Submitted by Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
John Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 of them on death row, following convictions for attempted armed robbery and murder in separate incidents. A scant month before the scheduled execution, an investigator hired by Thompson’s lawyers made a startling discovery in the crime lab archives: a lab report which completely exonerated Thompson on the attempted robbery charge.The report contained results of a test conducted on blood left by the robber on the clothing of one of the victims. The robber had type B blood. Thompson’s is type O.
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused. The prosecutor in Thompson’s attempted robbery case deliberately withheld the test results from defense counsel. At his subsequent trial on the murder charge, Thompson understandably declined to testify so that the attempted robbery conviction could not be used for impeachment purposes.
In due course both convictions were overturned. A second trial on the murder charge produced a defense verdict after only 35 minutes of jury deliberation. Thompson thereupon sued Harry Connick, the New Orleans district attorney, under several theories, including a violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The jury awarded Thompson $1,000,000.00 for each year spent on death row, a total of $14,000,000.00. The verdict was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thompson will never see a dime of his award. In a 5-4 decision announced on March 29th, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas found the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct was insufficient to support a conclusion that the district attorney had been “deliberately indifferent” to his duty to insure that prosecutors in his office adhered to the requirements of the Brady rule.
Justice Thomas reaches his conclusion by framing the issue in a manner which admits of no alternative result. The sole question for the court, he says, is whether Section 1983 liability may be based upon “a single Brady violation.” Of course it can’t. The reason is that a district attorney cannot be held liable for the actions of his subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. Instead, it was necessary for Thompson to establish a pattern of such violations in Connick’s office sufficient to permit a conclusion that Connick was deliberately indifferent to the need to adequately train his staff on the Brady requirements.
But Justice Thomas ignores substantial evidence in the record that Connick’s office was a virtual cesspool of prosecutorial misconduct. Indeed, at least four prosecutors were aware of the withheld evidence in Thompson’s armed robbery trial. The responsible prosecutor had actually confessed to a colleague that he had withheld the lab report. Connick had had a number of prior convictions reversed for Brady violations. Connick himself openly admitted to never having cracked a law book subsequent to becoming district attorney in 1974.
Justice Thomas finds this record unpersuasive because, as he notes, none of the previous Brady violations “involved failure to disclose blood evidence, a crime lab report, or physical or scientific evidence of any kind.” Accordingly, he concludes, Connick could not have been on notice of the need to train his staff concerning the specific violation in Thompson’s case. Besides, he continues, prosecutors are trained attorneys who can be expected to know and understand their obligations. I don’t know how many potential violations exist in the Brady universe, but presumably Justice Thomas would require that Connick’s prosecutors commit all of them before “deliberate indifference” might be inferred.
The decision in this case is not so much about law as it is about a public policy position intended to impose the most formidable barriers possible to pursuing a Section 1983 claim against a state agency. I prefer to call it the doctrine of prosecutorial impunity.
Sorry Kay, that 2006 was a typo. You joined Daily Kos as a member on July 4 2007, and your User ID number is 127144.
You posted six diaries and a number of comments.
Furthermore Mike
I never blogged on any blog in 2006. The blog you quoted was the first blog I ever wrote on and it was only a week after I was released from jail after being held for 3 weeks without a bail hearing.
AND the reason that my Colorado lawsuit was dismissed was that I claimed that prosecutors didn’t have immunity if they didn’t file a statement of probable cause and if they gave a press conference so my experience is directly relevant to the subject.
So why don’t you try to be a little open minded?
Mike I do believe that prosecutorial impropriety can be prosecuted under section 1983 and I blogged to that point and sued to that point. In my case the magistrate ruled that all prosecutors have immunity no matter what even for press conferences. That’s why I discussed it on this subject.
It’s not my fault that other people changed the subject.
“A deliberate refusal to comply with a court order in a civil proceeding is a classic basis for a finding of contempt.” where is that authority in federal court?
“Lawsuits in federal court do not “start” at $100,000.00” I have a 2010 speech by federal judge Kane that gave that figure and that is what I relied on
“Judges even have the authority to direct clerks not to accept filings from a pro se litigant.” Do you have a source for that?
What do you think of the idea of amending Fed. Rules Crim Proc Rule 16(c) to require disclosure of exculpatory evidence?
Mike A.,
Well said….I am sorry I took liberty and rejacked your thread for my own. I suppose there is wisdom in OS post. Maybe if one is ignored enough then…well they may just move on to another site entirely…. One can always hope…..
I forget which Saint said this but it went something along this line… When all else fails speak (use words)…. I took it to mean put in action all that you do, do not talk about it and be the best you can be….but when the time comes the words will flow from your mouth appropriately as you will then be prepared…..
Thanks to all…
W=c,
No. It’s worse than spewing ideology and philosophy sans experience. It’s spewing nonsense as if it were fact.
As to the circularity of that statement? Have you ever head the legal maxim “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.”? OS has told the story a couple of time now about an attorney friend of his that has a needlepoint in his office that reads, “The Truth Will Make You Angry”.
Just because you desire an answer does not mean you will get the answer you desire.
The truth is the truth.
It’s not always pleasant and it’s not always pretty, but it is what it is.
Is it better to live with an unpleasant truth or a beautiful lie?
I submit that Kay’s history is a case study that provides the answer to that question.
“I for one seek only the truth, by which no man was ever harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius. That sage leader never mentioned anything about being offended or angry. And sometimes needlepoints don’t lie.
When it comes to evaluating things like merits of suit, if you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question.
——————————
well that’s a tad circular Buddha…plus I would not get into a discussion about the merits of a suit w/you….I’m not a lawyer. But someone who has a really nasty experience in the courts has something to offer on a legal blog and deserves more than a ‘shutup’. It’s not like Kay has been spewing ideology and philosophy sans experience…and unfortunately she is 1 of a hugely growing rank of those to whom the legal system has been used more like a weapon than a ‘civil remedy’.
And that’s all I have to say about it….
Woosty, I would normally agree with your general thesis; however, Kay has been doing this sort of thing for several years on other blogs. As far back as 2006, she was posting the same stuff, repetitiously, on Daily Kos. Some of the lawyers over there were telling her the same thing over and over, but she kept the same song and dance going. She has infested several blogs. Somebody mentioned that on one blog they set up a separate page for her so she could rant to her heart’s content. Funny thing happened, I am told. Nobody wanted to come to her party so she gave up. And apparently came here. No matter how many times a lawyer points out she is wrong and why, she simply starts the record over at the beginning. I have come very close to stopping posting here several times because of her and Brian.
Kay has left a swath of bloody and battered legal bloggers behind her over the past several years. She is obsessive and in denial and it gets old. She needs mental health assistance at the moment, not legal assistance.
Woosty’s still a Cat
I just posted that very same clip on the Biden fell asleep during the budget speech thread … Lol …
Mike A.,
Yeah. I got to go with Blouise on this one. My initial response was “I bet Elaine, mespo and raff are going to be thrilled with that.” And as always, well said.
Wootsy,
To be fair, it was much less trite and heartless the first 3 or 4 times they had this conversation.
W=c,
And you are entitled to yours. Trite and simplistic do not mean wrong. When it comes to evaluating things like merits of suit, if you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question. I’m not the only person with an appropriate background to tell her exactly that answer albeit in differing forms. Many, many times. As to compassion? I have a limit of that and Kay long ago used up her dispensation and then some. Neither compassion nor pity will help her when it comes to her delusion the judge didn’t have the power to do exactly as he did. An attorney is going to be less help to her at this point than a medical professional would.
And in protest to my own answer, I join your protest of my previous answer and second your video selection.
It’s all about the jobs, damn it.
Mike Appleton,
Very nicely said, paraphrasing the good Blouise…
“All I ask is that if you wish to continue rehashing your litigation history you do so on a thread started by Elaine or rafflaw or mespo. Thanks.” (Mike Appleton)
Well said, sir. I was looking forward to reading all the insights offered on this subject but instead ….
(As to erecting those detour signs to Elaine or rafflaw or mespo threads … lol … and you may have started a genteel war)
“the people having trouble moving on should hire an attorney, but no, there is likely not a case on the facts as presented”.~Buddha
——————————————
I can’t speak for Kay but that answer, too trite, too simplistic….frighteningly without compassion. Your entitled to your opinion.
In absolute protest of your response I do hearby most selfishly hijack this thread towards something I like……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCl2bi-JDY&feature=player_embedded
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCl2bi-JDY&w=480&h=390%5D
W=c,
“Maybe it is time to examine whether the people who have trouble moving on have a case.”
The answer is “the people having trouble moving on should hire an attorney, but no, there is likely not a case on the facts as presented”.
There is a difference between a different perspective – different ideas can be good if they can be defended – and simply feeding a psychosis.
I just logged in and got excited when I saw 183 comments on this thread, thinking, of course, that I would find a spirited debate on when prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of state action under Section 1983.
Boy, was I wrong.
Kay Sieverding:
1. All judges have the inherent authority to control their dockets and their courtrooms. “Inherent” means that the authority exists even in the absence of specific rules or statutes.
2. A deliberate refusal to comply with a court order in a civil proceeding is a classic basis for a finding of contempt. The procedural rules exist to make certain that due process is followed. In addition, civil contempt orders always include a “purge” mechanism, something that a person can do to terminate whatever sanction has been imposed.
3. Pro se litigants are the bane of the judicial system, and of opposing counsel. There are a myriad of reasons for that which there’s no point in going into.
4. Contempt is a common tool for controlling filings by pro se litigants that do not comply with procedural or substantive law. Judges even have the authority to direct clerks not to accept filings from a pro se litigant.
5. The resolution of a dispute with another party, regardless of the nature of the party, is typically through a single lawsuit. The filing of multiple claims in multiple jurisdictions is self-defeating and virtually invites the conclusion that the plaintiff is a “vexatious” litigant.
6. Lawsuits in federal court do not “start” at $100,000.00. That is absurd. Litigation in federal court is admittedly expensive, too expensive in fact. But plenty of federal court cases are litigated for far less than $100,000.00.
7. Your experiences are obviously painful, and may have been riddled with injustice, but you appear to have become obsessed, and much of what you have to say about the law and legal procedures are simply wrong.
All I ask is that if you wish to continue rehashing your litigation history you do so on a thread started by Elaine or rafflaw or mespo. Thanks.
To whom it may concern:
Please post at least something relevant to the topic at hand. To jack a thread with the same topic everytime is selfish regardless if you might happen to post new information. I encourage people to post whatever their heart desires. Regardless if I agree with your position or not I may or may not comment. I have to have a strong opinion on something to let it take so much of my time.
W=C,
Food for thought — thanks. Too tired to tackle it now…
I don’t care so much for ‘thread jacking’ either…but I have seen trolls, nasties, thugs and other creepy types come here and attack people for having a perspective that is different from thier own. I usually like the level of discourse and the information exchange here. I haven’t decided if it is a void created by information lag, the attack trolls or what spawns the OT posts or maybe the welcoming atmosphere encourages a wider range of inclusion on a topic (that would be my choice)….in any event, the current state of ‘law’ by the process of the courts creates lots of victims. Maybe it is time to examine whether the people who have trouble moving on have a case. If the best anyone can do is to tell people to shut up may I suggest you pack your fucking bags and move to some nasty totalitarian country where you belong?
😉
and since when does real life experience get treated so badly by people who supposedly are touting how ‘democratic’ and ethical they are???
No one with a legal background gives a shit what you think, Kay.