An attorney for a man only a month away from being executed for a murder he didn’t commit had a difficult time explaining Wednesday before the Supreme Court what additional training prosecutors should have received to have prevented the injustice.
The issue is of no small matter as the justices determine whether to let stand a $14 million judgment for former inmate John Thompson on the basis that the New Orleans district attorney, Harry F. Connick Sr., was “deliberately indifferent” to whether his prosecutors received proper training regarding evidence they were required to provide to the defense.
At root, the case questions how corrupt prosecutors should be held accountable. But if Wednesday’s argument was any indicator, the Supreme Court may rule that lawsuits based on training issues are not the answer to that question.
“Could you please state in simple terms to me what exactly they failed to train these prosecutors to do, that the prosecutors didn’t do?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked J. Gordon Cooney Jr., an attorney for Mr. Thompson. “What specifically would the training have said or done that would have avoided this violation?”
Several other justices asked or alluded to the same question, which was never clearly answered.
“Why wouldn’t you start with that rule?” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “The rule is perfectly lawful, my goodness.”
“So what would have been enough?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. “I mean, is an hour a year enough? Is an hour a month enough?”
“I think that would have been dependent on what its content was, your honor, and the other circumstances of the office,” Mr. Cooney said.
The justices also stressed that if the failure to turn over the evidence was the result of intentional misconduct, or even an accidental oversight, a lack of training would not be to blame.
Mr. Thompson’s case stems from his 1984 arrest in the shooting death of a New Orleans businessman. He also was charged with trying to rob three siblings near the New Orleans Superdome. The siblings came forward and identified Mr. Thompson as their attacker after seeing media reports about his arrest in the businessman’s death.
According to court records, prosecutors sought to gain a tactical advantage by prosecuting the robbery first. The strategy was successful: Mr. Thompson was convicted, preventing him from testifying at his murder trial three weeks later because the prosecution could have used his testimony to introduce evidence of the robbery conviction. That detail might have helped turn the jury against him.
Without his testimony, the jury convicted Mr. Thompson of murder.
Court records show that prosecutors argued that because Mr. Thompson already had been sentenced to nearly 50 years in prison for the robbery conviction, the only way to truly punish him for the murder would be to impose the death penalty.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
The cold hard truth about politics in America today and the state of this once great nation.
A round eye’s guide into the Chinese world.
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.
Great discoveries in the world of restaurants and chefs fulfill the quest for delicious food and cooking.
World's Ugliest Dog Contest
Spelling Bee finale
Marines train Afghan soldiers
Rolling Thunder 2013
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal