At bottom, the dissent seeks to retry this case through the appellate process.  This approach abdicates this court’s duty to uphold a jury’s verdict unless the facts point so strongly in Connick’s favor that no reasonable jury could rule to the contrary. Indeed, the fact that reasonable judges on this court view the evidence differently suggests that these factual disputes were for the jury to resolve.  As the extensive discussion in the panel opinion demonstrates, there was ample evidence to allow the citizens of this New Orleans jury to find for Thompson.  Of course, this is an extraordinary case with extraordinary facts.  Allowing this judgment to stand will not subject municipalities to widespread liability, as a holding that the need for training was “so obvious” and the lack of training “so likely” to create a constitutional violation will apply only in the rare instance.  This is that rare case.  The jury heard substantial evidence that the District Attorney’s Office provided no Brady specific training, despite the known risk of the exact type of systemic nondisclosure that the failure to train caused here.  Acknowledging the proper standard of review and viewing the jury’s verdict in the correct deferential light compels us to uphold the jury’s decision.