Recently, former Honorable US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens spoke out about the US Supreme Court overturning a $14 million dollar award for deliberate Prosecutorial misconduct. In the case of Connic v Thompson.
Per the WSJ ( here) titled -
"Stevens Urges Congress to Crack Down on Prosecutorial Misconduct"
Justice Stevens said that Congress should make a Law
- that citizens can sue prosecutors.
We most certainly concur!
Juxtaposed is the debate, because Justice Stevens and the US Supreme Court did note that misconduct had transpired. The debate is not, whether or not intentional malfeasance transpired. The banter concerns, whether or not, any US Citizen has the right to complain or file suit when such occurs. Justice Stevens note that Justice Thomas's Opinion (here) in the 5-4 divide was partisan and errant and that Justice Ginsburg's dissent ( here) most certainly outclassed and hands down won the debate against Justice Thomas. So much so, that Justice Scalia felt the need to speak out a rebuttal to Justice Ginsburg's dissent. Where Justice Steven's denoted that he [Scalia] made the following "remarkable" argument - as Justice Scalia is quoted;
"By now the reader has guessed the best kept secret to this case: there was probably no Brady violation at all - except for Deegan's (which, since it was in bad faith knowing violation, could not possibly be to lack of training)".
In a Wall Street Journal Law Blog article ( here), Justice Steven's full discussion on Justice Scalia being obtuse is evident. The WSJ Law Blog quoted His Honor's remarks that Justice Stevens said on Monday that
" -- the nature of the American criminal justice system—where most local prosecutors are elected — “creates a problem of imbalanced incentives that ought to be addressed at the state and national level.”
Being that the lines of the case were decided as Right v Left
I would like to pose the following question.
If we could clean house and put anyone on the court we wish, who would you pick?
- Justice Elizabeth Warren (would she be asked to be recused from nearly every case)?
- Judge Jesse Ventura (would they then cancel Conspiracy Theory?)
- Honorable Donald Trump (don't hit me)(He couldn't be fired)
- Justice Leno (whoa to anyone wanting to bring an Auto/Motorcycle case)
- Her Honor Judge Ruth (It was "THIS BIG")(really don't hit me)
- Justice Betty White (Do they retire mandatory at 100)?
- The honorable - never know what he will say next Howard STern
OKay - seriously
- Chris Bowers
- Meteor Blades
- Bill Maher
- Judge Judy (I can see her finger at a counsel "Don't lie to me")
Nominate someone in the comment section.
As stated above
, the case is not about any debate on, whether or not, a bad faith prosecution transpired. Even with the US Supreme Ct case noting that Thompson was placed on death's row, when the prosecutor deliberately withheld evidence until the prosecutor was facing his own death, Then, when the prosecutor confessed to the fact to another person in his office; a second party also withheld the evidence for a great period of time. Justice Thomas in his Opinion ( here) said it was all one in the same slip up; therefore really no big deal - stating;
Thompson’s lawyers “did not prove a pattern of similar violations” that was “the functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution,” Justice Thomas wrote.Justice Stevens denoted the following - in much more than a rhetorical comment - as denoted by the WSJ Law Blog;
"Because district attorneys often run on tough-on-crime platforms, the pressures to ensure convictions far outweigh the rewards for respecting rights of the accused", Stevens saidBeing that Justice Thomas and his might Right wing hammer are so obtuse. I would suggest that he listen to or rather, be sentenced to - the "Podgor doctrine"
"That could be fixed, he said, by making district attorneys liable when their subordinates commit outrageous violations of constitutional rights. Private-sector employees already are liable for their employees’ misconduct, under a legal doctrine called respondeat superior"
I would like to give him back to the wonderful Law Professor Blogger on White Collar Crime issues, the esteemed Professor Podgor. Where, the Professor Podgor says, unless you are the one being violated and facing the penalty; chances are you do not care about justice for the innocents convicted erroneously.
Actually, being promoted by another, in a previous diary on habeas corpus ( here)
Professor Podgor is quoted as having said - verbatim;
Approach the issue of correcting injustice;
as if you are the one suffering from the injustice!
The Cornell Univ of Law always keeps everything online.
Therefore you can see the majority Opinion, the dissenting Opinion
and Justice Scalia's entire rebuttal of the dissent
at Cornell LII ( here ).
What the case states, as a matter of legal technicality, is the following:
Petitioner the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office concedes that, in prosecuting respondent Thompson for attempted armed robbery, prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland , 373 U. S. 83 , by failing to disclose a crime lab report. Because of his robbery conviction, Thompson elected not to testify at his later murder trial and was convicted. A month before his scheduled execution, the lab report was discovered. A reviewing court vacated both convictions, and Thompson was found not guilty in a retrial on the murder charge. He then filed suit against the district attorney’s office under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging , inter alia , that the Brady violation was caused by the office’s deliberate indifference to an obvious need to train prosecutors to avoid such constitutional violations. 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 and awarded Thompson damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed by an equally divided court.
What is really at issue here - is how much out of reach - integrity and jurisprudence are; from the average American citizen. Obviously, prosecutors are running as much, if not more so, amuck. No one - including judge's or prosecutor's - should be Above the Law!