Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Prosecutorial Accountability after Connick v. Thompson

64 Pages Posted: 13 May 2011 Last revised: 3 Apr 2012

George A. Weiss

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: May 12, 2011


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)

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

Suggested Citation

Weiss, George A., Prosecutorial Accountability after Connick v. Thompson (May 12, 2011). 60 Drake Law Review 199. Available at SSRN:

George A. Weiss (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

Paper statistics

Abstract Views