Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
JOHN THOMPSON
The Murder
On 6 December 1984, Raymond T. Liuzza Jr. was the subject of a brutal attack outside of his home in New Orleans. He was robbed and shot five times. The police were called to the scene of the attack and arrived while Liuzza was still alive. David Carter, a police officer at the scene, questioned Liuzza, who informed the officer that his attacker was a black male. No blood, fabric or hair samples were collected from the crime scene. It was noted that Liuzza's gold signet ring had been stolen. Later that night, Liuzza died in hospital. Liuzza was the son of a prominent New Orleans hotel executive so his murder received a lot of media attention. The Liuzza family wanted immediate justice for their sons death and offered a $15,000 reward for any information that would help the police with their enquiries. Given the social positioning of the Liuzza family, the police were under a lot of pressure to solve the murder quickly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-1-
As a result of the arrests, photographs of Thompson and Freeman were published in the local newspaper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Shortly after the paper published their photographs, the police received a phone call from Stewart LaGarde, the father of Jay, Marie and Michael LaGarde, who stated that he had shown his children the picture of Thompson in the paper and they believed that Thompson was the man who had attempted to rob them. The police informed the District Attorney's (DA) office that Thompson had been positively identified as the man responsible for the armed robbery. The DA's office screened the murder and armed robbery cases to determine the strength of the evidence and make a decision as to whether to prosecute. Bruce Whittaker was the Assistant DA who was handling Thompsons cases. On the screening form for the armed robbery case, Whittaker wrote that the state "[m]ay wish to do blood test"2 in relation to the swatch taken from Jay LaGarde's trousers. The DA's office made a strategic move when they petitioned the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court to switch the order of the trials so that Thompson would be tried for the armed robbery before the murder charge despite the murder taking place before the robbery. This was an attempt by the DA's office to keep Thompson from testifying at his murder trial (as a guilty verdict in the armed robbery trial could be entered into evidence against him as impeachment if he testified) and the conviction for armed robbery would give the DA's office an aggravating factor to enable them to seek the death penalty in the murder case. Their petition was successful.
2 3
Thompson v Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (2008) Thompson v Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (2008)
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-2-
Plea bargaining usually involves the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser charge, or to only one of several charges. It may also involve a guilty plea as charged, with the prosecution recommending leniency in sentencing. Many plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, but some may not be e.g., prosecutors may be able to drop charges without court approval in exchange for a "guilty" plea to a lesser offence. 5 Thompson v Cain 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2219
4
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-3-
deliberate further. As a result, Thompson was moved to death row at Louisiana State Penitentiary, which is known colloquially as "Angola". On 7 January 1988, Thompson applied for a rehearing before the Supreme Court of Louisiana. This application was denied. However, justices Calogero and Dennis commented that while they concurred with the majority decision, they would, otherwise, have granted the rehearing for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the Criminal District Court for an evidentiary hearing on two issues. Firstly, that there should be a hearing on the Batson6 issue, namely whether the state had exercised its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory fashion. Secondly, that there should be a hearing to determine whether the hold-out juror, Chaney, had been subjected to pressure to change her vote against the death penalty in open court. Thompson subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was denied. Interestingly, justices Brennan and Marshall dissented and in their dissenting judgments referred to the case of Gregg v Georgia (428 U.S. 153 (1976)) which states that the death penalty is, in all circumstances, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. An application to the US Supreme Court for a rehearing was also denied. On 14 February 1989, Thompson filed an application for post-conviction relief with the trial court. This was denied as the review of the states prosecution file in camera did not suggest that material evidence, which would have been favourable to Thompson, had been withheld from Thompsons attorneys. Thompson filed an application for writ of certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding the trial court s decision to deny his petition for postconviction relief and also filed a number of supplemental petitions for writ of certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the petition in part for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing on the claim that the state prosecution knew, or should have known, that Perkins lied at the trial about any potential benefit he hoped to derive from a reward that was offered by the murder victims family. Furthermore, it was argued that the state had done nothing to correct the witnesss testimony to disavow any motive or bias. Thompson was unsuccessful in appealing for a reconsideration of the order which denied the rest of his claim.
An Evidentiary Hearing
On 23 June 1995, the trial court held the evidentiary hearing as ordered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The hearing was presided over by the same judge, Patrick Q. Quinlan, who had sat on Thompson's original trial. The court agreed to enlarge the scope of evidence for consideration to include the question of whether Kenneth Carr had lied about his knowledge of the reward offer at trial. Frank Maselli, a friend of the Liuzza family, acted as the administrator of the reward fund. He testified at the hearing that he gave a statement to the press regarding the reward and that its existence was broadcast on mainstream media. He also stated that no distributions were
6
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-4-
made from the fund until after the trial. Maselli and Perkins both testified that no promise of payment was made to Perkins prior to the trial. At the time of the hearing, Carr was incarcerated and was, therefore, unable to testify. He provided Thompson's attorneys with a sworn affidavit in which he stated that he was told by police detectives that if he testified he could claim the entire $15,000 reward offered by the Liuzza family. The affidavit was discredited by the court on the basis that both Maselli and Detective Curole, the police detective who Maselli alleged told him about the reward, denied in open court that Carr was promised a reward prior to trial. There was no evidence presented to support the claim that Perkins received a reward from "Crime Stoppers". The court reviewed the original trial transcripts which revealed that the defence counsel had raised the issue of the reward money during the trial, but had not pursued questioning the witnesses about it despite having the opportunity to do so.
-5-
According to the US Supreme Court decision in Brady v Maryland (373 U.S. 83 (1963)), it is a violation of due process to suppress evidence which is material to the guilt/punishment of a defendant, regardless of the prosecutor's intentions. Thompson's attorneys specifically identified seven items which had not been made available to them before or during the trial, which they argued were exculpatory. They also claimed that had they been presented to the jury, it was reasonably probable that Thompson would not have been found guilty of Liuzzas murder. The US District Court noted that the trial court had reviewed these documents in 1992 and did not find that any evidence favourable to Thompson had been suppressed during his original trial. Further, the US District Court did not consider the inquiry into the split of the jury during the sentencing phase, and the subsequent instruction to continue deliberations for a reasonable period to be coercive. Unfortunately, the evidence relating to this issue was based largely on the trial transcripts, which did not provide a description of how Chaney was clearly identified as the only juror opposed to delivering a death sentence. The transcript did reflect, however, that on return with the ultimate verdict, Chaney clearly and audibly answered "yes" when the jury was polled about the death sentence they had chosen to impose. Article 61 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, provides the DAs office with broad powers to determine how and when it can prosecute relevant suspects. The US District Court held, therefore, that it was within the DA's discretion to try Thompson for the attempted armed robbery first and, as such, the decision to reverse the trial dates for the two charges was not an abuse of due process in the murder trial. The US District Court handed down their opinion on 24 February 1997, denying the application and refusing an evidentiary hearing. They held that: (1) The totality of evidence did not support Thompson's claims that the jury's decision may have been different had they seen the withheld evidence; and (2) There was nothing in the record to indicate the trial had been rendered fundamentally unfair. After Thompson filed a Notice of Appeal on 16 May 1997, an appeal was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the basis that Thompson argued there had been a violation of his constitutional rights under Brady v Maryland. On 27 October 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the US District Court before it and held that there was no Brady violation in the original trial. This particular appeal centred on the issue relating to payment of a reward offered by the Liuzza family for information leading to the capture of the murderer. Thompson found that the state possessed no fewer than nine specific items of evidence regarding the reward which were favourable to his defence. The items hidden by the state included a police report which revealed that Carr had requested the reward from Crime Stoppers. The withheld evidence also revealed that Perkins had met with the Liuzza family in person. As a result, the defence could have been able to impeach the testimony of state witnesses, Perkins and Carr, had such information not been withheld. The Court of Appeals dismissed Thompsons claims on the basis that the existence of the arrangement with the Liuzza family was never established as fact; none of the materials relating to Perkins were in and of themselves exculpatory; and, therefore, the materials were not proper impeachment evidence regarding Perkins.
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-6-
It was the view of the Court of Appeals that the error came from defence counsels lack of rigour on cross-examination rather than the fact that Perkins or Carrs testimonies were actually false. Thompson later proved that Perkins had indeed made arrangements with the Liuzza family to receive a reward in exchange for his testimony at trial, giving him the motive to testify falsely. Thompsons attorneys further argued that the Criminal District Court had acted improperly by asking questions regarding the numerical division of the jury during the penalty phase, which led to the open identification of Chaney as the lone hold-out juror. Chaney's post-trial affidavit on this subject further emphasised her emotional reaction and her distress at feeling pressured to change her verdict. According to Thompsons attorneys, the Criminal District Court showed a flagrant disregard of its responsibility to insulate jurors from coercion which rendered the sentence fundamentally unfair. The Court of Appeals maintained that no-one improperly influenced Chaneys verdict given that the jury unanimously decided to continue its deliberation. Finally, Thompson contended that his trial court attorneys were ineffective at the guilt phase of the trial, in particular by failing to introduce important eye witness testimony about the gunman who fled the scene as well as testimony regarding Thompsons own physical appearance on the night in question. Thompson maintained he had long hair on the night of the murder and noted the eyewitness testimony at trial (referred to above) that the person he saw fleeing the murder scene had short hair. Furthermore, several police reports containing eyewitness descriptions of the murderer which did not match Thompsons description were not disclosed to the defence. The Court of Appeals found that there was no attorney error. In the fourteen years following his murder conviction, Thompson had exhausted all of his appeals. On 20 May 1999 the day before his son would graduate from high school Thompson was scheduled to die by lethal injection. Thompson's appeal attorneys, Michael Banks and J. Gordon Cooney, told him that nothing short of a miracle could save him now. Within weeks of the execution date, incredibly, that miracle came.
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-7-
Banks and Cooney presented this information to the DAs office. The DAs office moved for a stay of execution on the basis of potential prosecutorial misconduct. In the ensuing investigation, Deegans confession to Riehlmann was uncovered. As a result, Riehlmann faced disciplinary proceedings for withholding the information. He received a brief suspension for his inaction. On 29 June 1999, 14 years after the prosecution first obtained the hidden evidence, the armed robbery conviction was quashed and Thompson was removed from death row. When the hidden evidence first surfaced, prosecutor John Jerry Glas urged Harry Connick, the DA at the time, to convene a grand jury to investigate. The same prosecutors had been involved in both the armed robbery and the murder cases. Connick called off the investigation and dismissed the grand jury when it became apparent just how many people had been involved in the cover up, although the reason he gave publically was that the statute of limitations had run out. Shortly thereafter, Glas resigned.
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-8-
Thompson's life was saved, but had it not been for his death sentence, he would not have been entitled to legal representation to fight his appeals. He might never have been freed and might still be in prison to this day for a crime that he had not committed. "I was lucky" Thompson says, "But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent"7.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-9-
Sadly, it seems that this is a culture that persists. Almost ten years after Thompson's exoneration, a man who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Orleans Parish had his death sentence overturned and was given a new trial because his lawyers found that the prosecutors had deliberately hidden evidence which cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Following the decision in Thompson's case, commentators across the US, and around the world, have asked how prosecutors can be held accountable for deliberate misconduct and negligent mistakes. If prosecutors cannot be personally liable and the prosecutor's office cannot be held liable, what is there to encourage prosecutors to do the right thing? Kirk Bloodsworth, who spent two years on Marylands death row, remarked on the Thompson decision: "Its sad for America that we allow court officers to inflict the most harmful of all errors upon us with glib and cavalier intent to only win. Justice in that event always loses."8
8 9
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Holding_Prosecutors_Accountable.php http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/free_after_18_years_on_death_r.html
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-10-
Sources
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-03-29/politics/35207094_1_chief-prosecutor-thompsondeath-row http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/September/Killing-Time-Resurrecting-Death-RowsExonerated/ http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/PR-DPIC108.pdf http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/death-row-phenomenon.cfm http://www.echoinggreen.org/fellows/john-thompson http://harvardcrcl.org/2011/04/02/clarence-thomas-to-wrongfully-convicted-louisiana-death-rowinmate-you-get-nothing/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/locke-bowman/a-supreme-miscalculation-_b_844991.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/my-life-after-death-row-by-man-cleared-ofmurder-1802606.html http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Holding_Prosecutors_Accountable.php http://www.jdsupra.com/documents/219a419b-9a34-4da9-8659-df8842a8d368.pdf http://liberty504.tripod.com/ http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/free_after_18_years_on_death_r.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& http://www.r-a-e.org/programs/services http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/04/new_orleans_district_attorney_leo n_cannizzaro_is_being_questioned_for_his_ethics_in_pursuing_convictions_.html http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf http://thelensnola.org/2012/08/02/moseley-on-exoneree-compensation/ http://www.truthinjustice.org/John-Thompson.htm http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/supreme-court/the-myth-ofprosecutorial-accountability-after-connick-v.-thompson:-why-existing-professional-responsibilitymeasures-cannot-protect-against-prosecutorial-misconduct/ Slate Magazine, Innocent on Death Row by John Hollway dated 5 October 2010 Louisiana v Thompson 516 So. 2d 349 (1987) Thompson v Cain 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2219 Thompson v Cain 161 F.3d 802 (1998) Thompson v Cain 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 329 Louisiana v Thompson 825 So. 2d 552 (2002) Thompson v Connick 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36499 Thompson v Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (2008)
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-11-
Chronology
JOHN THOMPSON
6 December 1984 Raymond T. Liuzza Jr. is robbed and shot five times outside his New Orleans home. He dies in hospital. The Liuzza family subsequently offer a reward of $15,000 for information regarding the murder. Jay, Marie and Michael LaGarde are victims of an attempted armed robbery. Crime scene technicians take a swatch of Jay's clothing with the perpetrator's blood on it. New Orleans police interview Junior Lee Harris, who is in possession of the murder weapon and Liuzza's gold ring. He claims that he bought the items from Richard Perkins. John Thompson and Kevin Freeman are arrested and charged with Liuzza's murder. Pictures of Thompson and Freeman are published in the Times-Picayune newspaper. The LaGardes positively identify Thompson from the photo in the newspaper as the man who committed the attempted armed robbery. The District Attorneys (DA) office arranges for the timing of the armed robbery trial and the murder trial to be reversed. In a hearing relating to the armed robbery case, the prosecution notes: "It's the state's intention to file a motion to take a blood sample from the defendant, and we will file that motion have a criminalist here on the 27th." Thompson writes a letter to "Big Daddy Red" requesting assistance in preventing Perkins from testifying. Bruce Whittaker, of the DA's office, receives a crime lab report stating that the armed robbery perpetrator's blood type was type B. The armed robbery case is prosecuted by James Williams and Gerry Deegan. Deegan checks all of the evidence apart from the bloodied swatch of Jay LaGardes clothing into the court property room. Thompson is found guilty and sentenced to forty nine and a half years in prison. Thompson is tried and convicted of the Liuzza murder by Eric Dublier and Williams. During sentencing, the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict. After identifying the stand-alone juror, Leola Chaney, the jury deliberate further and decide to sentence Thompson to death. Thompson appeals the verdict and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The appeal is denied. Thompson is moved to death row at Louisiana State Penitentiary. Thompson makes an application for a rehearing to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The application is denied. Appeal to the Supreme Court of the US is denied.
28 December 1984
December 1984
17 January 1985
11 March 1985
30 November 1987
3 October 1988
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One for Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-1-
28 November 1988
Application to the US Supreme Court for rehearing is denied, exhausting Thompsons direct appeal. Thompson files an application for post-conviction relief with the trial court. Trial court denies the application stating that they were satisfied that "no material evidence favourable to the petitioner was withheld." Thompson files an application for writ of certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding the trial court's decision to deny his petition for post-conviction relief. Three supplemental petitions for writ of certiorari are filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court over the following year. Deegan confesses to a friend that he intentionally withheld the blood evidence. The Louisiana Supreme Court issues an order granting Thompson's petition in part. The case is remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing in relation to the testimony of Perkins and a reward ($15,000) offered by the victim's family. Supreme Court of Louisiana denies Thompson's appeal for reconsideration of the previous Order of 23 September 1994 denying part of his claim. An evidentiary hearing is held in the trial court including whether Kenneth Carr, who had been a witness for the prosecution in the original trial, also lied about his knowledge of a potential reward from the victims family. The trial court finds that the issue of reward money was made known to the defence, mentioned at trial. Application for post-conviction relief is denied. Date of execution set for 1 November 1995. The Supreme Court of Louisiana orders the trial court to refrain from resetting the execution date until the denial of the post-conviction application is reviewed. Louisiana Supreme Court denies the supplement to the application for writ of certiorari. Reconsideration of denial is also denied. A warrant of execution is signed by the trial court setting the date of execution for 28 July 1996. District Court stays warrant for execution pending further Orders. Petition for Habeas Corpus to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is denied. Stay of execution lifted. Stay of execution for the 25 April 1997 execution date is granted pending motion for reconsideration. US District Court denies Thompson's request for reconsideration of the court's decision on 24 February 1997.
23 September 1994
4 November 1994
23 June 1995
19 September 1995
17 October 1995
25 April 1996
19 March 1997
17 April 1997
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One for Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-2-
16 May 1997
Thompson files a Notice of Appeal. The US District Court grants him a certificate of "appealability". US Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the US District Court concluding that there was no Brady (i.e. the due process requirement of disclosure of exculpatory evidence to defence counsel) violation and that Chaney was not forced or coerced into continuing deliberations. An execution date is set for 26 January 1999. Thompson petitions to the effect that there is a stay in place until time for him to file a writ of certiorari lapses on 1 March 1999. A motion filed by the state to vacate the stay Order entered on 19 March 1997 is denied. Stay of execution extended to allow time for Thompson to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Execution date set for 20 May 1999. Thompson's lawyers, Michael Banks and J. Gordon Cooney, meet with Assistant DAs and are provided with documents relating to the blood evidence from the attempted armed robbery case. A private investigator discovers a microfiche copy of the DAs crime laboratory report containing the blood type of the armed robbery perpetrator. The perpetrator's blood is not a match against Thompson. The trial court stays the 20 May 1999 execution based on a joint petition from Thompson and the DA. Deegan's confession regarding withholding blood evidence is disclosed. Thompson discovers additional evidence that had been withheld by the prosecution including inconsistent statements made by Paul Schliffka, who had been an eyewitness to the crime and provided testimony for the prosecution in the original trial. It is also revealed that Perkins received a monetary award from the Liuzza family for identifying the murderer. The court overturns the attempted armed robbery conviction based on the exculpatory blood tests. Thompson files an application for post-conviction relief based on the use of the wrongful armed robbery conviction in the murder trial. The trial court convenes a hearing in relation to Thompson's application for post -conviction relief. The trial court reverses Thompson's death sentence but does not award him a re-trial. Thompson appeals to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The case is remanded for a new trial. An appeal from the state to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding the Court of Appeal's decision is denied.
27 October 1998
December 1998
6 January 1999
2 May 1999
1999 1999
29 June 1999
22 December 1999
26 October 2000
26 May 2001
17 July 2002
15 November 2002
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One for Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-3-
9 May 2003
Thompson is retried for the Liuzza murder. The jury returns a verdict of not guilty within 35 minutes. Thompson is released from prison. Thompson files a civil suit against the Orleans Parish DAs office, Connick, Williams, Dubelier and Eddie Jordan (the DA in 2003) for malicious prosecution and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, wrongful suppression of exculpatory evidence and conspiracy. The defendants file a motion for summary judgment. The motion is denied in part (malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and granted in part. Motion by Thompson to exclude expert report of Edward Morse and to preclude his testimony at trial is granted as to testimony concerning guilt or innocence and denied in remainder. Motion to dismiss filed by the defendants is denied. Thompson receives a two year fellowship from the Echoing Green Foundation to support the building of Resurrection After Exoneration. The jury decides that the harm inflicted on Thompson was not caused by an official policy, but by a deliberately indifferent failure to establish policies and procedures. They award Thompson 14 million in damages. Defendant's appeal to the US District Court is denied. US District Court awards Thompson attorney fees in the amount of $1,031,841.79, expert fees in the amount of $90,916.61 and costs in the amount of $43,419.05. US Court of Appeal reverse in part relating to the naming of non-liable parties in the judgment. US Court of Appeal grants rehearing on appeal by Thompson of the 19 December 2008 decision. US Court of Appeal affirms the decision of the US District Court. US Supreme Court agree to hear appeal by the defendants from the US Court of Appeal. US Supreme Court motion for former federal civil rights officials and prosecutors to participate in oral arguments is denied. Oral arguments are heard in the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court reverses the decision of the US District Court, stating that the DA's Office was absolutely immune from being sued. Thompson was not awarded anything for spending 18 years in prison, 14 of which were on death row.
16 July 2003
15 November 2005
16 November 2005
19 December 2008
11 March 2009
28 September 2010
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One for Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.
-4-
Case Summary
JOHN THOMPSON
On the evening of 6 December 1984, Raymond T Liuzza was shot five times outside of his home in New Orleans. The perpetrator took Liuzza's gold signet ring before fleeing the scene. There were a number of eyewitnesses to the event. A couple of weeks later, three siblings were the victims of an attempted armed robbery. The eldest, Jay LaGarde, struggled with the perpetrator, and some of the perpetrator's blood stained his trousers. During their investigation, the police found the murder weapon and gold signet ring, which were linked back to John Thompson. The police also received tips through both Crime Stoppers and the Luizza family, following their public offer of a $15,000 reward, which lead them to consider Thompson as the main suspect in the murder case. Thompson was subsequently arrested and his photo was released to the media. After seeing his photograph in the local newspaper, the LaGardes identified Thompson as the perpetrator in the attempted armed robbery. Thompson was charged separately with both the murder and the attempted armed robbery. The District Attorney (DA) successfully managed to reschedule the trial dates of each case so that Thompson would be tried for the armed robbery first. This would allow the prosecutors to use this conviction to impeach Thompson if he testified during the murder trial, and as an aggravating factor in order to obtain a death sentence should he be found guilty of the murder. Thompson was convicted of both the attempted armed robbery, for which he received 49 years, and the murder, for which he received a death sentence. In 1999, 14 years after his conviction, an investigator uncovered evidence which revealed that the DAs office had tested the blood of Jay LaGarde's trousers prior to the attempted robbery trial and learned that the blood type was Type B. This matched neither Jay LaGarde nor Thompson. The DAs office had deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence regarding the crime which had, in a large part, secured Thompson's death sentence. The US Supreme Court declared, in the case of Brady v Maryland (1963), that it is a violation of due process to suppress evidence which is material to the guilt and/or punishment of a defendant. Thompson's attorneys found ten separate pieces of evidence (that could have been used to prevent this injustice) which the DAs office had withheld from Thompson's defence. It took a further four years for Thompson to be granted a re-trial. His attorneys were able to use evidence which had not previously been made available to them, including testimony from various eye-witnesses stating that Thompson was not responsible for the murder and inconsistent police statements which discredited the state's eyewitnesses. Thompsons attorneys successfully secured a "not guilty" verdict after only 35 minutes of jury deliberation. Thompson was released after 18 years in prison, 14 of which had been spent on death row, for crimes he had not committed. After his release, Thompson filed a civil suit against the DAs office and the jury awarded him $14million. However, the US Supreme Court later overturned the award. While they acknowledged the misdoings of the prosecutors, they held that the office could not be held responsible for the misdeeds of an individual employee. Thompson was awarded no compensation for the years he spent in prison as an innocent man. Thompson went on to set up a charitable organisation called Resurrection After Exoneration, to help exonerees like himself adjust to life outside of prison and to assist in appeals against prosecutorial misconduct.
Work completed by Allen & Overy LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One for Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of either Allen & Overy LLP or any individual partner of Allen & Overy LLP.