Should Prosecutors be safe from Prosecution?

In 1985 John Thompson was convicted in a New Orleans court of attempted armed robbery and murder.  While on death row in 1999 after his final appeal had been exhausted, an investigator found a lab report containing exculpatory blood evidence that the prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense.  The evidence exonerated Mr. Thompson of the crime and in 2003 he was released from prison.  He brought a federal civil rights claim against the New Orleans District Attorney’s office and was awarded $14 million in damages.  While prosecutors normally have immunity for their actions while working, Thompson successfully argued in the lower courts that the District Attorney’s office had failed to train their lawyers about the case Brady v. Maryland, which states that the prosecution must provide the defense with exculpatory evidence.  Thompson has been able to prove that four separate attorneys were aware of this blood evidence but failed to come forward.  Mr. Connick, the District Attorney at the time of the original trial has countered that the actions of one attorney does not prove inadequate training and should not hold the whole office accountable.  He contends that it is reasonable to assume that a lawyer is trained in the law and aware of the ramifications of the Brady case.  He also warns against the ’slippery slope’ of opening up District Attorney’s offices to new liability and prosecution.  This case, known as Connick v. Thompson, was heard this session by the Supreme Court and will be decided at the end of the session.

This case is one of those unfortunate situations where the true issue is not being addressed.  Really, criminal and civil charges should be brought against prosecutors who suppressed evidence.  Unfortunately, because of the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman heard by the Supreme Court, prosecutors have enjoyed almost absolute immunity from lawsuits, even when it is proven that their genuine, malicious and illegal conduct deprived a citizen of liberty.  This case was meant to protect the attorneys so that they would not be frightened to prosecute, and the idea was that professional discipline would be adequate to keep them in line.  However, this has not been true; a study conducted by USA Today revealed that even in cases such as this, when an attorney put innocent people in jail knowingly, they almost never had to endure any punishment at all.  In New Orleans itself this has proven to be true.  While Mr. Connick argued in his defense that this case represents one isolated incident, the facts do not back him up.  According to available records provided by Findings by the Innocence Project of New Orleans, of the 36 men sentenced to death in New Orleans Parish during Connick’s tenure, 9 have had favorable evidence withheld by the prosecution.  Four of those men were eventually exonerated.  Simply speaking, one in four of these men were sentenced to death after evidence that would have cast doubt on their guilt was failed to be provided.  Of all these cases the harshest sentence given to an attorney was a three month suspension that was then suspended by the court so that he was not actually punished at all.  Connick is comfortably retired and the attorney responsible for Thompson’s case died without having to face any consequences.  This points to a culture of corruption and without any checks on these attorneys there is no reason for them not to be. 

I agree with Connick that it is reasonable to assume that a licensed attorney knows about the Brady case and its ramifications.  However, with no consequences for that attorney should he break this law, I feel it is unreasonable to expect it to be followed.  If everyone simply followed the law because it was the right thing to do, we would not need a justice system or the police.  It’s preposterous to think that someone who makes a living trying to bend the legal system to suit their purposes and win by any means necessary would balk at breaking the law when they know they won’t be prosecuted for it, and in fact cannot be named in a civil suit.  Yes, prosecutors should not be afraid to do their job, but they also should be afraid to break the law.  By giving them this immunity you have taken away any incentive to be ethical except for their own conscience, and I think it is generally believed that lawyers tend to be a little short on that commodity.  These people are in positions of power, with the ability to destroy the lives of fellow citizens.  As such they should be held accountable for their very serious actions to the full extent of the law. 

The case before the Supreme Court will be a very tricky one to decide.  Morally, I feel that clearly Thompson deserves the money and that the District Attorneys Office should be punished for their malicious and knowing prosecution of an innocent man.  However, because the case hinges on the inadequate training of the responsible attorneys and not on the knowing breaking of the law, I feel that the case is not as solid as it should be.  The Supreme Court should in my opinion rule in the favor of Thompson so that some recourse will become open to the public against corrupt prosecutors and their offices.  Obviously internal professional discipline has not been enough to keep this issue under control.  However, what really is needed is a balance to be reached between allowing prosecutors to their job without fear of reprisals and harsh punishments for officials who knowingly break the law they are sworn to enforce.  We cannot expect the system to work if the people running it are immune to its consequences. 

Freedom of Speech

A unfortunate religious group known as the Westboro Church group have taken to protesting outside the funerals of service men and women who have fallen in the line of duty.  They believe that US soldiers are being killed because we are too tolerant of homosexuals and abortion.  A father of one of the soldiers has sued the group, winning monetary damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.  However, an appeals court overturned the case based on the groups First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.
     I agree with Amor patriae’s take on the issue.  The whole idea that you can pick and choose what should be protected under the First Amendment is preposterous.  No matter how innocuous something is, you can find someone who will be offended by it.  That is the whole point of the First Amendment, to protect people from the whims and opinions of others.  You can’t make exceptions no matter how tempting it is, even in cases as hideous as this one.  I also appreciated that the writer changed their initial opinion of the case when thinking unemotionally on it.  That is what we as a people need to do more often and what the Judicial Branch needs to do always. While someone being so despicable as to protest outside the funeral of a soldier killed in duty because they believe that the US is too tolerant of homosexuals is repugnant, living in a country that does not allow it is even more so.
      The Westboro Church group, infamous for these anti gay protests should stop, but the way to achieve that is not in suing them.  In Weston , MO a group of locals heard of the Westboro’s plans to demonstrate outside of the funeral of one of their local soldiers and formed a protest of their own that shielded the funeral and ultimately forced the retreat of the Westboro group.  This is a much more effective and satisfying way of dealing with these protestors.  Instead of potentially infringing on the rights of all US citizens, we should use our rights to say what we think and give the Westboro Church a taste of their own medicine.  Protesting outside their church every Sunday does not sound like a bad way to spend the day.  I personally think that the Westboro Group is a crazy, grotesque mutation of what a religious organization should be, but I would rather they protest, than that all those who have fought for our right to do so have their struggles be in vain.