http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdfThis is a Section 1983 action, Section 1983 is also called the "Anti-KKK act" for it was passed in 1871 to make it illegal for anyone to use the "Color" in an act of discrimination. Section 1983 official name is the "Civil Rights Act of 1871". The whole act is as follows (as quoted from the Opinion):
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . .subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .”More on the Civil Rights Act of 1871:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871The term "Color" was used to make sure the Civil Rights Act of 1871 not only included law enforcement officers BUT also anyone acting under what they called "The law".
In this case the Prosecutors had a piece of cloth from a Robbery that had type B blood on it. The Defendant blood type is NOT type B. The Defendant was charged with two crimes, first an armed Robbery, where the cloth with blood was a factor. Then a few weeks later with the Murder Charge. Since the same wittinesses were claiming he was the criminal in both crimes, he did NOT want the Robbery to be introduced into the Murder Charge. The only way the Robbery would come into the Murder case is if the Defendant took the Stand. The Robbery could be brought in to impeach his testimony as to NOT committing the Murder. Thus the Defendant decided NOT to take the stand in the second case and was convicted. he served 14 years and then someone found out about the cloth with the blood, tested it and found out it was NOT the Defendant's Blood. Thus the Defendant had clear evidence that he did NOT commit the Robbery and since the reason he did NOT testify at the Murder Trial was do to the prior Conviction of Robbery, the Murder Charge was also reversed. He was given a Second trial as to the Murder Charge and was found Not guilty.
After his acquittal, the Defendant filed a Federal 1983 Actions against the Prosecutors on the ground the head of the New Orleans District Attorney's Office did NOT properly train his Junior DAs about the need to turn over any evidence that could help the defense. The US Supreme Court has long held such evidence MUST be given to the Defense for the criminal trial. In the Civil Trial on Damages the local Federal District Court Jury found the New Orleans District Attorney's office liable for 14 million dollars. The New Orleans District Attorney's office appealed. The Federal Court of Appeals made a four to four ruling on the issue on appeal, was the District Attorney liable for ONE violation of NOT providing evidence to the Defense, thus upholding the local judges ruling that such an action could be brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The US Supreme Court reversed ruling that just one violation is NOT enough violations to make a District Attorney liable under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
I wrote the above after reading Thomas's opinion, Ginsburg in her dissent does a much better re-stating of the facts of both cases:
In the early morning hours of December 6, 1984, anassailant shot and killed Raymond T. Liuzza, Jr., son of a prominent New Orleans business executive, on the street fronting the victim’s home. Only one witness saw the assailant. As recorded in two contemporaneous police reports, that eyewitness initially described the assailants African-American, six feet tall, with “close cut hair.” Record EX2–EX3, EX9.1 Thompson is five feet eight inches tall and, at the time of the murder, styled his hair in a large “Afro.” Id., at EX13. The police reports of the witness’ immediate identification were not disclosed to Thompson or to the court.
While engaged in the murder investigation, the Orleans Parish prosecutors linked Thompson to another violent crime committed three weeks later. On December 28, an assailant attempted to rob three siblings at gunpoint.During the struggle, the perpetrator’s blood stained the oldest child’s pant leg. That blood, preserved on a swatch of fabric cut from the pant leg by a crime scene analyst, was eventually tested. The test conclusively established that the perpetrator’s blood was type B. Id., at EX151. Thompson’s blood is type O. His prosecutors failed to disclose the existence of the swatch or the test results.
One month after the Liuzza murder, Richard Perkins, a man who knew Thompson, approached the Liuzza family. Perkins did so after the family’s announcement of a $15,000 reward for information leading to the murderer’s conviction. Police officers surreptitiously recorded the Perkins-Liuzza conversations.(footnote 2) As documented on tape, Perkins told the family, “I don’t mind helping catch , . . . but I would like to help me and, you know, I’ll help .” Id., at EX479, EX481. Once the family assured Perkins, “we’re on your side, we want to try and help you,” id., at EX481, Perkins intimated that Thompson and another man, Kevin Freeman,had been involved in Liuzza’s murder. Perkins thereafter told the police what he had learned from Freeman about the murder, and that information was recorded in a police report. Based on Perkins’ account, Thompson and Free-man were arrested on murder charges.
The problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is that in the early 1880s the US Supreme Court put restrictions on all of the post Civil War Civil Rights act (mostly the Civil Rights act of 1875, which was subsequently repealed under Cleveland) but also put restrictions on the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (The Civil Rights Act of 1866, the US Supreme Court had a problem with, it was passed BEFORE the Post Civil War Constitutional Amendments, and there was some question as to the Constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, so Congress passed the 13th amendment to say Congress could pass something like the Civil Rights Act of 1866, thus the Civil Rights Act was clearly Constitutional under the 13th Amendment).
For more on the "Civil Rights Cases":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_CasesActual Text of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, much like the later Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/civilrightsact.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
