Search

The article focuses on prevention of civil rights of the plaintiffs in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of Civil Rights Act of 1964 for preventing the fundamental rights of the people; U.S. Supreme Court efforts of enforcing constitutional rights; and court cases Monroe v. Pape, Connick v. Thompson on the same.

The article discusses the legal concept known as the Brady doctrine, derived from the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, particularly the requirement of materiality on the part of the government. It examines Rule 3.8(e) of the "D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct," examples of the Brady doctrine, and related cases such as Smith v. Cain, Connick v. Thompson, and In re Kline.

The article discusses how prosecutorial misconduct arising out of the use of technology poses a particular concern due to increased use of new communication platforms. Topics discussed include decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case 'Connick v. Thompson;' rise of a casual societal attitude towards texting between judges and lawyers; and the ethical prohibition against lawyers communicating outside the courtroom.

The Supreme Court's blockbuster opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal has been the herald of substantive change throughout several areas of law. Most recently, however, discourse regarding its effects in the context of the supervisory liability doctrine has blossomed throughout the federal appellate fora and has resulted in a circuit split. At the center of the debate is the Court's unadorned proclamation that the term "'supervisory liability' is a misnomer" because "[a]bsent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct. " Adding to that debate, this Note joins a growing chorus of scholarship discussing the continued existence of supervisory liability claims in constitutional tort litigation post-Iqbal, given the Court's subsequent decision in Connick v. Thompson Rather than simply mourn the current state of the legal doctrine, or rehash views on the subject that have previously been published, this Note offers a practical analysis that federal courts should adopt in favor of a pre-Iqbal understanding of supervisory liability. To that end, this Note concludes that the Court's decision in Connick suggests that supervisory liability is anything but a "misnomer." This, of course, is derived from Connick's observation that a supervisor's deliberate indifference is functionally equivalent to intentional conduct. To be certain, however, this Note establishes that equivalence independent of the Court's discussion in Connick by looking to the Supreme Court's previous discussions regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983's outer limits, the statute's legislative history, and corresponding circuit court precedent. Through that analysis, this Note confirms that a supervisor 's deliberate indifference to their subordinate's constitutionally tortious conduct must be redressable under § 1983. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the process of interpreting pain in adjudication and reflects on the gap between rights and remedies in legal order. It examines legal cases originating from an acute instance of suffering and involving a tension between competing legal principles, one influencing in favor of redress and the other in favor of dismissal. The cases examined include Snyder v. Phelps, Brown v. Plata, and Connick v. Thompson.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court cases Connick v. Thompson and Ashcroft v. Iqbal focusing on developments in single-incident liability cases and supervisory liability claims respectively. Topics discussed include liability of government entity for violation of the constitution by a non-policymaking employee, municipal liability in the context of a single bad hiring decision, and difficulty to assert failure-to-train claims based on single-incident violations.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) interpretation of prosecutorial immunity and liability under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code in the case Connick v. Thompson. A Brady violation, which was established in the USSC case Brady v. Maryland, deals with the obligations of prosecutors in terms of material evidence. It states that a former defendant who wishes to pursue a Section 1983 claim against a prosecutor's office must show a pattern of constitutional violations. In the Connick case, the court determined that a single Brady violation did not establish liability.

The article discusses the reported importance of prosecutor training in America in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2011 case Connick v. Thompson, including information on USSC Justice Ginsberg's dissent in the Connick case, as well as prosecutorial discretion and misconduct. The Brady doctrine, which was established in the USSC case Brady v. Maryland, deals with material evidence and the Due Process Clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The author argues that the actions of the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office in Louisiana are an extreme example of prosecutorial misconduct.

The article explores the prosecutorial responses over the analysis of Professor Monroe Freedman's anecdotes under his ethical findings with several cases of the Supreme Court regarding prosecutorial misconduct including United States v. Aguilar, United States v. Lopez-Avila, and Connick v. Thompson. It informs that some examples of Professor Bennett Gershman's finding over prosecutorial sanctions were cited by Professor Freedman.

The article offers information on the application of unethical and unconstitutional conduct by prosecutors' offices in the U.S. It discusses several cases determining different kinds of prosecutorial misconduct including United States v. Aguilar, United States v. Lopez-Avila, and Connick v. Thompson. It informs that the U.S. Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court and disciplinary authorities have failed to remedial action for punishment and discouragement of prosecutorial misconduct.

The article discusses constitutional due process, municipal autonomy, and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case Connick v. Thompson which deals with prosecutorial disclosure requirements (Brady requirements) under the Fourth Amendment to the nation's Constitution as of July 2012. The U.S. Congress' passage of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy for individuals who are harmed by the misconduct of government officials, is addressed.

The article offers information on the development of prosecutorial doctrine of absolute immunity under the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case Imbler v. Pachtman. It informs of the victims of prosecutorial misconduct for wrongful convictions and discusses the grant of absolute immunity to prosecutors under the judgment of three cases Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, and Connick v. Thompson.

Prior to 2009, federal courts recognized that supervisors could be held accountable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their wrongdoing. In that statute, Congress expressed its intent to safeguard constitutional and federal statutory rights by providing a cause of action against any person who "under color of state law deprives or causes a person to be deprived" of federal rights. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have eroded this safeguard. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Court held that supervisors could not be liable for the constitutional wrongdoing of their subordinates, even if they know of and acquiesce in that wrongdoing. Two years later, in Connick v. Thompson, the Court held that a district attorney's office could never be held liable based on a single Brady violation, even where the district attorney conceded that Brady training in his office was inadequate. This Article proposes an objective deliberate indifference standard in all supervisory "failure to" cases and recommends a narrow interpretation of Connick, under which supervisors and government entities would be held liable for the constitutional wrongdoing of their subordinates where violations are a "highly predictable consequence" of their failure to train or supervise, even without evidence of a pattern of violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case Connick v. Thompson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the New Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office could not be held liable under Section 1983 of the U.S. Constitution. It states that the decision raised many more issues and draws the societal costs of valuing immunity over innocence. The case concluded that the U.S. justice system must promote policies that favor the criminally accused and innocent rather than prosecutors.

Death is the ultimate punishment because of its finality; once it is carried out, it can never be revoked. John Thompson came close to this ultimate punishment because a prosecutor failed to turn over exculpatory evidence under the principles that the U.S. Supreme Court enunciated in Brady v. Maryland. In Connick v. Thompson, the Court overturned Thompson's $14 million award for spending eighteen years in prison (fourteen of those on death row) because previous Brady violations by the Orleans District Attorney's Office were not enough to put the district attorney on notice regarding the need for further training on Brady's principles and because the need for training was not so obvious that the district attorney's office could be held liable under the failure-to-train theory. The Court's holding is detrimental because an entire district attorney's office may now be shielded from civil liability in the event of a Brady violation and because individuals like Thompson will have no recourse for spending time in prison due to prosecutorial misconduct. The Court's holding discourages prosecutors from turning over exculpatory evidence, thus reducing prosecutorial accountability, and runs counter to the deeply rooted American principle that every person has the right to a fair trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Connick v. Thompson which dealt with prosecutorial accountability for violations of constitutionally mandated discovery obligations. Information is provided on how the court expanded the scope of absolute immunity for prosecutors to include failures to train attorneys or institute programs to comply with discovery law. It is noted that the case reversed an eighteen-year wrongful imprisonment of an innocent man due to the suppression of evidence by state prosecutors.

The article discusses the Connick versus Thompson court case wherein the prosecutorial misconduct put John Thompson in prison for 18 years. He was charged with the murder of businessman Raymond T. Liuzza in New Orleans in early 1985and was identified as the attacker of an armed robbery for which he was charged. Then he was tried for the Liuzza murder but because of the armed robbery conviction, he was inhibited from testifying in his defense. He was convicted and sentenced to death. His execution was scheduled for May 1999 but in April 1999, his private investigator discovered his blood report from the armed robbery investigation which was found incorrect and he was not guilty. It showed the injustice done to him and the regime of immunity for constitutional violations.

The article discusses the court case Connick v. Thompson which deals with "failure to train" liability for a prosecutor's office. Due process is deemed violated by a prosecutor's suppression of evidence favorable to a criminal defendant, as established in the Brady v. Maryland case. The circumstances in which defendant John Thompson, citing a Brady claim, filed a civil rights suit against District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., his office, and trial prosecutors, are discussed.