U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Orleans Parish
DA in Appeal of $14 million Judgment
Justice Clarence Thomas Writes Majority Opinion
Denying Exonerated Man Financial Compensation
March 29, 2011
by Gordon Russell and Laura Maggi
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/03/us_supreme_court_sides_with_or.html#incart_hbx
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, who contended that his office should not have to pay a $14 million judgment awarded to former death row inmate John Thompson, who was wrongfully convicted of murder when prosecutors withheld evidence.
At a news conference with Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, Cannizzaro said the opinion "removes a dark cloud of uncertainty that was hanging over the district attorney's office when I arrived here in 2008."
Cannizzaro noted that the judgment, which he estimated had grown to about $20 million with interest over the past four years, would have effectively shuttered the DA's office.
The court's opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. At issue was whether the DA's office could be held liable for the actions of a couple of prosecutors who admittedly hid some blood evidence favorable to Thompson in an armed robbery case before taking him to trial for the 1984 murder of hotel executive Ray Liuzza during an Uptown stickup.
Prosecutors typically enjoy immunity from such lawsuits, but a jury in 2007 sided with Thompson, who sued the DA's office for railroading him into death row via the purposely bungled robbery case. Then-District Attorney Eddie Jordan defended the civil case in federal court, but the Thompson prosecution was overseen by longtime Orleans Parish DA Harry Connick.
The decision by Thomas concluded that the DA's office could not be held responsible for failing to train prosecutors about their obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence based on a single case. It means that Thompson will not collect his award.
"I'm not worried about their money. I want them to be held accountable.'' Thompson said today in a news conference.
"I had sons who grew up without a father, who thought their father was a killer.''
He said that he disagreed with the decision, but he felt like his fight has just begun. He said he has received a two-year grant to examine accountability in the justice system.
He said he he hopes that Cannizzaro will not just turn his back on the case but will recognize the wrongdoing in his predecessor's office and "reconsider some innocent cases coming back his way.''
Cannizzaro described the failure to turn over the evidence from the robbery case the "unethical actions of a rogue prosecutor." His office provides guidance to prosecutors about their obligations to turn over evidence favorable to defendants, as well as providing training.
"I train my assistant district attorneys to fight hard for the citizens of this community," Cannizzaro said. "But I demand of them that they fight fair."
Until the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal -- which it does in only about 1 percent of cases -- the DA's office remained the underdog in the legal fight. It failed twice to persuade the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the $14 million award, which has been growing with interest since 2007 and doesn't include about $1 million in lawyers' fees.
In August 2009, the full 5th Circuit -- in a rare split decision of 8-8 -- upheld the judgment and an earlier decision by a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court.
Of the 16 federal judges, eight held that the jury had already spoken after hearing the facts, while the dissenters said it is an outrageous burden to hold a district attorney's office accountable for employees' misdeeds.
Before the jury trial in 2007, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ruled that Thompson did not need to show jurors there was a pattern of withholding exculpatory evidence at the Orleans Parish DA's office. Instead, the jury could find that the district attorney's office was "deliberately indifferent" to the need for training on this issue with just the one example.
Barbier's findings relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision that found that a police department, for example, could be found to be deliberately indifferent to needed training if they sent out officers to apprehend felons without the necessary knowledge about when they can use deadly force.
But in his opinion, Thomas wrote that prosecutors, who must be licensed attorneys, are a different kind of public employee than police officers, who without proper training might not have any idea about the legal restrictions on use of force. Instead, lawyers are educated and have an obligation, under state legal regulations, to know about their ethical obligations, Thomas noted.
The dissent, which was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concluded that the failure to turn over the blood evidence by prosecutors was "neither isolated nor atypical" of the DA's office at the time of Thompson's trial.
Ginsburg wrote that the trial record is rife with improper conduct by prosecutors, which hampered Thompson's ability to defend himself. Prosecutors not only should have turned over the blood evidence in the robbery trial, but also should have provided defense attorneys with police reports that contained witness statements that could have helped Thompson, she wrote.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in her dissent.
.
wow, rubbing the salt in
