The Violation Of Brady V. Maryland Where The Prosecutor Withheld Exculpatory Evidence

1010 Words Feb 26th, 2016 null Page
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 indifference of his constitutional rights. Therefore, that liability falls on the district attorney’s office without any past history of violations. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to present an important crime lab report which stated that the perpetrator of the attempted arm robbery had type “B” blood and Thompson had type” O” blood. Therefore, in light of this new evidence once Mr. Thompson was released from prison he sued the District Attorney’s office because they withheld crucial evidence which was a violation of Brady v. 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…

Related Documents