Connick V. Thompson: 563 US Supreme Court Case Study

Improved Essays
Connick v. Thompson: 563 U.S. _____, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) – One of the issues raised in this case was the violation of Brady v. Maryland where the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence (law.cornell.edu. n.d.). Therefore, Thompson brought a suit pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the district attorney’s office was liable for failing to properly training its employees on the requirements of Brady. Furthermore, the concern was about the prosecutor’s behavior. Therefore, the U.S Court of Appeals found in favor of assigning liability to the district attorney’s office for failing to properly train its employees (law.cornell.edu. n.d.). Mr. Thompson concerns were that the prosecutors’ lack of training amounted to a deliberate …show more content…
Maryland. Therefore, he felt that he did not receive a fair trial because this evidence was not present because the office did not provide formal training regarding Brady. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court had to review the case and they stated that Connick was responsible for his employees not being properly trained on Brady v. Maryland were evidence is wrongfully withheld in a trial. Therefore, they sided with Mr. Thompson as well as all of the previous courts decisions and awarded Mr. Thompson for the violation of a fair trial.

Hardy v. Cross: 565 U.S. _____, 132 S. Ct. 1626; 182 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2011) – The main issue in this case was that the witness A.S. was at the first trial but unavailable for the retrial or second trial. Therefore, when this happen the state decided to go ahead and use her previous statement or testimony made in the first trial as evidence. When this happened Cross told them that this violated his right of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment because the state was unable to locate A.S. before the trial begin. Furthermore, he felt that the state did not make a good faith effort to find her in order for her to be in court for
…show more content…
Ruiz: 536 U.S. 622; 122 S. Ct. 2450; 153 L. Ed. 2d 586 (2002) - In this case Ruiz’s was found carrying marijuana in her luggage by an Mter immigration agent. Unfortunately, federal prosecutors offered her a “fast track’ plea bargain, whereby she waived indictment, trail and an appeal in exchange for a reduced sentence recommendation (supreme.justia.com. n.d). Therefore, once she done this it is required by prosecutors under the Constitution to make certain impeachment information available to defendants before a trial because it entitles a defendant from waiving their rights to the information in which they did not do and that the “fast track” agreement was unlawful. Therefore, the state or prosecutor behavior was unacceptable because they withheld information in order to get a guilty verdict. Unfortunately, the appellant is not raising the concerns but the concerns are being raised by the United States Court because it is a requirement under the Constitution that a prosecutor makes sure that they make all information available to a defendant before they go to trial and this was not done. Therefore, by the prosecution not doing this she felt that her constitutional rights had been violated because she had pleaded guilty to drug charges without knowing all of her entitlements. Unfortunately, when it went before the Supreme Court they found that none of her rights were violated because she voluntarily entered into a guilty plea and that the government is not

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    -The district court decided that the plaintiff was not “otherwise qualified”, because she did not have a commercial driver’s license. Why did the appeals court reject the conclusion? -The appeals court rejected the conclusion that Rosebrough was not “otherwise qualified”, because she did not have a commercial driver’s license, because she had trained for the position and was considered “trained”. So, a commercial driver’s license was not needed for Rosebrough to be “otherwise qualified” for the position. -Suppose that the coworker who said that it would take much more time to train the plaintiff and that she would not be able to drive some buses was right about those things.…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The case posed questions regarding the conduct of an inmate who participated in assisting fellow prisoners in planning the appeals for a writ of habeas corpus and any other legal papers. The amendment in scrutiny was the 28 U.S.C ~ 2242 that violates such prisoner actions. C. 384 US 436 (1966) Miranda v. Arizona Argued 2/28/66; 3/1/66; 3/2/66 Decided Jun 13, 1966 On March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the allegations of rape and kidnapping. The investigators found a written confession admitting the offense. However, the police officers who arrested Miranda did not advise him to have an attorney during the interrogation.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Becoming too involved in this role impaired his objectivity, competence, and effectiveness of performing his duties of psychologist in the study. Part (2)’s violation is recognized as Zimbardo exposes the prisoners and prison guards to harm during the study. Zimbardo neglected his role as psychologist, proven through each scene mentioned, therefore contributing to the main violation of this…

    • 1237 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A writ of certiorari is a document signed by the defendant asking the court to review the lower court’s decision more carefully. Forma pauperis is filed when someone cannot afford a lawyer in the hopes of a judge giving the defendant a waiver to have one at a normal cost .In so doing, the Supreme Court had stated that Hinton’s sixth amendment had been violated because his lawyer wasn’t aware of the fact that Alabama law could allow him to acquire more funding in need of an expert witness (firearms expert). Therefore, the Supreme Court found that Hinton’s lawyer wasn’t minimally competent due to…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The charges are what the government issues to begin the criminal process Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanov are faced with several charges in the original indictment. The charges include that of Conspiracy. This charge is filed by the government against both Martha Stewart and Bacanovic. The government alleges that both Stewart and Bacanovic willfully and knowingly worked together to make false statements in the stock-trading scandal. Stewart lied when she told the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and federal prosecutors she had prearranged with Bacanovic to sell ImClone when it fell well below $60 per share.…

    • 1956 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hendrickson et al case defines another major problem in the American legal court system, which demand that Kingsley had to provide a subjective motive of malicious intent by the police officers to use brutal force against in while in custody. In fact, the Judge informed the jury that that Kingsley had already lost the case, unless he could provide evidence of a direct act of malicious intent by the police officers. The video obtained of Kingsley’s allegations of objective police brutality was ignored by the jury, yet the Supreme Court eventually argued in favor of Kingsley’s defense under Bell v. Wolfish that the physical aspects of police maltreatment will be a much more prominent part of future allegations against police brutality of suspects in custody. I agreed with this outcome because the basis of American law is “innocence until proven guilty”, yet Kingsley was being found guilty of non-cooperation with the police as a preordained legal premise that validated the harsh measures taken by the police in this case. In this manner, I did not agree with the outcome of Kingsley’s trial that disproved the police brutality charge, but I did find the Supreme Court decision of the “objective standard” that would provide a new legal precedent in order to evaluate the level of violence that the police use against suspects in holding…

    • 1354 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Drug Smuggling Case Study

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Since Dietrich was opposed to changing his plea from not guilty, he also applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for assistance, but his application was denied as he had failed to make an application within the necessary time. The County Court trial judge followed previous practice and forced Dietrich to go to trial without representation. Dietrich was acquitted on two of his charges, and was found guilty on the importation charge. He then wanted to appeal to the Supreme Court but was denied; thus he took his case to the High Court. Dietrich argued that an indigent (poor) accused who wished to be represented, was entitled to have counsel provided at public expense when being tried on any indictable offence that may result in their imprisonment.…

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mr. Lynch, according to the excerpts from his interview after the trial, argues that Ralph was suffering and did not get the medical assistance he was seeking. Thus, the hostage-taking incident was a way of getting the attention Ralph had once needed but to no avail. The psychiatric evaluation on Ralph by Dr. Lawrence Siegel, clearly states that he is incompetent to stand trial. On the other hand, Dr. Siegel’s determination on Ralph’s mental illness indicated that he was suffering from an acute psychotic delusion that made it even difficult to determine his mental state at the time of the crime. His recommendation for the prosecution was that Ralph was not able to continue with the trial.…

    • 882 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sheppard then decided to sue the trial judge for his lack of containing the media and in turn not protecting Sheppard’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. This case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the question of when is time for the trial judge to step in and protect the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment ensuring a fair trial. In an eight to one decision the Supreme Court decided that Sheppard did not in fact receive a fair trial and the trial judge could have done more protect his rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Stevan Jakovljevic Professor Avdeev Law 2010-05 Fall 2016 Case Brief Term Researched: Duty of Care Case Name: Howard D. Brunson (Plaintiff-Respondent) v. Affinity Federal Credit Union Legal Citation: 954 A.2d 550 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2008) Date Decided: May 05, 2009 Legal History: Howard D. Brunson the plaintiff filed a four count complaint in the Supreme Court of New Jersey against Affinity Federal Credit Union and Wilcox for being liable to him for malicious prosecution (Count 1); That Wilcox was liable to plaintiff to negligence (Count 2): That Affinity was liable to plaintiff in hiring of Wilcox (Count 3); and that the person who actually committed the crime was liable to the plaintiff in negligence. (Count 4).…

    • 1124 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays