Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1840083
 
 

Footnotes (499)



 


 



Prosecutorial Accountability after Connick v. Thompson


George A. Weiss


affiliation not provided to SSRN

May 12, 2011

60 Drake Law Review 199

Abstract:     
Both recent Supreme Court decisions such as Van de Kamp v. Goldstein and Connick v. Thompson, as well as newspaper incidents such as the prosecutorial misconduct of Michael Nifong and the prosecutor of the Ted Stevens case, have brought renewed attention to the issue of prosecutorial accountability. Though many have, in the past, lamented or tired to measure prosecutorial misconduct, this article argues that the theory of the Connick case (failure to train prosecutors liability under section 1983), while failing to in itself represent a new method of accountability), can be tweaked in favor of a theory (failure to respond and discipline prosecutors), which is both legally and politically viable.

(copyright retained by Drake Law Review permission for posting on SSRN received)

Number of Pages in PDF File: 64

Keywords: 1983, Prosecutors, Official Misconduct, Nifong, Conncik v. Thompson

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: May 13, 2011 ; Last revised: April 3, 2012

Suggested Citation

Weiss, George A., Prosecutorial Accountability after Connick v. Thompson (May 12, 2011). 60 Drake Law Review 199. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1840083

Contact Information

George A. Weiss (Contact Author)
affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 703
Downloads: 121
Download Rank: 138,912
Footnotes:  499

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.328 seconds