A supreme injustice

Saturday, April 16, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

John Thompson maintained his innocence as he spent 18 years in a Louisiana prison — 14 on death row. But it was a tough sell. He had little evidence to support his claim and he had been tried twice — once for armed robbery, once for murder — and he was convicted both times. And the appeals courts upheld his convictions.

In April 1999, the attorneys handling Thompson’s appeals met with him to deliver the bad news: His appeals were exhausted and — barring a miracle — he would be executed the following month.

But while Thompson and his attorneys were meeting, a private investigator found the miracle that would lead to Thompson’s vindication.

Searching through microfiche stored in a crime lab, she found a report that analyzed blood found in the robbery case that came from either the robber or the victim. The blood didn’t match either Thompson or the victim.

Thompson’s attorneys were stunned. During the trial and the appeals, prosecutors denied the existence of the report. And that wasn’t all prosecutors hadn’t disclosed. They withheld much more — evidence, reports and the names of witnesses — that would have undercut their case.

As a result, a judge threw out the convictions. Prosecutors tried Thompson again for murder, but a jury — seeing all the evidence — quickly acquitted him.

After being released, Thompson sued the district attorney in federal court for violating his rights by withholding evidence. The law allows such lawsuits if a prosecutor’s office shows a pattern of failing to turn over evidence.

A federal jury awarded Thompson $14 million, which the district attorney’s office, which was liable to pay, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision last month, the Supreme Court overturned the jury verdict and minimized the case.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas dismissed the case, arguing that any failure to disclose evidence was limited to a single prosecutor. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a tart concurring opinion to disagree with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, unbelievably suggested that prosecutors didn’t need to turn over the blood analysis report, figuring if they didn’t know Thompson’s blood type, then they didn’t know whether the report would help his case. Thus, there was no reason to disclose it.

Ginsburg noted the absurdity of those arguments. Regarding Thomas’ claim, Ginsburg noted that the record showed a clear pattern of failure in the district attorney’s office. At least five prosecutors didn’t turn over evidence in Thompson’s case, and there were several other cases in which defendants, including those on death row, had their sentences reduced or thrown out because of misconduct in the district attorney’s office or a failure to turn over evidence.

And Ginsburg said if Scalia’s view of disclosure would create a “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the law — prosecutors wouldn’t have to let the facts get in the way of their cases.

Sadly, the court’s decision compounds the injustice dealt to Thompson, allowing a district attorney’s office that violated defendants’ constitutional rights to duck responsibility. By ignoring the fact that Thompson — and others — could have been executed because prosecutors hid evidence, the court’s dismissive ruling tarnishes Americans’ concept of justice.