Connick v. Thompson: Unclear Motives Behind a Misguided Result

Claude Nicolas

In Connick v. Thompson, the Supreme Court of the United States refined its jurisprudence in the area of municipal liability under the failure-to-train theory. The Court held that a district attorney's office could not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to train where the plaintiff did not prove a pattern of Brady violations. The Court determined further that a municipality's failure to train prosecutors on Brady violations was not an obvious circumstance that was likely to deprive defendants of constitutional rights.

In so holding, the Court deprived John Thompson of any legal relief after he had spent fourteen years on death row and was nearly executed for a crime he did not commit. As a matter of legal precedent, the Court failed to establish what would constitute a pattern of Brady violations sufficient to trigger municipal liability for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the Court erred in ignoring the trial record, which detailed the many Brady violations the prosecutors committed and, because of this error, the Court improperly disturbed the jury's reasonable conclusion that untrained prosecutors' Brady violations would likely deprive defendants of their constitutional rights. The Court should have ensured that municipalities would more vigilantly train their prosecutors about Brady violations by imposing liability on the District Attorney where, as in this case, the need for training was so obvious and the failure to train prosecutors about Brady was highly likely to deprive defendants of their constitutional rights. Finally, the Court should have held that prior Brady violations would put a prosecutor's office on notice for the need to implement more training, regardless of differences in the types of evidence prosecutors withheld in those prior violations.