As horrible as what this man endured there is a question that must be asked in response:
“from whom”?
“provided by whom”?
You did not violate this man’s rights, nor did I, nor did anyone not directly involved in this case.
One could say it is immoral for an innocent party (you, me, Dante, Softwarenerd, whoever) to be fined and taxed to pay retribution on a violation they had no part of.
Every resident of Louisiana has violated that man’s rights because the state prosecutor was acting on behalf of the state’s residents.
This is why people need to pay attention to politics.
Judges and grand juries have long had common law immunity for their official actions to civil suits after defendants are acquitted. It would not be favorable to the rule of law if only guaranteed convictions ever went to trial. Prosecutors need also be immune to suits from losing cases or else no one would ever want to be a prosecutor and the law would not be enforced.
The additional legal doctrine of prosecutorial absolute immunity was invented by the Supreme Court in 1976 in order to justify the ruling in the case of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). In that case Imbler was wrongfully convicted, and Pachtman was the prosecutor who convicted him. Yet it was Pachtman himself who came forward with the new evidence that Imbler used to overturn his conviction. It was Imbler’s suit against Pachtman that the Supreme Court ruled on.
Quoting from the Supreme Court opinion "In his brief to the Supreme Court of California on this habeas petition, Imbler’s counsel described Pachtman’s post-trial detective work as "in the highest tradition of law enforcement and justice," and as a premier example of “devotion to duty.” 6 But he also charged that the prosecution had knowingly used false testimony and suppressed material evidence at Imbler’s trial. 7"
Again, who would want to take on the job of prosecutor if doing the job conscientiously and changing one’s conclusion about the case leads to being sued? That would serve neither justice nor the rule of law.
Quoting from the decision section of the opinion Imbler v. Pachtman:
"We emphasize that the immunity of prosecutors from [424 U.S. 409, 429] liability in suits under 1983 does not leave the public powerless to deter misconduct or to punish that which occurs. This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. Even judges, cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. 242, 28 the criminal analog of 1983. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974); cf. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627 (1972). The prosecutor would fare no better for his willful acts. 29 Moreover, a prosecutor stands perhaps unique, among officials whose acts could deprive persons of constitutional rights, in his amenability to professional discipline by an association of his peers. 30 These checks undermine the argument that the imposition of civil liability is the only way to insure that prosecutors are mindful of the constitutional rights of persons accused of crime. [424 U.S. 409, 430]
Brady v. Maryland is a related case Thompson bases his argument upon. Brady refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.”
This case Connick v Thompson, 09-571 is about the standard of evidence required to establish that it is a deliberate policy of a prosecutors office to make Brady violations. Thompson tried to make the case that one obvious case was enough to establish a pattern. The majority found that not persuasive. Ginsburg in the dissent notes the high rate of turnover of prosecutors under Connick’s direction and that at least four different prosecutors handled this case and made the same error. Scalia provides a separate concurring opinion refuting Ginsburg’s reasoning and question whether there really were any Brady violations in the case at all. The case is largely premised on Connick’s conceding that Brady violations occurred but Connick’s understanding of Brady law is under attack by Thompson, Ginsburg and Scalia simultaneously for different reasons.
It is not obvious that this case is decided rightly or wrongly. I am not outraged at the Supreme Court but at the State of Louisiana for limiting its own liability to $150,000 when it is clearly capable of inflicting much more damage than that, in this and other cases. (Thompson had already won compensation at the state level, the $14 million dollar judgement was based on the federal case which he just lost.)