Connick v. Thompson
2011 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Connick v. Thompson?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.[1]
Quick Facts Connick v. Thompson, Argued October 6, 2010 Decided March 29, 2011 ...
Connick v. Thompson | |
---|---|
Argued October 6, 2010 Decided March 29, 2011 | |
Full case name | Connick, District Attorney, et al. v. Thompson |
Docket no. | 09-571 |
Citations | 563 U.S. 51 (more) 131 S. Ct. 1350; 179 L. Ed. 2d 417; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2594 |
Case history | |
Prior | Jury verdict affirmed in part, reversed in part, Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008); on rehearing en banc, 578 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 559 U.S. 1004 (2010). |
Subsequent | Remanded, Thompson v. Connick, 641 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 2011). |
Holding | |
A district attorney's office cannot be held responsible under Section 1983 for failing to properly train its employees when the plaintiff can only prove a single violation of Brady v. Maryland. Fifth Circuit reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito |
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Close