After 14 years on Louisiana's death row, John Thompson had one month to live when he received a stapled letter from his lawyers with an unusual request. They asked him to prick his finger with the staple, put drops of blood on the letter, seal it and return it the same day.
"I was cranky and disillusioned that day. I was preparing to tell my family this execution date was final," he recalled. His appeals were over, and he was scheduled to die the day before his son graduated from high school. "But when they asked for blood, I thought they must have found something."
They had.
Prosecutors in the New Orleans district attorney's office had intentionally hidden a blood test that would have unraveled the criminal case against Thompson. By a stroke of luck, a young investigator scouring the crime lab files found a microfiche copy of it. Thompson's blood type did not match. That single piece of evidence led eventually to Thompson being declared innocent of murder.
After he was freed, Thompson sued the office of now-retired Dist. Atty. Harry Connick, and a New Orleans jury awarded him $14 million. But oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the fall suggest he may not see a nickel of it. The high court has taken a dim view of suing prosecutors, and in Thompson's case, the court's conservatives led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned whether the district attorney's office should be held responsible for the misdeeds of a few prosecutors.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prosecutor-misconduct-20110110,0,4131145.story14 years in prison and a month away from being executed. And it was all because of faulty evidence? How could someone even consider not compensating the man? And this isn't even the first or last case on this issue. Another case was quietly settled a while back (Mentioned in the article), but before it was, the court said that prosecutors need to be free from "harassment" (i.e. victims of false imprisonment suing prosecutors for deliberately withholding evidence) in order to do their duties and seemed to agree with the Iowa prosecutors that "there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."