A pattern of similar constitutional (Brady) violations by untrained employees was necessary to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of a failure to train claim.

The District Attorney's office conceded that, in prosecuting the former prisoner for attempted armed robbery, prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that should have been turned over to the defense under Brady v. Maryland. The plaintiff's convictions were vacated after an appeals court determined that the state withheld a blood type test that was exculpatory. At a retrial for the murder, the jury found the former prisoner not guilty. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed this law suit. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the District Attorney's position that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the former prisoner failed to prove that the District Attorney was on actual or constructive notice of, and therefore deliberately indifferent to, a need for more or different Brady training. A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees was necessary to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of a failure to train claim. Because other Brady violations were not similar, these violations failed to put the District Attorney on notice that specific Brady training was necessary.

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011