Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Van De Kamp v. Goldstein

United States Supreme Court
129 S. Ct. 855 (2009)


Facts

Thomas Goldstein (plaintiff) was convicted of murder in 1980, based in part on the testimony of a jailhouse informant. In 1998, Goldstein filed a habeas corpus action alleging that the informant’s testimony was false, the informant had previously received favorable treatment for testifying for the prosecution, and, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office should have disclosed this previous favorable treatment. Goldstein alleged that the failure to provide this information, which could have been used to impeach the informant, lead to his erroneous conviction. The trial court agreed with Goldstein and ordered the state to either provide a new trial or to release Goldstein. The court of appeals affirmed, and the state released Goldstein. Goldstein then sued the Los Angeles County district attorney and the chief deputy district attorney (defendants) under § 1983, alleging that the failure to communicate the informant’s previous testimony-related rewards violated his constitutional rights. Goldstein also alleged that this failure resulted from a lack of adequate training and supervision of prosecutors and from a failure to institute an information system about informants. The prosecutors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming absolute immunity. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the allegations complained of administrative, not prosecutorial conduct. The prosecutors appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed. The prosecutors then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.