Connick v. Thompson

What Happened

John Thompson spent 18 years in a Louisiana prison — 14 of them on death row — for crimes he didn’t commit. In 1985, New Orleans prosecutors tried him for armed robbery and then, weeks later, for murder. The robbery conviction was critical: it was used to prevent Thompson from testifying in his own defense at the murder trial, because prosecutors threatened to impeach him with the prior conviction. He was convicted of both and sentenced to death.

One month before Thompson’s scheduled execution, his private investigator discovered that prosecutors had hidden a crime lab report that tested blood evidence from the robbery scene. The blood type didn’t match Thompson’s. An assistant DA, Gerry Deegan, had obtained the report and hid it. On his deathbed in 1994, Deegan confessed to another prosecutor, Michael Riehlmann — who did nothing for five years. When the evidence finally surfaced, Thompson’s robbery conviction was vacated, which led to reversal of the murder conviction. At retrial, the jury found him not guilty.

Thompson sued then-District Attorney Harry Connick and the DA’s office under § 1983, alleging a Monell failure-to-train theory. The jury awarded $14 million. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed 5-4. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, holding that Thompson had not proved a Monell failure-to-train claim because a single Brady violation cannot, by itself, put a district attorney’s office on notice that its training was deficient.

The Court applied the framework from City of Canton v. Harris (1989): failure to train creates municipal liability only when the failure reflects “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights. Deliberate indifference “ordinarily” requires “a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees.”

Thompson had argued the “single-incident” exception from Canton — that a constitutional violation is so predictable that failing to train is necessarily deliberate indifference. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Brady obligations are too nuanced and fact-specific to make violations “so patently obvious that a city could be liable… based on the single occurrence of a Brady violation.”

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, joined by three justices, argued that the evidence demonstrated “persistent, deliberately indifferent conduct” regarding Brady obligations in the Orleans Parish DA’s office.

What It Means in Practice

Connick makes it very hard to hold prosecutors’ offices (and by extension, police departments) liable for failure to train based on Brady violations. You essentially need:

1. A pattern of prior similar violations that put the entity on notice, OR
2. The rare “single-incident” exception — which the Court defined very narrowly for Brady.

The decision has broader implications for all failure-to-train claims under Monell. It reinforces that “deliberate indifference” is a high bar and that single incidents are generally insufficient absent a documented pattern.

For civil rights plaintiffs, this means you need to invest heavily in discovering prior incidents. Public records requests, prior lawsuits, citizen complaints, and internal affairs records become critical to establishing the pattern.

How You Can Use It

• Pattern evidence: If you can document multiple prior similar violations, Connick supports your claim. The pattern establishes deliberate indifference — the municipality knew its training was inadequate and did nothing.
• Distinguish from Brady context: Connick’s narrow holding was about prosecutors and Brady. For other training failures — especially use of force — the “single-incident” exception may have more traction. “Connick’s reasoning was specific to the complexity of Brady obligations; here, [describe how the violation was predictable].”
• Use the dissent: Justice Ginsburg’s dissent documents what a pattern looks like and how a “zero training” approach constitutes deliberate indifference. Courts sympathetic to plaintiffs may look to this as persuasive.
• Template: “Unlike in Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), where only a single Brady incident was proven, Plaintiff has identified [number] prior incidents of [similar violation], establishing the pattern of deliberate indifference necessary for Monell liability.”

How It Can Be Used Against You

• “No pattern, no claim”: Defendants will cite Connick for the bright-line rule that a single incident is insufficient for failure-to-train liability. Without prior similar violations, your Monell claim fails.
• Training program existence: If the entity can point to any training on the relevant topic, defendants will argue that the entity was not deliberately indifferent — even if the training was inadequate.
• Complexity defense: Defendants will argue, as the Court did for Brady, that constitutional obligations are complex and that “an incorrect entry-level legal judgment” does not prove a training failure.

How to counter: Request discovery on all prior complaints, lawsuits, settlements, and internal investigations involving similar conduct. Use FOIA/public records requests for training materials, curricula, and attendance records. Show that the entity either had no training on the relevant topic, or that its training was so inadequate that violations were predictable and persistent.