what was the case law relied upon by the attorney for respondent tompson

Why did Thompson Sue the district attorney’s office?

Case opinion for US Supreme Court REIDER v. THOMPSON. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. ... 141 Pa. Super. 558, 15 A. 2d 507, much relied upon by respondent [339 U.S. 113, 118] and the Court of Appeals, is not in point. We need not now determine whether that case was correctly decided. ... Research An Attorney or Law Firm Forms ...

What happened in the Thompson case?

Specifically, Thompson argued the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient because it: relied on information that was stale; provided information from informants without any indicia of their reliability or basis of knowledge; and offered defectively unspecific facts as to whether the evidence sought would be found at Thompson's parents' home.

What is a Thompson only claim?

 · In response, Thompson gave the prosecution two written “investigation report [s]” by his investigator of interviews with two defense witnesses. Caps.omitted.) The reports were accompanied by a letter from Thompson's trial attorney stating: “Attached please find statements of defense witnesses.

What was the verdict in Thompson v Connick?

 · Facts. In April 1985, shortly before his murder trial, a Louisiana state court convicted Respondent John Thompson of attempted armed robbery. Several weeks later in May 1985, the same court convicted Thompson of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. Fourteen years later, in 1999, an investigator discovered that prosecutors had failed ...

What was the Supreme Court decision in Connick v Thompson?

A divided Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's office could not be held liable for the illegal conduct of one of its prosecutors when there has been only one violation resulting from that deficient training.

What is the heck doctrine?

The Supreme Court in 'Heck' held that a §1983 constitutional claim that “necessarily” implies the invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction is not “cognizable” unless the conviction was overturned on appeal, collateral review, or executive order. This doctrine has generated numerous difficult issues.

What is the list of cases to be heard by a court called?

Docket: A list of cases scheduled to be heard in court on a specific day or week.

What are some recent Supreme Court cases?

Supreme Court Case Quick Updates2021 Term (Oct. 2021 - Sept. 2022) Brown v. ... 2020 Term (Oct. 2020 - Sept. 2021) Lombardo v. ... 2019 Term (Oct. 2019 - Sept. 2020) McGirt v. ... 2018 Term (Oct. 2018 - Sept. 2019) Mitchell v. ... 2017 Term (Oct. 2017 - Sept. 2018) Currier v.

What is Heck v Humphrey?

The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot claim damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment without showing that the conviction or sentence has been overturned in some way. The defendant must also exhaust state court remedies before bringing a §1983 action.

What is the Younger abstention doctrine?

The Younger Doctrine Abstention under Younger holds that federal courts should abstain from cases that are pending in state proceedings. The facts of Younger involved a criminal defendant that challenged the state (California) criminal statute for which he was indicted.

What are the 4 types of law?

In this presentation, we will examine the four primary sources of law at the state and federal levels. These four sources of law are the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes, administrative regulations, and case law.

What are the types of cases?

Types of CasesCriminal Cases. Criminal cases involve enforcing public codes of behavior, which are codified in the laws of the state. ... Civil Cases. Civil cases involve conflicts between people or institutions such as businesses, typically over money. ... Family Cases.

How many types of cases are there in law?

There are five types of legal system i.e. civil law; common law; customary law; religious law and mixed law. In Indian Judicial System there are four types of law. The Criminal law is enforced by the police. Cases like murder, rape, assault, robbery are dealt under Criminal Law.

What cases will the Supreme Court hear in 2021-2022?

Here are eight of the most noteworthy cases the Court will hear during its 2021-2022 term.Abortion Access. Dobbs v. ... Gun rights. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. ... Separation of Church and State. Carson v. ... State Secrets. United States v. ... Death Penalty. United States v. ... First Amendment. Shurtleff v.

How many cases has the Supreme Court heard in 2021?

To date, the court has agreed to hear 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term....Where are the cases coming from?[hide]List of cases by court of origination - 2021-2022 termCourtNumber of casesTotal6617 more rows

What are the 5 Supreme Court cases?

Landmark United States Supreme Court CasesMarbury v. Madison (1803) ... McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) ... Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) ... Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ... Schenck v. United States (1919) ... Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ... Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ... Miranda v. Arizona (1966)More items...

What was John Thompson convicted of?

In April 1985, shortly before his murder trial, a Louisiana state court convicted Respondent John Thompson of attempted armed robbery. Several weeks later in May 1985, the same court convicted Thompson of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death.

How much did the jury award Thompson in the Brady case?

Under the theory that Connick’s deliberate indifference to an obvious need to train, monitor, or supervise his prosecutors had caused the Brady violation, the jury awarded Thompson $14 million in damages. The general rule of Brady is that prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused.

What is the effect of lowering the standards of fault and causation required to prove municipal liability in failure to train

In support of Connick, the National District Attorneys Association and the California District Attorneys Association (“Attorneys Associations”) caution that lowering the standards of fault and causation required to prove municipal liability in failure-to-train cases to an essentially “de facto respondeat superior ” liability will create a slippery slope towards exposing municipalities to a flood of litigation. The Attorney Associations warn that relaxing the standards would permit liability against a prosecutor’s office for almost any reversal of a conviction based on prosecutorial error, no matter how slight, if better training or supervision might have prevented the error. The Attorneys Associations fear that this lower standard, favored by Thompson, would lead to a severe strain on state and local budgets and in turn lead to cutbacks on the work that District Attorney’s offices can undertake. Even unsuccessful suits for failure-to-train liability based on a single incident will eat away at resources through substantial defense costs.

Why can't a district attorney be liable for failing to train a prosecutor?

Connick claims that a district attorney generally cannot be deliberately indifferent for failing to train prosecutors, because a district attorney reasonably relies on his prosecutors’ education and ethics to assess Brady obligations. The National League of Cities and other groups agree, arguing that holding the city liable for a failure to train based on a single Brady act requires cities to presume that their employees will intentionally break the law. They assert that, without notice to the contrary, Connick was entitled to presume that the attorneys would behave ethically and it would be unfair to hold him liable for failing to train his employees on what they should already have known.

Who sued the District Attorney for wrongful suppression of exculpatory evidence?

After his release, Thompson sued the District Attorney’s office that had withheld the crucial evidence and several officials, including Petitioner District Attorney Harry Connick, in their official and individual capacity. Thompson Only Thompson’s 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights claim for wrongful suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation ...

What is the Supreme Court's decision?

The Supreme Court’s decision will determine to what extent a district attorney’s office is responsible for a single misdeed of its prosecutors.

Do district attorneys get immunity?

The Respondent, John Thompson, counters that district attorneys should not receive immunity for the actions of their employees just because attorneys graduate law school. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“NACDL”) and the American Civil Liberties Union agree with Thompson, describing Brady rules as “complex” and “hardly intuitive.” According to the NACDL, criminal prosecutors are specialists who must receive special training to comply with their constitutional, statutory, and ethical requirements beyond their law school classes.

Who tried Thompson for Liuzza murder?

A few weeks later, Williams and special prosecutor Eric Dubelier tried Thompson for the Liuzza murder.

What was the Brady violation in Thompson v. Connick?

The Brady violation conceded in this case occurred when one or more of the four prosecutors involved with Thompson’s armed robbery prosecution failed to disclose the crime lab report to Thompson’s counsel. Under Thompson’s failure-to-train theory, he bore the burden of proving both (1) that Connick, the policymaker for the district attorney’s office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train the prosecutors about their Brady disclosure obligation with respect to evidence of this type and (2) that the lack of training actually caused the Brady violation in this case. Connick argues that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Thompson did not prove that he was on actual or constructive notice of, and therefore deliberately indifferent to, a need for more or different Brady training. We agree. 5

What court did the en banc court vacate?

The Court of Appeals sitting en banc vacated the panel opinion, granted rehearing, and divided evenly, thereby affirming the District Court. 578 F. 3d 293 (CA5 2009) (per curiam) . In four opinions, the divided en banc court disputed whether Thompson could establish municipal liability for failure to train the prosecutors based on the single Brady violation without proving a prior pattern of similar violations, and, if so, what evidence would make that showing. We granted certiorari. 559 U. S. ___ (2010).

Why was Connick not deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for more or different Brady training?

After the verdict, Connick renewed his objection—which he had raised on summary judgment—that he could not have been deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for more or different Brady training because there was no evidence that he was aware of a pattern of similar Brady violations. The District Court rejected this argument for the reasons that it had given in the summary judgment order. In that order, the court had concluded that a pattern of violations is not necessary to prove deliberate indifference when the need for training is “so obvious.” No. Civ. A. 03–2045 (ED La., Nov. 15, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 141a, 2005 WL 3541035, *13. Relying on Canton v. Harris , 489 U. S. 378 (1989) , the court had held that Thompson could demonstrate deliberate indifference by proving that “the DA’s office knew to a moral certainty that assistan [t] [district attorneys] would acquire Brady material, that without training it is not always obvious what Brady requires, and that withholding Brady material will virtually always lead to a substantial violation of constitutional rights.” 4 App. to Pet. for Cert. 141a, 2005 WL 3541035, *13.

How much did the jury award to the district attorney for Brady?

The jury awarded Thompson $14 million in damages, and the District Court added more than $1 million in attorney’s fees and costs.

Did the prosecutor know about the Brady requirement?

Although no prosecutor remembered any specific training session regarding Brady prior to 1985, it was undisputed at trial that the prosecutors were familiar with the general Brady requirement that the State disclose to the defense evidence in its possession that is favorable to the accused. Prosecutors testified that office policy was to turn crime lab reports and other scientific evidence over to the defense. They also testified that, after the discovery of the undisclosed crime lab report in 1999, prosecutors disagreed about whether it had to be disclosed under Brady absent knowledge of Thompson’s blood type.

What was the Brady violation?

Thompson alleged liability under two theories: (1) the Brady violation was caused by an unconstitutional policy of the district attorney’s office; and (2) the violation was caused by Connick’s deliberate indifference to an obvious need to train the prosecutors in his office in order to avoid such constitutional violations.