CRIMINAL PRACTICE
Exonerated from Murder Charges After Serving 14 Years on Death Row, Can Former Inmate Now Sue District Attorney?
Mr. Thompson, a former inmate who spent a total of eighteen years in prison, fourteen on death row, due to robbery and murder convictions, initiated an action to sue a New Orleans District Attorney under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deprivation of his rights by a person acting under a State, based on the D.A.'s failure to train his Assistant District Attorneys. Mr. Thompson claimed that prosecutors failed to produce and hand over certain exculpatory evidence to the defense in his robbery, criminal case, which further pointed to such failure to train A.D.A.s. The failure to produce the exculpatory evidence resulted in a constitutional violation, known as the Brady violation. Because of the Brady violation, Mr. Thompson's criminal convictions were overturned, and he was released from prison and exonerated, as he was found “not guilty” in the murder retrial. In the subsequent lawsuit against the D.A. in a district court, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of Mr. Thompson, indicating that the D.A. is liable to Mr. Thompson because of the failure to train his assistants. An appeals court affirmed the verdict. However, the United States Supreme Court, on March 29, 2011, reversed the district court and appellate court's decisions, holding that the District Attorney cannot be held liable for failing to train his assistants based on a single Brady violation.
The United States Supreme Court, in this case of Connick, District Attorney, et. al. v. Thompson (March 29, 2011), acknowledges that prosecutors in Mr.Thompson's criminal case did commit a Brady Violation. Law enforcers had been in possession of a lab report, results from the testing of the perpetrator's blood that was retrieved from the victim's pants, in the initial robbery case. These results, which actually exculpated Mr. Thompson, had never been handed over to the defense, but should have been turned over, a clear Brady violation. Nevertheless, the Court held that this does not made the District Attorney liable because only a single constitutional violation was at issue in this case, as opposed to a pattern of constitutional violations. Furthermore, the Court stated that even a string of constitutional violations by assistant district attorneys does not prove a failure by the D.A. to trains his assistants (“recurring constitutional violations are not the 'obvious consequence' of failing to provide prosecutors with formal in-house training about how to obey the law”).
The outcome of the Thompson case is significant. It leaves one to question how will citizens, such as Thompson, who have been wrongly accused and wrongfully incarcerated for over a decade, redress the wrong committed against them?
BUSINESS LAW
How Serious is Insider Trading by a Company Executive?
Insider trading is serious enough that Mr. Rajaratnam, founder and hedge fund manager of Galleon Group, is currently facing up to 19 ½ years in prison due to his convictions on 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud for insider trading. Specifically, the jury found that Mr. Rajaratnam was guilty of making tens of millions of dollars illegally through secrets he obtained from hedge fund professionals and other employees of public companies. Prosecutors had presented evidence that the defendant made over $63 million in illegal trades based on non-public information on several companies, including, Goldman Sachs, Intel, Akamai, and others. Mr. Rajaratnum, who was convicted on May 11, 2011, will be sentenced on July 29, 2011 (United States v. Rajaratnum, 1:09-cr-01184, S.D.N.Y.)
An insider trader violation exists when a person uses non-public, confidential information that was obtained in breach of a fiduciary duty or similar duty based on trust and confidence to sell or buy securities. In this case, defense claimed a “mosaic theory,” arguing that Rajaratnum used legitimate and non-public information to base his trades. However, U.S. Attorney prosecutors, on the other hand, in using evidence obtained from wiretaps and intercepted communications, proved that Rajaratnam traded illegally based on secret information that he knowingly possessed.
Notably, the case of Rajaratnam is one of the largest against inside trader and shows a recent government crack-down on inside trading. It also represents one of the first insider trading cases in which prosecutors heavily relied on wiretaps and recorded telephone conversations for the bulk of their evidence. Currently, there is also an ongoing case against trader, Zvi Goffer, also from the same hedge fund group as Rajaratnam, the Gallean Group. (Bloomberg News, May 11, 2011).
IMMIGRATION LAW
Will Abused Juvenile Mexican Face Deportation?
Daniel, a Mexican born juvenile immigrant, was almost deported back to Mexico days before his eighteenth birthday, until a New York family court judge refused to send him back to Mexico in the hands of an abusive father. According to Daniel's affidavit to a family court judge, In the Matter of Daniel T.H., Daniel suffered abuse at the hand of his Mexican father from the age of six, including beatings from a wooden stick and a chain, which motivated him to escape his home. And at age fourteen, Daniel entered the United States illegally and was deported a year later, only to re-enter illegally the same year at age fifteen. An appellate court (2nd Dept') (Feb. 22, 2011) confirmed that Daniel was at “imminent risk of harm,” and he was granted special juvenile temporary status and placed under the care and auspices of New York Social Services until he is age 21 (In the Matter of Daniel T.H., 2011 NY Slip Op 01481). Daniel is now applying for permanent resident status.
This case is important because it is one of the first cases that has extended New York child protection services to a child who was held in a juvenile immigration facility. Federal law allows unaccompanied immigrant children fleeing abuse to legally remain in the United States pursuant to a family court order that has declared the child as abandoned, abused, or neglected in his or her home country. In Daniel's case, both a family court judge and an appellate judge confirmed the abuse Daniel faced that entitled him to temporary juvenile resident status. (www.chatholiccharitiesny.org, “Catholic Charities win Landmark Legal Victory in Child Protection Case,” April 1, 2011).
Exonerated from Murder Charges After Serving 14 Years on Death Row, Can Former Inmate Now Sue District Attorney?
Mr. Thompson, a former inmate who spent a total of eighteen years in prison, fourteen on death row, due to robbery and murder convictions, initiated an action to sue a New Orleans District Attorney under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deprivation of his rights by a person acting under a State, based on the D.A.'s failure to train his Assistant District Attorneys. Mr. Thompson claimed that prosecutors failed to produce and hand over certain exculpatory evidence to the defense in his robbery, criminal case, which further pointed to such failure to train A.D.A.s. The failure to produce the exculpatory evidence resulted in a constitutional violation, known as the Brady violation. Because of the Brady violation, Mr. Thompson's criminal convictions were overturned, and he was released from prison and exonerated, as he was found “not guilty” in the murder retrial. In the subsequent lawsuit against the D.A. in a district court, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of Mr. Thompson, indicating that the D.A. is liable to Mr. Thompson because of the failure to train his assistants. An appeals court affirmed the verdict. However, the United States Supreme Court, on March 29, 2011, reversed the district court and appellate court's decisions, holding that the District Attorney cannot be held liable for failing to train his assistants based on a single Brady violation.
The United States Supreme Court, in this case of Connick, District Attorney, et. al. v. Thompson (March 29, 2011), acknowledges that prosecutors in Mr.Thompson's criminal case did commit a Brady Violation. Law enforcers had been in possession of a lab report, results from the testing of the perpetrator's blood that was retrieved from the victim's pants, in the initial robbery case. These results, which actually exculpated Mr. Thompson, had never been handed over to the defense, but should have been turned over, a clear Brady violation. Nevertheless, the Court held that this does not made the District Attorney liable because only a single constitutional violation was at issue in this case, as opposed to a pattern of constitutional violations. Furthermore, the Court stated that even a string of constitutional violations by assistant district attorneys does not prove a failure by the D.A. to trains his assistants (“recurring constitutional violations are not the 'obvious consequence' of failing to provide prosecutors with formal in-house training about how to obey the law”).
The outcome of the Thompson case is significant. It leaves one to question how will citizens, such as Thompson, who have been wrongly accused and wrongfully incarcerated for over a decade, redress the wrong committed against them?
BUSINESS LAW
How Serious is Insider Trading by a Company Executive?
Insider trading is serious enough that Mr. Rajaratnam, founder and hedge fund manager of Galleon Group, is currently facing up to 19 ½ years in prison due to his convictions on 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud for insider trading. Specifically, the jury found that Mr. Rajaratnam was guilty of making tens of millions of dollars illegally through secrets he obtained from hedge fund professionals and other employees of public companies. Prosecutors had presented evidence that the defendant made over $63 million in illegal trades based on non-public information on several companies, including, Goldman Sachs, Intel, Akamai, and others. Mr. Rajaratnum, who was convicted on May 11, 2011, will be sentenced on July 29, 2011 (United States v. Rajaratnum, 1:09-cr-01184, S.D.N.Y.)
An insider trader violation exists when a person uses non-public, confidential information that was obtained in breach of a fiduciary duty or similar duty based on trust and confidence to sell or buy securities. In this case, defense claimed a “mosaic theory,” arguing that Rajaratnum used legitimate and non-public information to base his trades. However, U.S. Attorney prosecutors, on the other hand, in using evidence obtained from wiretaps and intercepted communications, proved that Rajaratnam traded illegally based on secret information that he knowingly possessed.
Notably, the case of Rajaratnam is one of the largest against inside trader and shows a recent government crack-down on inside trading. It also represents one of the first insider trading cases in which prosecutors heavily relied on wiretaps and recorded telephone conversations for the bulk of their evidence. Currently, there is also an ongoing case against trader, Zvi Goffer, also from the same hedge fund group as Rajaratnam, the Gallean Group. (Bloomberg News, May 11, 2011).
IMMIGRATION LAW
Will Abused Juvenile Mexican Face Deportation?
Daniel, a Mexican born juvenile immigrant, was almost deported back to Mexico days before his eighteenth birthday, until a New York family court judge refused to send him back to Mexico in the hands of an abusive father. According to Daniel's affidavit to a family court judge, In the Matter of Daniel T.H., Daniel suffered abuse at the hand of his Mexican father from the age of six, including beatings from a wooden stick and a chain, which motivated him to escape his home. And at age fourteen, Daniel entered the United States illegally and was deported a year later, only to re-enter illegally the same year at age fifteen. An appellate court (2nd Dept') (Feb. 22, 2011) confirmed that Daniel was at “imminent risk of harm,” and he was granted special juvenile temporary status and placed under the care and auspices of New York Social Services until he is age 21 (In the Matter of Daniel T.H., 2011 NY Slip Op 01481). Daniel is now applying for permanent resident status.
This case is important because it is one of the first cases that has extended New York child protection services to a child who was held in a juvenile immigration facility. Federal law allows unaccompanied immigrant children fleeing abuse to legally remain in the United States pursuant to a family court order that has declared the child as abandoned, abused, or neglected in his or her home country. In Daniel's case, both a family court judge and an appellate judge confirmed the abuse Daniel faced that entitled him to temporary juvenile resident status. (www.chatholiccharitiesny.org, “Catholic Charities win Landmark Legal Victory in Child Protection Case,” April 1, 2011).
RSS Feed
