Footnotes (499)



Prosecutorial Accountability after Connick v. Thompson

George A. Weiss

affiliation not provided to SSRN

May 12, 2011

60 Drake Law Review 199

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

Open PDF in Browser 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: 771
Downloads: 124
Download Rank: 152,910
Footnotes:  499

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.297 seconds