- Justice Clarence Thomas - Public Domain
John Thompson was charged with murder in 1985 in Louisiana. Following that charge, other individuals came forward indicating they were victims of an attempted armed robbery at the hands of Thompson. Evidence of the robbery included a robber’s blood sample left on the clothes of one of the victims. The blood sample, in the possession of law enforcement, was not given to Thompson’s lawyers in the robbery case. Thompson was convicted of the robbery.
Robbery Conviction Affect Murder Trial Testimony and Death Sentence
Thompson was later tried in the murder case, and did not testify in the murder trial because if he did the robbery conviction would become known to the jury in the murder matter. Additionally, the robbery conviction served as an enhancement increasing his eligibitily for a death sentence. He was sentenced to death following the murder trial.
During the next 14 years, Thompson fought execution in both state and federal courts. He was scheduled to die on May 20, 1999. In April, 1999, weeks before the execution, Thompson’s investigator discovered crime lab reports of the blood sample from the robbery. Subsequent tests revealed the blood could not be Thompson’s. The robbery conviction was removed and the execution was delayed.
As he had not testified in his murder trial due to the robbery conviction, he was granted a new trial in the murder case. In 2003, at a new murder trial, Thompson testified and was found not guilty of the murder after 18 years in prison and being weeks from execution.
Brady v. Maryland, The 14th Amendment & The 6th Amendment
In 1963, the Supreme Court decided the case of Brady v. Maryland. This case held that as a matter of constitutional right, prosecutors may not withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant. The right to this evidence is found in the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. An element of Due Process is the right to a fair trial and part of getting a fair trial is to have access to any material evidence that may prove the defendant not guilty.
Such evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.” Over time Brady evidence had been found to include statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses.
In the robbery trial, there was clearly a violation of Thompson’s Brady right to disclosure of the blood evidence. The wrongful robbery conviction deprived Thompson of his 6th Amendment right to testify in his own behalf in the murder trial, which is why he was granted a new trial in that case.
Section 1983 Violations of Constitutional Rights
United States law provides that persons deprived by governments or their employees may sue for deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights. This law is found at Title 42 United States Code, Section 1983 and reads in relevant part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .”
While the law reads “every person”, the government itself may found liable under Section 1983 in circumstances, including failure to train its employees to properly observe citizen’s rights.
John Thompson’s Suit under Section 1983
After 18 years in prison and coming within weeks of execution, John Thompson sued the Orleans Parish, Louisiana District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney Harry Connick and others for damages resulting from the Brady violation that took place when he was not provided with the blood evidence. A Louisiana jury awarded Thompson $14 million in damages. The District Attorney’s Office appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas’ Majority Decision in Connick v. Thompson
In the March 29, 2011 5 to 4 decision of Connick v. Thompson, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that Thompson could not collect damages under Section 1983 and overturned the jury verdict. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, indicated that the government could not be held liable for depriving Thompson of his rights unless Thompson proved there was a pattern of such violations, and that no such proof was provided by Thompson.
Justice Ginsburg’s Dissent in Connick v. Thompson
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, paints a much different picture and provides much more detail of the cases and investigations of the robbery and murder cases. The strategic decisions of the District Attorney’s office revealed a pattern of conduct designed to deprive Thompson of his rights and to make him eligible for a death sentence. The Ginsburg dissent provides much greater insight in the actions of the government in the prosecutions of Thompson, including not only Brady violations during the robbery trial, but the fact that at least 10 exhibits related to the murder trial had not been given to Thompson’s lawyers at his first murder trial.
The Implications of Connick v. Thompson
Citizens of the United States have long been blessed with a Supreme Court that has stood has a bulwark against infringement of our constitutional rights. This decision chipped away at the edges of a citizen’s ability to enforce those rights in federal court. By chipping away at Mr. Thompson’s rights, the Court diminished the ability of all US citizens to enjoy and enforce those rights.
It is always important when considering a Supreme Court decision to take into account not only the thoughts of the majority, which become the law of the land, but the opinions of the dissent, which can point out the fallacies in the majority’s decision. The dissent may lay the ground work for restoring limits on rights some day in the future.
David J. Shestokas - Mr. Shestokas is a former prosecutor & writes on the Constitution & legal issues for the Save America Foundation & Suite 101.
