Connick v. Thompson
| 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 |
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.