Connick v. Thompson

Last updated

Connick v. Thompson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 6, 2010
Decided March 29, 2011
Full case nameConnick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson
Docket no. 09-571
Citations563 U.S. 51 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 1350; 179 L. Ed. 2d 417; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2594
Case history
PriorJury verdict affirmed in part, reversed in part, Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008); on rehearing en banc , 578 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 559 U.S. 1004(2010).
SubsequentRemanded, 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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Alito
DissentGinsburg, 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]

Contents

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 Parish of Orleans, Harry Connick Sr., chose to first bring to trial the armed robbery charge against Thompson in hopes that a conviction would help with the murder case. Based solely on the identification by the three victims, Thompson was found guilty of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Then during the murder trial, Thompson was effectively precluded from testifying in his own defense because the prosecution would have impeached his testimony by referring to his armed robbery conviction. His codefendant was able to testify that he saw Thompson commit the murder without rebuttal testimony from Thompson. Thompson was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death. However, Connick suppressed a critical blood sample test. Elisa Abolafia, a private investigator, discovered that the blood splatter on the victim from the robbery did not match the blood type of Thompson. This meant that Thompson was wrongfully convicted of the robbery; a conviction that prohibited him from defending himself vigorously in the murder case. Connick also suppressed evidence in the murder trial, failing to disclose to Thompson's legal team the existence of an eyewitness description that matched one of the prosecution's witnesses, Kevin Freeman, and audio of witness Richard Perkins which implied Perkins had come forward for a cash reward and had used Freeman as his source. Thompson's murder case was vacated in 2002 and he was retried with his defense providing evidence that Freeman had committed the murder.

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 United States Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, overturned the $14 million award by the lower court, with the decision split along ideological lines. [3] The majority found for the appellant, Harry Connick Sr., holding that the prosecutor's office is not liable under §1983, saying that "the only issue before [the Court] is whether Connick, as the policy maker for the district attorney's office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train the attorneys under his authority" to which Justice Thomas said the answer to that question was no, given an absence of proof concerning a pattern of misconduct. [4]

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

The New York Times opined that "Justice Ginsburg's dissent is the more persuasive...", [6] and the Los Angeles Times wrote that "[t]he court got this one wrong." [7] Nina Totenberg wrote that "a bitterly divided U.S. Supreme Court all but closed the door" to prosecutors being held liable for damages when prosecutors violate the law to deprive a person of a fair trial. [8] Dahlia Lithwick wrote "Both Thomas and Scalia have produced what can only be described as a master class in human apathy. Their disregard for the facts of Thompson's thrashed life and near-death emerges as a moral flat line...only by willfully ignoring that entire trial record can [Scalia] and Thomas reduce the entire constitutional question to a single misdeed by a single bad actor." [9] Radley Balko noted that "...[t]here's something pretty unsavory about a judicial philosophy that cites a ruling that we now know sent an innocent man back to prison as an authority to deny compensation to another innocent man who was nearly executed because the government hid the evidence that would have and eventually did exonerate him." [10] Kieran Healy called the tone of the majority opinion "spiteful", and the decision a "Lord Denning Moment" for the court. Healy continued, "[t]he conservative majority preferred to affirm an obvious wrong rather than face the appalling vista of a brutal and corrupt justice system." [11] Andrew Cohen called the majority's argument a "warped rationale." [12] Wendy Kaminer wrote that "...what's striking about this case, aside from the majority's apparent indifference to practical realities and the actual sufferings of an innocent man wrongfully sentenced to die, is its indifference to the facts of the case outlined by Justice Ginsburg's dissent." [13] Bennett Gershman and Joel Cohen called the majority's reasoning "bizarre," and wrote that "[Ginsburg's] dissent was so contemptuous of the majority's decision that it provoked a gratuitous concurring opinion from Justice Scalia in a likely effort to seek to legitimize the majority opinion from her savage rebuke." [14] Writing for the American Constitution Society, Brandon Garrett called the ruling "chilling" and the majority's arguments "formalistic and circular." [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miscarriage of justice</span> Conviction of a person for a crime that they did not commit

A miscarriage of justice occurs when an unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation.

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in a 7–1 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at the university at the time, recused himself.

Joseph Harry Fowler Connick Sr. was an American attorney who served as the district attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, from 1973 to 2003. His son, Harry Connick Jr., is an American musician and actor.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense. The prosecution failed to do so for Brady, and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Kansas death penalty statute was consistent with the United States Constitution. The statute in question provided for a death sentence when the aggravating factors and mitigating factors were of equal weight.

Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime. This decision came one year after Thompson v. Oklahoma, in which the Court had held that a 15-year-old offender could not be executed because to do so would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In 2003, the Governor of Kentucky Paul E. Patton commuted the death sentence of Kevin Stanford, an action followed by the Supreme Court two years later in Roper v. Simmons overruling Stanford and holding that all juvenile offenders are exempt from the death penalty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul G. Cassell</span> American judge (born 1959)

Paul George Cassell is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, who is currently the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in, and proponent of, victims' rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving taxpayer standing under Article Three of the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole. While the question had been decided in the case of Simmons v. South Carolina, this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney (ADA). She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.

<i>Leal Garcia v. Texas</i> 2011 United States Supreme Court case

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

<i>Maples v. Thomas</i> 2012 United States Supreme Court case

Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court ruling in which the Court ruled 7–2 that Cory R. Maples, who had been convicted of murdering two people and faced a possible death sentence, should get another opportunity in court because his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell had abandoned him.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Louis N. Scarcella</span> American homicide detective

Louis N. Scarcella is a retired detective from the New York City Police Department (NYPD) who earned frequent commendations during the "crack epidemic" of the 1980s and 1990s, before many convictions resulting from his investigations were overturned during his retirement. As a member of the Brooklyn North Homicide Squad, he and his longtime partner Stephen Chmil built a reputation for obtaining convictions in difficult cases. Since 2013, Scarcella has received extensive and sustained publicity for multiple allegations of investigative misconduct that resulted in false testimony against crime suspects, leading to innocent parties serving long prison terms and guilty individuals going free.

Glenn Ford was convicted of murder in 1984 and released from Angola Prison in March 2014 after a full exoneration. Ford was born in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was the longest serving death row inmate in the United States to be fully exonerated before his death. He was denied compensation by the state of Louisiana for his wrongful conviction.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Scalia/Ginsburg is a 2015 comic opera by composer-librettist Derrick Wang about the relationship between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Called "a dream come true" by Justice Ginsburg, the opera has been broadcast nationally on the radio in the United States, produced in the United States and internationally, and featured on Live with Carnegie Hall.

References

  1. ↑ Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011).PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Corn, David (March 12, 2015). "Cruz the Politician Champions the Death Penalty. Cruz the Private Lawyer Did Something Else". Mother Jones.
  3. ↑ "Supreme Court rules against exonerated death row inmate who sued prosecutors" By Robert Barnes, Tuesday, March 29, 10:51 PM The Washington Post
  4. ↑ Adam Liptak (March 29, 2011). "Justices Dismiss $14 Million Jury Award To Freed Death Row Inmate". The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2011.
  5. ↑ Justice Ginsburg. "Connick V. Thompson". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  6. ↑ "Failure of Empathy and Justice" March 31, 2011
  7. ↑ "A wrong decision by the Supreme Court on civil rights" no date
  8. ↑ "Man Wrongly Convicted: Are Prosecutors Liable?" NPR - Nina Totenberg - April 2, 2011
  9. ↑ "Cruel but Not Unusual"
  10. ↑ "Scalia and the Innocent"
  11. ↑ "Connick v. Thompson "
  12. ↑ "Prosecutors Get a Mulligan, Wrongfully Convicted Man Gets Squat" By Andrew Cohen March 30, 2011, 8:07 PM Atlantic
  13. ↑ "When the Supreme Court Fears Too Much Justice" March 31, 2011, 9:11 AM ET Atlantic
  14. ↑ Bennett L. Gershman and Joel Cohen, "Cops Are Stupid, But Prosecutors Are Smart" Posted: 04/ 1/11 11:30 AM ET
  15. ↑ Brandon L. Garrett, "Hiding the Forensics" Archived 2011-04-06 at the Wayback Machine April 1, 2011

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.