Source: http://www.loyno-lawreview.com/2017/01/10/42-u-s-c-%C2%A7-14141-new-method-prosecutorial-oversight-look-prosecutorial-misconduct-louisiana/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:40:32+00:00

Document:
John Thompson spent eighteen years in prison—fourteen years on death row—for crimes he did not commit. He was eventually exonerated and released. To date, no one has been held accountable for Thompson’s wrongful imprisonment. His first attempt to hold the prosecutor’s office who wrongfully imprisoned him accountable for withholding exculpatory evidence was eventually denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thompson, however, is not giving up hope that prosecutors, including one of the prosecutors in his own case, will be held accountable for unethical—what Thompson calls “arguably criminal”—actions.
On August 2, 2016, Thompson filed a complaint to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) against former Prosecutor Jim Williams and the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, requesting an investigation. This article provides a brief background of Thompson’s Supreme Court case (Connick v. Thompson) and the existing mechanisms of prosecutorial oversight, details Thompson’s complaint to the DOJ, and discusses possible future implications.
Death-seeking prosecutors in Louisiana have been the subject of nationwide media attention on numerous occasions. Reports have ranged from the hosting of parties to allegedly celebrate death sentences to the wearing of neck ties with images of a noose and the Grim Reaper, and at least one prosecutor openly admitting that there was “no thrill” for him unless the death penalty was a possible outcome of the case. One has to wonder what mechanisms are in place to monitor prosecutorial discretion in a criminal justice system which allows punishment by death. Interestingly, it seems a prosecutor is the only type of lawyer that cannot be sued for malpractice. In fact, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when acting within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Even judges are reportedly disciplined at a higher rate than prosecutors. So what measures are in place to ensure ethical compliance of prosecuting attorneys? Connick v. Thompson purports to answer this very question.
In Connick v. Thompson, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the state procedures in place—legal education and continuing education requirements along with attorney training and state disciplinary systems—were sufficient to teach prosecutors proper procedures and to ensure they abide by ethical guidelines. With this in mind, the Court held that a single Brady violation did not establish “deliberate indifference” on the part of the District Attorney for failing to train his employees. A single violation was held not to be enough to establish the “obvious” need for additional Brady training; a pattern of similar violations was needed to prove “deliberate indifference” and hold the District Attorney’s Office civilly liable. This high “deliberate indifference” standard, in addition to the immunity enjoyed by prosecutors, makes a civil damage award highly unlikely for a victim of prosecutorial misconduct.
The U.S. Supreme Court placed its belief in the effectiveness of the attorney disciplinary system. At least one local criminal defense attorney, Sam Dalton, tested the high Court’s theory in Louisiana by filing eight complaints of prosecutorial misconduct in one month. Three and a half years later, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”), the entity charged with reviewing complaints of attorney misconduct in Louisiana, had only responded that Dalton’s complaints had been received. Even when attorney disciplinary actions are initiated against prosecutors in Louisiana, it seems the penalty is minimal to non-existent. Take for example, the case of former Orleans Parish prosecutor Roger Jordan, in which the Louisiana Supreme Court found that Jordan knowingly withheld Brady information in a capital case. Jordan’s punishment: a three-month suspension deferred in its entirety.
In theory, prosecutorial training, rules of ethical conduct, and principles of professionalism in a self-governing system do exist to ensure that all attorneys, including prosecutors, act in a diligent, competent, honest, and professional manner. In practice, however, such mechanisms seem to have little effect on the prevention of prosecutorial wrongdoing and the promotion of prosecutorial accountability because, as the rules persist, so too does the misconduct.
The authority that Thompson relied on for his claim and request of a federal investigation is 42 U.S.C. § 14141—the statute which has recently been used to investigate civil rights violations by police departments across the nation, resulting in numerous consent decrees. Although typically used to investigate police departments, the DOJ first used § 14141 as authority to investigate prosecutors in 2012—specifically investigating the Missoula County Attorney’s Office and its response to sexual assault allegations—because of the prosecutors’ duties in enforcing the law. The Ferguson complaint (filed by the DOJ after an investigation following the shooting of Michael Brown) also lends support to the idea that misconduct by prosecutors can be a violation of § 14141.  Specifically, the complaint states under a section asserting violations of § 14141 that “Defendant, its agents, and persons acting on its behalf have intentionally prosecuted and resolved municipal violations in the City of Ferguson in a manner that violates due process and equal protection requirements.” The resulting consent decree similarly focused on prosecutorial actions with its inclusion of court reforming sections entitled “BIAS-FREE POLICE AND COURT PRACTICE,” and “MUNICPAL COURT REFORM.” Under this line of authority, it is possible that the DOJ could begin to investigate district attorneys’ offices for violations of § 14141 in the same manner that it has investigated police departments and that more court-oriented consent decrees could result from such investigations.
It is unclear whether the DOJ will conduct the investigation of the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office requested by John Thompson. If it does, this could mean a new level of oversight and possible accountability for key players in the criminal justice system who currently seem to have little initiative to play by the rules. This could also mean a review of the cases of the reportedly “over one hundred other individuals” who were prosecuted by Jim Williams. And, this could finally bring a small sense of closure to John Thompson and others who wrongfully lost years of their lives at the hands of prosecutorial misconduct. In the meantime, Thompson will continue to educate the public on prosecutorial misconduct, the death penalty, and criminal justice reform.

References: v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14141
 § 14141
 § 14141
 § 14141
 § 14141