U.S. Supreme Court – Page 52 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Connick v. Thompson: Both Answers Are Right — What Was the Question Again?

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:March 30, 2011
Post category:Civil Rights Criminal Law & Process Public U.S. Supreme Court

In Supreme Court cases, the majority and dissent sometimes talk right past one another, framing the question for decision so differently that they almost seem to be writing about different cases. See, e.g., the dueling opinions earlier this week in Connick v. Thompson (No. 09-571). Thompson was convicted of attempted armed robbery and murder, and then sentenced to death. A month before his execution, a bloodstained swatch of cloth came to light that proved Thompson was not the perpetrator in the robbery prosecution. The murder charge was eventually retried, and Thompson was acquitted. In all, he served 18 years in prison based on his wrongful convictions. Moreover, it turns out that an assistant district attorney who was part of the team that prosecuted Thompson deliberately withheld the swatch. The District Attorney’s office now concedes that Thompson’s constitutional rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland. The question now is whether the DA’s office should be civilly liable to Thompson for this violation.

Prior cases interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the federal civil rights law Thompson invoked in his lawsuit) reject vicarious liability for the government when a government employee violates consitutional rights; in order to recover, as matters unfolded, Thompson was obliged to show that the District Attorney had been deliberately indifferent to a need to train his subordinates regarding their Brady responsibilities. Prior cases also establish that a “failure to train” claim must ordinarily be based on multiple violations of constitutional rights; a single violation, such as that suffered by Thompson, would require extraordinary circumstances to justify relief.

So much everyone agreed on.

The Morning After: Lessons From the Wisconsin Budget Battle

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:March 11, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Election Law First Amendment Labor & Employment Law Media & Journalism Political Processes & Rhetoric U.S. Supreme Court

At last the end game has arrived for the budget bill, after more than three weeks of deadlock in Madison. Indeed, it was obvious to everyone that the impasse could not persist, and that the only two options available were either a compromise (unlikely) or the eventual adoption of Governor Walker’s bill intact.

Wisconsin’s largest newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has largely failed to take a coherent editorial position on the budget debate. In fact, the entire local media, both print and television, seem to have bent over backwards in order to appear sympathetic to the arguments of both sides. In this regard, the local media seems to see its role as something akin to the role of an arms dealer during a civil war: issue statements generally supportive of both sides and hope to sell your product to the widest possible audience.

However, I believe that there are larger lessons to be learned from the budget battle, and that the issues raised over the last three weeks transcend partisanship.

More “Bullcoming”? The Court Courts Confusion in Confrontation

Post author:Daniel D. Blinka
Post published:March 3, 2011
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Evidence U.S. Supreme Court

In some ways I should be grateful for doctrinal train wrecks. Messy case law provides endless excuses for writing articles and blog posts as well as delivering lectures that purport to see “the way” through the swamp. Like a child’s kaleidoscope, such cases offer something different for everyone to see, and no one is clearly wrong. Yet Supreme Court opinions are not solely intended for the entertainment of academics or the bewilderment of law students and lawyers.

Of the three metaphors I used in the preceding paragraph, a “train wreck” is the most apt way to describe Michigan v. Bryant, the Supreme Court’s latest attempt to illuminate the interrelationship between the hearsay rules of evidence and the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation right. “Swamp” and “kaleidoscope” are apt, but “train wreck” best captures the real cost of confusion. Bryant not only failed to illuminate a much-rumored “dying declaration” exception to the confrontation right, it also raises considerable confusion about what constitutes the “testimonial hearsay” that is protected by the confrontation right in the first place. For the defense lawyers and prosecutors who must eat this mush (fourth metaphor) every day, you have my best wishes and these words of solace.