Washington ( CNN ) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled against a former death row inmate who sought damages from the state after prosecutors hid crucial blood tests that would have earlier proven his innocence . The 5-4 decision Tuesday involved John Thompson , who came within weeks of execution and had spent 18 years behind bars before being set free after the new forensic evidence came to light . At issue was whether a district attorney 's office should be held liable , under a `` failure to train '' standard , when one of its prosecutors unconstitutionally withholds exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant . Then-New Orleans area District Attorney Harry Connick Sr. claimed his office should not be held fully responsible after one of his staff attorneys violated long-standing , accepted procedures on handling evidence in criminal trials . Thompson 's lawyers said the DA 's office as a whole should be held liable for the poor training of prosecutors working under Connick . `` A district attorney is entitled to rely on prosecutors ' professional training and ethical obligations in the absence of specific reason , such as a pattern of violations , to believe that those tools are insufficient , '' Justice Clarence Thomas said . He was supported by his conservative colleagues Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia , Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito . In a tough dissent , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said `` Connick 's deliberately indifferent attitude created a tinderbox in which ( constitutional ) violations were nigh inevitable . '' But Thomas noted prosecutors often face `` gray areas , '' discretionary judgment calls concerning what evidence may be important to the defense . `` To prove deliberate indifference , 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 ... decisions as a result , '' he said . `` In fact , Thompson had to show that it was so predictable that failing to train the prosecutors amounted to conscious disregard for defendants ' ( constitutional ) rights . He did not do so . '' Thompson was convicted in 1985 in the murder of a New Orleans man . He was also implicated in a separate attempted armed robbery . Blood tests at the robbery showed the perpetrator had blood type B . Lawyers at the Orleans Parish DA 's office offered conflicting stories about whether the prosecuting attorney ever received the blood test report , or whether Thompson himself was ever given a confirming blood test . Thompson was eventually convicted of both crimes and received the death sentence for the murder . Just weeks before his scheduled 1999 lethal injection , private investigators hired by Thompson 's lawyers discovered the original crime lab report in police files . The prisoner was then tested and found to have blood type O . A hidden crime scene report also uncovered years after the fact showed eyewitnesses describing the murderer as 6 feet tall with close-cropped hair . Thompson had a large Afro at the time , and was only 5 feet , 8 inches . That report too was not handed over to the defense at trial . Armed with the new evidence , state courts then reversed the murder conviction , concluding the armed robbery conviction unfairly deprived Thompson of his right to testify in own defense at the murder trial . After being retried for murder in 2003 , a jury found Thompson not guilty and he was released from custody . A federal civil rights lawsuit was then filed and a jury awarded Thompson $ 14 million in damages , a judgment upheld by a federal appeals court . A landmark 1963 high court ruling -- Brady v. Maryland -- said prosecutor have a sworn duty to turn over evidence that may show a defendant is innocent . But in a subsequent opinion , the high court said individual prosecutors can not be sued for any constitutional violations in the courtroom . The Thompson decision further limits when defendants can sue for so-called `` Brady '' violations . In a rare oral dissent , Ginsburg spoke from the bench to strongly criticize the majority 's conclusions . `` The record in this case abundantly shows flagrant indifference to Thompson 's rights , '' she said . `` The conceded , long-concealed prosecutorial transgressions in Thompson 's trials were neither isolated nor atypical . They were just what one would expect given the attitude toward Brady pervasive in the district attorney 's office . '' Ginsburg was backed by Justices Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan . Connick , now retired from his DA post , is the father of entertainer Harry Connick Jr . The case is Connick v. Thompson ( 09-571 ) .
5 justices rule New Zealand prosecutor 's office not liable for defendant 's death . 4 judges dissent , prosecutor office showed ` ` flagrant indifference '' Man came close to execution before blood test , police report ' .