It comes under the heading called a
Monell claim. This may help explain, I probably was not too clear.
Read the whole Syllabus:
But (b), that explains better.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/378/
While I was reading the sylllabus, it made me more aware why we have D.A.’s. Those things are written by lawyers for lawyers. No normal or common person should be expected to understand the reading or the reasoning behind the ruling. The first few lines kind of pretty much explained the reasoning behind the lawsuit.
In the Oklahoma City lawsuit, I had to wonder how do the courts expect law officers to be able to define or even apply the acts of law that are mentioned in the suit? This is the reason why law enforcement only act as they are trained. Law enforcement has the authority to arrest, but the D.A.’s make the decision as to whether to prosecute or not. Not everything in law is black and white.
This is why law enforcement officials go by the theory that to know the law is important, but to be able to interpret the law is more important. Officers will run into a case where they will have to present their evidence to the D.A. and they make the decision whether to prosecute (file charges) or not.
I think this U.S. where juries tend to mess up when reaching a verdict. I read a case yesterday where the defendant’s plea was not guilty by reason of insanity. His counsel presented 6 different psychiatrists that examined his client and they all agreed that he suffered from a mental illness, which I forget at the moment. However, on cross examination, the Prosecutor used language that I didn’t completely understand.
When it came time for the jury to announce their verdict, they found the defendant guilty. After the trial, the reporter asked the foreperson how they reached their verdict of not guilty since all of the psychiatrists agreed that the defendant did suffer from mental illness. The foreperson stated that the jury members didn’t think the mental illness was enough to make them believe that the defendant wasn’t guilty because he suffered from a mental illness because when the prosecutor asked the psychiatrists if they thought his illness affected his actions at the time he committed the assault, they were split, 3-3.
The case went to the Superior Court in PA and the verdict was overturned and sent back to he state court for retrial. The Superior Court called the verdict biased because the jury based their verdict on a single fact. Does that make sense?
