Connick, et al., v. Thompson

Brief of Amici Curiae Alliance Defense Fund and CATO Institute In Support of Respondent


If a man is wrongfully convicted and held on death row for 18 years — 14 in solitary confinement — because prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence in his case, is there any reason that courts should keep him from recovering damages simply because the local government had not established a pattern of constitutional violations? Eighteen years after John Thompson was convicted of murder and kept from testifying at his trial due to a previous armed robbery conviction, investigators found exculpatory evidence from the armed robbery that prosecutors had failed to turn over to Thompson's defense team. After being acquitted of the murder charge, Thompson sued the parish district attorney for violating his civil rights and was awarded $14 million in damages. The parish appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that a single violation of civil rights does not give rise to government liability without showing a pattern of violations or without demonstrating a direct connection between the inability to train attorneys and the constitutional violation. Cato, joined by the Alliance Defense Fund, argues that not only is the parish's claim based on a misreading of the central precedent, Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, but interpreting civil liability for local governments in such a narrow fashion contravenes long-established rules of responsdeat superior — the doctrine that makes employers liable for employees' wrongdoings. The drafters of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the governing civil rights law) showed no indication that they intended local government liability to exclude the doctrine of respondeat superior. For reasons not justified by policy, history, or clearly established law, the Court has created different rules under which a person can recover damages from local governments....

Please see full brief below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Appellate Brief | Federal, U.S. Supreme Court | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cato Institute | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.