court has protected prosecutors from lawsuits and balked at letting prisoners reopen cases.
A jury awarded John Thompson $14 million in his lawsuit against prosecutors after he was freed from death row. The Supreme Court threw it out. Above, Thompson speaks at a New Orleans news conference. (Patrick Semansky, Associated Press / March 29, 2011)
Full text at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7335.story .
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Sun May 01, 2011 3:53 pm
Supreme Court Grants Even Greater Immunity for Prosecutors
Innocence Network Letter from 19 Exonerees Demands Accountability
On March 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Connick v. Thompson http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=FsluSkZBln-xwTMCA7tcIw.. that the Orleans Parish Attorney does not have to pay John Thompson the $14 million he was awarded in a lawsuit against the Parish Attorney’s Office for prosecutorial misconduct. Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years - 14 on death row. In response to the decision, the Innocence Network released a letter signed by 19 innocent people who were wrongfully convicted, in part, because of the bad acts of prosecutors.
The letter, which was addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Presidents of the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Attorneys Generals, demands to know what systems they intend to put in place to ensure that innocent people don’t fall victim to overzealous prosecutors.
Citing a recent report by the Northern California Innocence Project http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=6jc51hykvJdBTZol7SX-dA.. , the letter notes that prosecutors are rarely disciplined for their misdeeds. The report found that prosecutors were guilty of misconduct in California 707 times from 1997 to 2009, yet were disciplined only 7 times. The letter also points to a 2010 USA Today http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=B5VNXadjzvf7Wkowa2FR2w.. investigation, that documented 201 instances where federal prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules since 1997, yet only one of those prosecutors was suspended from practicing law - and that was only for one year.
"Misconduct was found in the cases of all the innocent people who signed onto this letter, yet none of the prosecutors involved were disciplined in any way," said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project. "How many lives are going to be destroyed before we realize that prosecutors are no different than any other professionals? There are good ones and there are bad ones, and we need systems in place to stop the bad ones."
A copy of the letter, which was also sent to the District Attorney offices in the counties where the signers were originally prosecuted, is available here http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=ouG0ePQtvqJHa_xvxcKs3Q.. .
Learn more by reading a New York Times op-ed http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=sQDpYRxxFtRzulPSMsnYhw.. by John Thompson on this decision.
Innocence Network Letter from 19 Exonerees Demands Accountability
On March 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Connick v. Thompson http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=FsluSkZBln-xwTMCA7tcIw.. that the Orleans Parish Attorney does not have to pay John Thompson the $14 million he was awarded in a lawsuit against the Parish Attorney’s Office for prosecutorial misconduct. Thompson was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years - 14 on death row. In response to the decision, the Innocence Network released a letter signed by 19 innocent people who were wrongfully convicted, in part, because of the bad acts of prosecutors.
The letter, which was addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Presidents of the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Attorneys Generals, demands to know what systems they intend to put in place to ensure that innocent people don’t fall victim to overzealous prosecutors.
Citing a recent report by the Northern California Innocence Project http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=6jc51hykvJdBTZol7SX-dA.. , the letter notes that prosecutors are rarely disciplined for their misdeeds. The report found that prosecutors were guilty of misconduct in California 707 times from 1997 to 2009, yet were disciplined only 7 times. The letter also points to a 2010 USA Today http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=B5VNXadjzvf7Wkowa2FR2w.. investigation, that documented 201 instances where federal prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules since 1997, yet only one of those prosecutors was suspended from practicing law - and that was only for one year.
"Misconduct was found in the cases of all the innocent people who signed onto this letter, yet none of the prosecutors involved were disciplined in any way," said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project. "How many lives are going to be destroyed before we realize that prosecutors are no different than any other professionals? There are good ones and there are bad ones, and we need systems in place to stop the bad ones."
A copy of the letter, which was also sent to the District Attorney offices in the counties where the signers were originally prosecuted, is available here http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=ouG0ePQtvqJHa_xvxcKs3Q.. .
Learn more by reading a New York Times op-ed http://ip.convio.net/site/R?i=sQDpYRxxFtRzulPSMsnYhw.. by John Thompson on this decision.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Thu May 19, 2011 7:02 pm
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
filed May 18, 2011
10-30035 John Thompson v. Harry Connick, et al
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf
filed May 18, 2011
10-30035 John Thompson v. Harry Connick, et al
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:37 pm
Wrongfully Convicted Urge Action in Wake of Supreme Court Decision Expanding Immunity for Prosecutors
Innocence Network Releases Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Presidents of the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Attorneys General Demands Accountability
CONTACT: Paul Cates, 212-364-5346, 917-566-1294, pcates@innocenceproject.org
(New York, NY; March 29, 2011) — After today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Connick v.Thompson granting prosecutors even greater immunity for their misconduct, the Innocence Network released a letter http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/20 ... ompson.pdf signed by 19 innocent people who were wrongfully convicted in part because of the bad acts of prosecutors demanding greater accountability for prosecutorial misconduct.
Read on at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... cutors.php
Video: Holding Prosecutors Accountable
John Thompson served 14 years on Louisiana’s death row before evidence of his innocence led to exoneration. He visited the Innocence Project office recently to discuss prosecutorial misconduct in his case and to call for increased accountability. Watch a 3-minute video here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... ntable.php
Innocence Network Releases Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Presidents of the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Attorneys General Demands Accountability
CONTACT: Paul Cates, 212-364-5346, 917-566-1294, pcates@innocenceproject.org
(New York, NY; March 29, 2011) — After today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Connick v.Thompson granting prosecutors even greater immunity for their misconduct, the Innocence Network released a letter http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/20 ... ompson.pdf signed by 19 innocent people who were wrongfully convicted in part because of the bad acts of prosecutors demanding greater accountability for prosecutorial misconduct.
Read on at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... cutors.php
Video: Holding Prosecutors Accountable
John Thompson served 14 years on Louisiana’s death row before evidence of his innocence led to exoneration. He visited the Innocence Project office recently to discuss prosecutorial misconduct in his case and to call for increased accountability. Watch a 3-minute video here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... ntable.php
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:46 pm
A Call for Prosecutorial Accountability
Yesterday in Washington, D.C., legal leaders joined Louisiana exoneree John Thompson in announcing the launch of a national tour to seek policy reforms addressing prosecutorial misconduct.
The tour is a partnership between the Innocence Project, Veritas Initiative, Innocence Project New Orleans and Voices of Innocence and will include events in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.
John Thompson, who served 18 years in Louisiana prisons — including 14 years on death row — for two crimes he didn’t commit, won a civil settlement based on prosecutorial misconduct. He was stripped of the settlement earlier this year, however, in a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Join the campaign by visiting the website at http://www.prosecutorialoversight.org and on Facebook and Twitter.
Yesterday in Washington, D.C., legal leaders joined Louisiana exoneree John Thompson in announcing the launch of a national tour to seek policy reforms addressing prosecutorial misconduct.
The tour is a partnership between the Innocence Project, Veritas Initiative, Innocence Project New Orleans and Voices of Innocence and will include events in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.
John Thompson, who served 18 years in Louisiana prisons — including 14 years on death row — for two crimes he didn’t commit, won a civil settlement based on prosecutorial misconduct. He was stripped of the settlement earlier this year, however, in a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Join the campaign by visiting the website at http://www.prosecutorialoversight.org and on Facebook and Twitter.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
Re: Connick v. Thompson (09-571)
by admin » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:24 am
Innocence Project Newsletter of February 8, 2012
...With Connick v. Thompson, the U.S. Supreme Court took away one of the only remaining means for the wrongfully convicted to hold prosecutors accountable for willful misconduct. Although all other professionals, from doctors to airline pilots to clergy, can be held liable for their negligence, the Supreme Court has effectively given district attorney offices legal immunity for the actions of their assistants, even when an office is deliberately indifferent to its responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence.
It is now up to our elected officials to strengthen our existing systems and create new ones if necessary to ensure that prosecutor’s offices are accountable and transparent. Contact your elected officials and demand that they strengthen safeguards against prosecutorial misconduct and protections for the wrongfully convicted in your state. https://secure2.convio.net/ip/site/Advo ... s1.app210a
Sincerely,
Barry Scheck
Co-Director
The Innocence Project
...With Connick v. Thompson, the U.S. Supreme Court took away one of the only remaining means for the wrongfully convicted to hold prosecutors accountable for willful misconduct. Although all other professionals, from doctors to airline pilots to clergy, can be held liable for their negligence, the Supreme Court has effectively given district attorney offices legal immunity for the actions of their assistants, even when an office is deliberately indifferent to its responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence.
It is now up to our elected officials to strengthen our existing systems and create new ones if necessary to ensure that prosecutor’s offices are accountable and transparent. Contact your elected officials and demand that they strengthen safeguards against prosecutorial misconduct and protections for the wrongfully convicted in your state. https://secure2.convio.net/ip/site/Advo ... s1.app210a
Sincerely,
Barry Scheck
Co-Director
The Innocence Project
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:13 pm
- Location: Northern Germany
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Immunity of Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest