A reviewing court vacated both convictions, and Thompson was found not guilty in a retrial on the murder charge.
Thompson then filed suits aginst the district attorney's office.
District court :
- Brady violation : Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant.
a the supreme court they decided this … at the … they decided this ….
Facts : Thompson has been convicted for attempted armed robbery. Prosecutors failed to disclose crime lab report. A month before his schedued execution, the crime lab report was discovered.
Issue : where it's written « HELD ». the question they try to figure out, to determine.
Can a prosecutor's office be held liable for the illegal conduct of one of its prosecutors, on the theory that the office failed to adequately train its employees, when there has been only one violation resulting from that deficient training?
Rule / precedent : Rules = USC 42 § 1983 (the individual has the ability sue for damages when government entity violates the civil rights of an individual, the government has to do it with intention) Precedent : Canton v. Harris → failure to train must be the result of deliberate indifference. Pattern of similar Brady violations (not producing the evidences). When the consequence of not training is so obvious, it can substitute the need for a pattern.
Pattern = series of incidence that are similar.
Analysis : when you look at the facts. You look at how the rules apply to the facts.
A pattern is normaly necessary. Official municipal policy = deliberate indiference → pattern of similar Brady violations. There not pattern here, there is only one violation. You don't need a pattern when it's so obvious that the lack of training has had consequences.
There has to be an official municipal policy to violate rights.
To prove deliberate indifference (they know what's going to