"Courts continually focus on the defendant and not on the prosecutor’s conduct. Hundreds of cases of misconduct are found to be harmless. Any misconduct during the prosecution of a case falls under absolute immunity. Is it surprising that prosecutors continue to violate the rules?
The correct focus should be on the conduct. Is the prosecutor’s conduct egregious enough to warrant reversal of a conviction? Should the prosecutor be held liable for his or her misconduct as a deterrent for others? How many times should prosecutors be cited before the District Attorney’s Office itself is to blame?
As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, “Connick…created a tinderbox in Orleans Parish in which Brady violations were nigh inevitable. And when they did occur, Connick insisted there was no need to change anything, and opposed efforts to hold prosecutors accountable on the ground that doing so would make his job more difficult.”
JESSICA SERGEANT; THE VERITAS INITIATIVE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The case concerning a prisoner's exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. The former inmate, John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Connick v. Thompson represents the latest in a long line of court decisions that have virtually slammed all doors to prosecutorial accountability," the Veritas Initiative post by Jessica Seargeant published on March 30, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Opinion: The Supreme Court Slams Another Door to Accountability."
"John Thompson spent 18 years in prison and was a month away from being executed and yet he was innocent," the post continues.
"Not only did prosecutors in Orleans Parish fail to disclose evidence of his innocence at the time of his trial, they continued to hide it until a private investigator unearthed the evidence as a part of Thompson’s final appeal. This is egregious misconduct. Thompson suffered at the hands of, at the very least poorly trained and at the most intentionally unethical, prosecutors. What is his recourse?
Already not allowed to sue the prosecutors directly responsible for his ordeal (see Imbler v. Pachtman in which the Supreme Court gives prosecutors absolute immunity), Thompson filed suit against Harry F. Connick, Sr. and the entire District Attorney’s Office of Orleans Parish. Thompson claimed that Connick failed to properly train the prosecutors under his supervision because he was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional obligation of disclosure under Brady v. Maryland. And after a lengthy trial a jury agreed, awarding Thompson $14 million in damages.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed that award saying “Thompson did not prove that [Connick] was on actual or constructive notice of, and therefore deliberately indifferent to, a need for more or different Brady training.”
Let’s put aside the fact that the two senior prosecutors assigned to Thompson’s case could not remember ever being trained regarding their Brady obligations and the fact that Connick himself, once indicted for suppression of evidence, consistently misstated the law in this area.
With this decision, the Supreme Court has slammed shut another door that leads to accountability.
What consequences are left for prosecutors who commit the sort of egregious misconduct exhibited in Thompson’s case? Prosecutors are rarely disciplined. They cannot be personally sued. Now, District Attorney’s Offices are let off the hook.
Courts continually focus on the defendant and not on the prosecutor’s conduct. Hundreds of cases of misconduct are found to be harmless. Any misconduct during the prosecution of a case falls under absolute immunity. Is it surprising that prosecutors continue to violate the rules?
The correct focus should be on the conduct. Is the prosecutor’s conduct egregious enough to warrant reversal of a conviction? Should the prosecutor be held liable for his or her misconduct as a deterrent for others? How many times should prosecutors be cited before the District Attorney’s Office itself is to blame?
As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, “Connick…created a tinderbox in Orleans Parish in which Brady violations were nigh inevitable. And when they did occur, Connick insisted there was no need to change anything, and opposed efforts to hold prosecutors accountable on the ground that doing so would make his job more difficult.”
Misconduct will continue as long as it is tolerated and protected by the courts and until prosecutors can be held accountable for their conduct."
To read the full opinion, concurrence and dissent, click here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The column can be found at:
http://www.veritasinitiative.org/news/opinion-the-supreme-court-slams-another-door-to-accountability/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Spring 2024 Cannabis Update (Part II)
12 hours ago
