Usually it is Harry Connick Jr. of New Orleans who is making the most news in his family. He's won several Grammys as well as an Emmy, and has appeared in numerous films. This time it was his dad, Harry Connick Sr., who was the subject of a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The elder Connick was the District Attorney in New Orleans when John Thompson was charged with murdering another man. The publicity led to victims of an armed robbery identifying him as their attacker. Thompson was first convicted of attempted armed robbery, and then tried for the murder.

Because he had been convicted of attempted armed robbery, Thompson did not take the witness stand in his own defense against the murder charge, as that would have resulted in the jury learning about his conviction for attempted armed robbery. Information about a prior conviction can taint a jury into assuming that if a defendant broke the law once, then he probably broke it again.

Thompson was convicted of the murder, sentenced to death, and spent 14 years on death row trying to stave off his execution.

One month before Thompson was scheduled to be put death, after many unsuccessful legal challenges, his investigator discovered new evidence that had never been provided to his defense. A fabric found from the scene of the armed robbery contained type B blood, while Thompson's blood type was O. Had the jury in the armed robbery trial known this, they might have acquitted him; and if Thompson had been acquitted in the first trial, he would have likely taken the witness stand in the second trial, and possibly been acquitted there also. Both convictions were thus overturned due to withholding this evidence.

Thompson was then retried for the murder. He took the witness stand in his defense, and was acquitted. There was evidence that a former assistant district attorney had intentionally withheld the evidence from Thompson, which constitutes a "Brady violation." Prosecutors are supposed to turn over all exculpatory evidence to defendants so they may use it in their defense.

Thompson then sued several prosecutors. Harry Connick Sr. was one of the defendants based on Thompson's theory that Connick failed to train the prosecutors who worked under him, to prevent this type of violation from occurring. Thompson won a jury verdict of $14 million.

The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which then went en banc to reconsider. In another surprise, the Fifth Circuit Justices split 4-4. Next stop was the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas wrote a 5-4 decision, split along conservative-liberal lines, to reverse the $14 million award because there was no known pattern of this type of violation in Connick's office. Connick v. Thompson, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2594 (U.S. Mar. 29, 2011). Connick and the New Orleans government could not be held liable for an alleged failure to train based on a single instance of this type of misconduct. Rather, "Thompson needed to show that Connick was on notice that, absent additional specified training, it was 'highly predictable' that the prosecutors in his office would be confounded by those gray areas and make incorrect Brady decisions as a result."

Several successful movies have been made about death row inmates who exonerate themselves. Perhaps Harry Connick Jr. can make a cameo appearance if this one makes it to the screen.