HUFFINGTON
08.04.13
AP PHOTO/STATESMAN.COM, RICARDO BRAZZIELL, POOL
THE UNTOUCHABLES
to call to testify in his defense,
which not only violated the rights
of those witnesses, but also made
it impossible for Cousin’s attorneys to find them so that they
could testify. The court acknowledged that if true, this would be
an egregious and malicious example of misconduct. But because
it was done in pursuit of Cousin’s
conviction, it was still “prosecutorial in nature, and therefore
shielded by absolute immunity.”
The court then turned to Cousin’s other hope to collect: his argument that the policies and practic-
es in Connick’s office had created
a culture of indifference about
disclosing exculpatory evidence.
Despite the dozen-plus cases of
misconduct cited by Cousin’s attorneys, the court ruled against
him. According to the opinion,
Cousin’s “citation to a small number of cases, out of thousands handled over twenty-five years” wasn’t
enough to show a pattern or practice of deliberate indifference.
That analysis is likely flawed.
“A Brady violation is by definition
a cover-up,” says Banks, the attorney for Thompson. “So we only
know about the violations that
have been exposed.”
Emily Maw, director of the
Ken
Anderson,
a former
district
attorney from
Texas, chokes
back tears as
he recalls a
prosecution
that
wrongfully
sent a man to
prison for 25
years.