Prosecutors are required to disclose to defense counsel evidence favorable to the accused that may affect the outcome of a criminal trial. A violation of this constitutional rule is called a Brady violation that mandates reversal of a criminal conviction. When such a violation is uncovered long after an accused has been convicted and sentenced, in addition to reversal of the criminal conviction an individual may also seek monetary damages for his or her unconstitutional imprisonment. However, in order to succeed in obtaining monetary relief the accused must demonstrate a pattern of similar constitutional violations by other prosecutors from the same office. Recently, the United States Supreme Court has held that a single Brady violation, no matter how egregious, cannot support such liability for a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.
In a recent case before the United States Supreme Court, the District Attorney’s office in New Orleans admitted that its prosecutors committed a Brady violation in a murder case. The prosecution did not disclose to the accused that it had a piece of clothing from a robbery victim that had the blood of the actual assailant on it, which did not match the blood type of the accused. If the evidence had been timely disclosed, it would have exonerated the defendant. Without disclosing such evidence, the defendant was later convicted of robbery and murder, and he was sentenced to death. After 14 years in prison and just one month before his execution, defense attorneys discovered the undisclosed evidence. The court later reversed his convictions, and he was acquitted of the murder four years later after the prosecution presented the suppressed blood evidence during his retrial.
Once acquitted, he then sued the New Orleans DA office for damages on a theory that the district attorney’s office had failed to train its prosecutors on Brady policies. In a civil trial, the jury awarded him $14 million in damages on the failure to train claim, and the en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict. However, the United States Supreme Court reversed the circuit court decision, and held that a district attorney’s office cannot be held liable for not properly training its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation. The Court found that individuals seeking monetary damages for a constitutional violation must prove that their injury was caused by practices so persistent and widespread that it had nearly the force of law. Thus, a single violation, no matter how severe it may be, cannot establish civil liability for prosecutorial misconduct.
The San Diego Law Office of Domenic J. Lombardo is dedicated to defending criminal charges in state, federal, and county courts throughout San Diego. For a free consultation, contact us at (619) 232-5122, or: info@attorneylombardo.com.
- California Laws SB-30 and SB-145 to Allow Domestic Partnership and Alter Rules for Minors - September 29, 2020
- What Is a Reasonable Bond in California? - April 27, 2020
- What to Do If You Are Accused of Rape - March 6, 2020
