The Supreme Court heard argument in Connick v. Thompson today. Go to:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-571.pdf

After reading the transcript, the facts simply don't seem to support liability within the current framework. In fact, the framework was distorted to acccomodate the circumstances, and the defendant's counsel was in trouble making his position clear from the get-go. Moreover no principled basis for a new rule sprung out of the argument. Anyone think otherwise?

Apparently, 4 judges on SCOTUS would have found a way to morph a single prosecutor's violation of Brady into an agency-wide indifference to training. Fortunately, Bush made some excellent appointments to SCOTUS, resulting in a 5 member majority that continues to require actual proof (e.g. repeated occurrences at a minimum) of deliberate indifference.

The position of the dissent is extraordinary in this case. Scalia, aptly, calls them on it.