Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Larry Thompson: Brooklyn; (Only marks on child turned out to be diaper rash! Case makes important new ground for defendants in US Supreme Court) HL. Malicious Prosecution: Bulletin: Major (Welcome) Development: US Supreme Court makes it easier to sue police and the government for malicious prosecution when charges are later dropped by ruling that in order to sue - by ruling that a defendant doesn't have to be found not guilty by a judge or jury and prosecutors don't have to state that they wrongly filed charges. It’s enough, the court said, if the charges are simply dismissed. Reporter Pete Williams. NBC News..."The ruling was a victory for a Brooklyn man, Larry Thompson, who was arrested after a relative who was staying in his apartment called 911 and claimed Thompson was sexually abusing his newborn daughter. When the police arrived, he said they couldn’t come in without a warrant. They barged in anyway and handcuffed him after a brief scuffle. The baby was taken to a hospital for evaluation, but the only marks on the child turned out to be diaper rash. The relative who called 911 “apparently suffered from a mental illness,” court records said. Even so, Thompson was charged with resisting arrest and kept in jail for two days. The prosecutor then dropped the charges, and the judge dismissed the case — both without explanation."


STORY: "Supreme Court makes it easier to sue police when criminal charges are dropped," by Reporter Pete Williams, published by NBC News on April 4, 2022. (Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.)


SUB-HEADING: "In order to sue, a defendant doesn't have to be found not guilty by a judge or jury, and prosecutors don't have to state that they wrongly filed charges."


GIST: "The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier to sue police and the government for malicious prosecution when charges are later dropped.


In a 6-3 ruling, the court said that in order to sue, a defendant doesn't have to be found not guilty by a judge or jury and prosecutors don't have to state that they wrongly filed charges. It’s enough, the court said, if the charges are simply dismissed.


“The question of whether a criminal defendant was wrongly charged does not logically depend on whether the prosecutor or court explained why the prosecution was dismissed,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court’s majority.


The ruling was a victory for a Brooklyn man, Larry Thompson, who was arrested after a relative who was staying in his apartment called 911 and claimed Thompson was sexually abusing his newborn daughter.


When the police arrived, he said they couldn’t come in without a warrant. They barged in anyway and handcuffed him after a brief scuffle. The baby was taken to a hospital for evaluation, but the only marks on the child turned out to be diaper rash.

The relative who called 911 “apparently suffered from a mental illness,” court records said.


Even so, Thompson was charged with resisting arrest and kept in jail for two days. The prosecutor then dropped the charges, and the judge dismissed the case — both without explanation.


Thompson sued, claiming malicious prosecution and violation of his constitutional rights. He prevailed before a federal trial judge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that such a claim can succeed only when a case ends with some affirmative indication of innocence.


The Supreme Court on Monday said that ruling was mistaken. Dissenting, Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said the court was wrong to validate Thompson’s claim under the Fourth Amendment.


 They said the elements of a malicious prosecution are wholly different than the constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure and called Thomas' lawsuit “a hybrid claim of uncertain scope.”


Marie Miller, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Thompson’s behalf. She said the court’s decision "rightly rejected an additional shield for government officials who have violated constitutional rights.”


Such a shield “flipped the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty on its head," Miller said. "It also incentivized prosecutors to charge people with crimes they did not commit to shield officers from liability.”


The entire story can be read at:


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-makes-easier-sue-police-criminal-charges-are-dropped-rcna22844


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;



SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:




FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

—————————————————————————————————

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project'