Court seems skeptical on $14 million judgment
Lawyer Blogs
The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed skeptical of a $14 million judgment given to a former death row inmate who accused New Orleans prosecutors of withholding evidence to help convict him of murder.
John Thompson, who at one point was only weeks away from being executed, successfully sued the district attorney's office in New Orleans, arguing that former District Attorney Harry Connick showed deliberate indifference by not providing adequate training for assistant district attorneys.
Prosecutors normally have immunity for their actions while working, but Thompson convinced a jury that the district attorney's office had not trained its lawyers sufficiently on how to handle evidence. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was split evenly on appeal, which upheld the lower court verdict.
"They all knew what not to produce. What they didn't know was what to produce," Thompson's lawyer J. Gordon Cooney said.
But justices repeatedly questioned how much training would be enough to satisfy any new legal standard on Brady rights for prosecutors. Brady rights are named after the Supreme Court's Brady v. Maryland case, which says prosecutors violate a defendant's constitutional rights by not turning over evidence that could prove a person's innocence.
Related listings
-
Court won't get into battle between 2 USCs
Lawyer Blogs 10/04/2010The Supreme Court won't decide who really owns the initials "SC" when it comes to college sports: the University of Southern California or the University of South Carolina.The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from South Carolina, which ...
-
Court won't speed challenge to MN disclosure law
Lawyer Blogs 10/04/2010A federal appeals court has declined to fast-track a challenge against a Minnesota law requiring disclosure of corporate political spending.In an order Monday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion to expedite the case, and it scheduled or...
-
California calls off murderer's execution
Lawyer Blogs 10/01/2010The execution of a convicted rapist-murderer in California has been called off after rulings in state and federal courts, officials said Wednesday.The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation removed Albert Greenwood Brown's execution ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.