Why Should a Person Wrongly Convicted Be Required To Sue For Compensation?

The Supreme Court has reversed a $14 million jury verdict in favor of John Thompson who served 18 years in prison (14 of them on death row) for crimes that he did not commit. The verdict was based upon prosecutorial misconduct, and indeed, the prosecution admitted that it had failed to turn over exculpatory evidence in violation of the applicable law and the duty imposed upon prosecutors. Because of the narrow window for compensation in such matters, Mr. Thompson was compelled to allege and prove that the prosecutor had failed to properly train his assistants. The Supreme Court, in essence, concluded that the claim could not survive because one violation of the duty to turn-over exculpatory evidence did not meet the standard necessary to establish a failure to train. Thus Mr. Thompson was left without compensation for his 18 years in prison primarily caused by the prosecutor's misconduct. The dissent argued that the standard had been met and cited the repeated failures and repeated misconduct of the office.

But I look at this case and ask: why should a person who has been wrongly convicted, declared innocent, acquitted and exonerated have to prove anything? Shouldn't that be enough to entitle the person to compensation? Why should Mr. Thompson have to prove not only that he was imprisoned for 18 years largely due to the misconduct of the prosecutor, but that somehow that misconduct was the result of some failure to teach the assistants in that office what the law requires! Compensation should be granted automatically in such circumstances by law.

More...