Connick v. Thompson
Connick v. Thompson | |
---|---|
Subsequent | Remanded, Thompson v. Connick, 641 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 2011). |
Holding | |
A district attorney's office cannot be held responsible under Section 1983 for failing to properly train its employees when the plaintiff can only prove a single violation of Brady v. Maryland. Fifth Circuit reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito |
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.[1]
Background
In 1984, John Thompson, a 22-year-old African American father of two, was charged along with another man for killing a prominent New Orleans businessman. After his picture was published in the newspaper because of the arrest, victims of an unsolved attempted armed robbery identified Thompson as the person involved.
Handling both cases, the district attorney of the
After nearly two decades of wrongfully being imprisoned, Thompson was found not guilty in the retrial. Thompson eventually sued Connick and several of his assistant district attorneys for suppression of evidence and won a verdict of $14 million.[2]
Opinion of the court
On March 29, 2011, the
The dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, observed that Thompson was the victim of much more pervasive misconduct by the District Attorney's office than a single Brady violation.[5]
Criticism
See also
References
- ^ Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ Corn, David (March 12, 2015). "Cruz the Politician Champions the Death Penalty. Cruz the Private Lawyer Did Something Else". Mother Jones.
- ^ "Supreme Court rules against exonerated death row inmate who sued prosecutors" By Robert Barnes, Tuesday, March 29, 10:51 PM The Washington Post
- ^ Adam Liptak (March 29, 2011). "Justices Dismiss $14 Million Jury Award To Freed Death Row Inmate". The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2011.
- ^ Justice Ginsburg. "Connick V. Thompson". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
- ^ "Failure of Empathy and Justice" March 31, 2011
- ^ "A wrong decision by the Supreme Court on civil rights" no date
- ^ "Man Wrongly Convicted: Are Prosecutors Liable?" NPR - Nina Totenberg - April 2, 2011
- ^ "Cruel but Not Unusual"
- ^ "Scalia and the Innocent"
- ^ "Connick v. Thompson "
- Atlantic
- Atlantic
- ^ Bennett L. Gershman and Joel Cohen, "Cops Are Stupid, But Prosecutors Are Smart" Posted: 04/ 1/11 11:30 AM ET
- ^ Brandon L. Garrett, "Hiding the Forensics" Archived 2011-04-06 at the Wayback Machine April 1, 2011
Further reading
- Autry, Hannah (2012). "Connick v. Thompson: The Costs of Valuing Immunity over Innocence". National Law Guild Review. 69 (1): 29.
- Bandes, Susan A. (2012). "The Lone Miscreant, the Self-Training Prosecutor, and Other Fictions: A Comment on Connick v. Thompson". Fordham Law Review. 80. SSRN 1842963.
- Laurin, Jennifer E. (2011). "Prosecutorial Exceptionalism, Remedial Skepticism, and the Legacy of Connick v. Thompson". University of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 202. SSRN 1934250.
- Moore, Janet (2012). "Opening the Black Box: Democracy and Criminal Discovery Reform after Connick v. Thompson and Garcetti v. Ceballos". Brooklyn Law Review. 77. SSRN 1942939.
External links
- Text of Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)