In Brady v. Maryland, the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, prosecutors were ordered to turn over to the defense all exculpatory evidence. It is a now firmly embedded proposition. In Connick, District Attorney v. Thompson the Supreme Court yesterday ruled that John Thompson, a man convicted of murder due to prosecutors suppression of exculpatory evidence cannot keep the jury award he won in a civil rights action against a prosecutor's office which blatantly failed to enforce the principles of the Brady case.
The District Court held that, to prove deliberate indifference, Thompson did not need to show a pattern of similar Brady violations when he could demonstrate that the need for training was obvious. The jury found the district attorney’s office liable for failure to train its staff and awarded Thompson damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court, in a predictable 5-4 lineup, held that a district attorney’s office may not be held liable under 42 USC §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation. Only if the plaintiff can show a pattern can a state policy be demonstrated. Isolated misconduct is not actionable. Such evidence will rarely be available.
So a person aggrieved by a prosecutor's violation of the principle has as comfort only the prospect that the prosecutor will be disciplined for such a breach, an uncertain prospect as Bruce Green has observed.
Adam Liptak's summary in the Times is HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment