Supreme Court Seems to Give Prosecutors Free Pass to Win at All Costs

May 20, 2011 (Press-News.org) A recent opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court in Connick v. Thompson seems to give prosecutors a free pass to win at all costs. The opinion overlooks a pattern of misconduct by prosecutors in cases against John Thompson, who was almost executed before he was exonerated and set free. Thompson's experience demonstrates the need for capable legal counsel to fight against any prosecutorial misconduct when facing criminal charges.

Connick v. Thompson

In 1984, John Thompson was convicted of armed robbery in Louisiana. In 1985, Thompson was also tried and found guilty of an unrelated murder. In 1999, Thompson learned that blood evidence that could have proven his innocence was withheld by prosecutors in the armed robbery case, and those charges were dismissed. After a state appellate court also overturned his murder conviction, Thompson was retried and found not guilty of the homicide in 2005.

Thompson then sued former District Attorney Harry F. Connick and the prosecutors' office, alleging that prosecutors' improper training on the duty to provide exculpatory evidence to defendants violated his constitutional right to receive all evidence favorable to his defense. A federal court agreed and awarded Thompson $14 million in damages.

Supreme Court Ruling

In a recently-published ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Thompson's $14 million award by a 5-to-4 vote. Justice Thomas, who authored the opinion, wrote that Thompson fell short of proving that the prosecutor's office "disregarded a known or obvious consequence" when it failed to turn over exculpatory blood evidence, so it should not be held liable for a single occurrence of misconduct.

Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority opinion and wrote in her dissent that the prosecutors need more training on their duty to turn over favorable evidence to defendants and their attorneys. In this case, she stated, the lack of proper training "amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights" of criminal defendants and directly led to Thompson's wrongful conviction.

Pattern of Injustice

Although Connick admitted that the prosecutors assigned to Thompson's armed robbery case did not fulfill their duty to turn over exculpatory evidence, the Supreme Court indicated that there was insufficient proof that a pattern of misconduct existed. However, as the dissent points out, there were multiple prosecutors implicated in the withholding of exculpatory evidence during the 18 years Thompson spent in prison and the seven execution warrants he suffered through until his eventual exoneration. The Supreme Court's decision not only lets guilty prosecutors off the hook, but it also adds to the pattern of injustice Thompson has experienced since 1984.

John Thompson's story shows the importance of having legal representation from the start of a case, so if any prosecutors violate their duties, an experienced criminal defense attorney is present to hold them accountable. Because of the potential for prosecutorial misconduct, anyone accused of a crime should promptly contact a knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer.

Article provided by Patrick J. Artur & Associates
Visit us at www.willdefend.com