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.
Woosty
I did watch the U Tube recording of Edith Piaf. That was neat thank you.
Dear anon nurse
I wasn’t trying to “jack threads”. I was trying to discuss prosecutorial misconduct. Some people seem to think that my name is a red flag. To me that just shows why I have to continue to file in court because if my name is a red flag when blogging, how would I work as a municipal credit risk analyst?
I have brought other sources of information into the Turley blogs. In fact it was just this morning that I looked at Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 16(c) which I think needs to be revised to include a mandatory release of exculpatory evidence. No one has acknowledged this citation. That is something we could actually draft a proposed revision to and send to the House and Senate judiciary committees. That’s actually something we as bloggers could really do that could make a difference to those charged with a federal offense. That wouldn’t have directly helped John Thompson since he was charged in state court but if federal law was changed, state law would probably follow.
Kay, W=C….
A whole lot of truth in those last few comments of yours…
Kay,
Blogging’s good, but agree with AY (and others) that one has to be careful about “jacking threads”…
Well Kay, I am not guilty of calling you. Why? Because I don’t care.
I don’t care if you stay or go. What I do care is when you jack the thread. And then play polyanna or chicken little…. Then I object….
Je Ne Regrette Rien
No, nothing of nothing
No! I don’t feel sorry about anything
Not the good things people have done to me
Not the bad things, it’s all the same to me.
No, nothing of nothing
No! I don’t feel sorry about anything
It’s paid for, removed, forgotten,
I’m happy of the past
With my memories
I lit up the fire
My troubles, my pleasures
I don’t need them anymore
Broomed away my love stories
And all their tremble
Broomed away for always
I start again from zero
Non ! Je ne regrette rien
Ni le mal, tout ça m’est bien égal !
Non ! Je ne regrette rien
Because my life, my joys
Today, they begin with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5gpBncR8zI&feature=related
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5gpBncR8zI&w=480&h=390%5D
Thank you Woosty.
I actually feel less stress when I feel that I am doing something even if it is just blogging.
I am working on a Crime Victim Mandamus Petition under 18 USC section 3771, which I plan to spend $350 to file even though I am really short of money. I’ll post it on my link probably next week.
Another person who posts here clicked on my link and got my phone number and called this morning. That was nice.
Yes I know that I am not alone in being victimized. These events have raised my consciousness.
Thanks again.
What I have basically been told is that the parties who arranged my procedure-less detention want me either to commit suicide or to go bankrupt and work for minimum wage or live on the streets homeless.~Kay
————————————————————
Welcome to the club.
Have you been to the newspapers yet?
…..and no, I don’tthink you should give up, neither do I think you should make yourself sick over the behavior of what is essentially, a mob.
so talk when you need to, find the right ones to listen when you are not posting here….and don’t stop til YOU are good and ready….
you are really really really not alone…………………
It is well documented that people become more interested in rights when they are deprived of their rights. If you looked at public discourse in this country 20 years ago there was much less discussion of the Constitution and rights then there is now because U.S. citizens used to take them for granted in this country. No more.
What I have basically been told is that the parties who arranged my procedure-less detention want me either to commit suicide or to go bankrupt and work for minimum wage or live on the streets homeless. The federal court officials I have encountered have basically implied the same. So “cutting my losses” basically does involve giving up all my rights, all my property, my reputation and my earnings potential. I would be stupid to agree to that.
That is how many governments have taken people who would otherwise be concerned with job, family and home and radicalized them.
I didn’t change facts.
I can’t cut my losses and move on without a finding in court. It is impossible for me to resume normal life because my name was besmirched and that affects every aspect of my life and because I feel so strongly about democracy that I am willing to sacrifice every minute of my life to it.~Kay
———————————————————–
that’s Martyr talk Kay.
the risk you take is pretty profound given the controlling forces of the day.
If it helps, no life on this plane is any more or less normal than any other…that said, if cutting ones losses involves cutting thier own throat…it could only be a terrorist that asks that ….and that is not ever a court of ‘law’…
Dear Anonymously Yours
I didn’t change facts.
I can’t cut my losses and move on without a finding in court. It is impossible for me to resume normal life because my name was besmirched and that affects every aspect of my life and because I feel so strongly about democracy that I am willing to sacrifice every minute of my life to it.
(b) Procedures When There is No Controlling Law.
A judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 and 2075, and the district’s local rules.
§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.
Kay,
Have you noticed that when someone attempts to answer one of your queries, you change facts, give new information and then become very argumentative. I don’t really care what you do or how you accomplish your aims or don’t. Just quit being a bitch about it. If your conduct and or attitude is the same in court as they have been exhibited on this site I can see where the judge became upset and granted the ultimate sanction and dismissed your case. You did not get the ultimate penalty until you refilled the same suit in contemeranious jurisdictions. Then you felt the financial burden and weight of the 800 pound gorilla. The contempt is civil in nature as it was a civil action. The criminal aspect came because the judge had no other course of action to force compliance.
Your goal is not clear to anyone including yourself except to vindicate the wrong you feel. Sometimes it’s best to cut your loses and move on. You on the other hand apparently are nor going to stop until you get the redress you want. I hope you enjoy the catered meals…:
In Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection
(c) Continuing Duty to Disclose.
A party who discovers additional evidence or material before or during trial must promptly disclose its existence to the other party or the court if:
(1) the evidence or material is subject to discovery or inspection under this rule; and
(2) the other party previously requested, or the court ordered, its production.
I am not a lawyer but I think this means that if the government didn’t rely on the blood, sperm or other evidence to convict that it can suppress evidence that the defense lawyer didn’t request. According to the notes to Rule 16, the defense can’t just demand discovery of all evidence. So therefore according to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it appears to be legal to suppress exculpatory evidence. Rule 16 should be revised to require disclosure of exculpatory evidence even if not requested.
In April 2011, the Westchester New York County Board of Legislators approved a $6.5 million settlement of the county’s portion of Jeffrey Deskovic’s federal civil rights lawsuit. So Louisiana could do the same for Thompson.
Deskovic was 17 when he landed in prison after jurors convicted him of second-degree murder in the November 1989 rape and slaying of Angela Correa, a classmate at Peekskill High School. According to an article in LowerHud.com by Jonathan Bandler
The jury relied on a false confession he gave police after hours of interrogation and the prosecution’s spin for why it didn’t matter that DNA found on the victim was not Deskovic’s.
It took nearly 16 years before a DNA match linked the killing to another inmate, Stephen Cunningham. He was in prison for murder in the death of his girlfriend’s sister four years after he killed Correa.
Deskovic was released in September 2006 and has been trying to adapt, socially and professionally, ever since.
Micronesia is a U.S. Territory. According to a recent article in Marianas Variety
Ex-cop asks federal court not to destroy exhibits in his case
A FORMER Department of Public Safety police officer serving his over 19-year prison term in the U.S. after he was convicted of stealing cash and illegal drug evidence is asking the federal court not to destroy exhibits related to his case as he filed an appeal.
Eric Tudela Mafnas made the motion, pro se, after he was informed that the U.S. District Court for the NMI may destroy the exhibits or make other disposition as the clerk sees fit.
Mafnas, who is serving his prison term in Arizona, told the court he has again appealed his case in the appellate court.
In 2007, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Mafnas’s conviction, saying there was no double punishment committed in his case even though he was already imprisoned on Guam.
Mafnas filed another appeal on Aug. 3, 2009 which remains pending.
Do you think prosecutors should be able to destroy evidence to deter post judgment appeals?
Or don’t you want to talk about that?
Gyges, it just seemed to fit what we all hope for.
Swarthmore mom,
re: “the right name” …that’s what I thought…
(I agree about his music. Talented, yes, but not a favorite of mine either.)
Not even mentioning my experiences, the Privacy Act may address prosecutorial misconduct…
DOJ and other federal agencies must
(9) establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the design, development, operation, or maintenance of any system of records, or in maintaining any record, and instruct each such person with respect to such rules and the requirements of this section, including any other rules and procedures adopted pursuant to this section and the penalties for noncompliance;
(10) establish appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained;
anon nurse, Thanks, Harry Connick, jr. is not one of my favorites but he has the right name.
O.S.
That one has my vote.
Swarthmore mom,
re: “Maybe Harry Connick, jr. can provide a distraction.”
Great idea… Thanks. (Posted it for you.)
Speaking for myself, Kay, I’d like you to leave and never come back so we don’t have to wait for your endless pimping of your personal problems to determine whether we can stay on topic or not.
You’re an insane nuisance that is more disruptive than most trolls could ever hope to be.