Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Enrique Sanchez, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to vacate a trial court order that directed the San Bernardino County Public Defender to assign a new attorney to represent him. This order was issued after the current deputy public defender made remarks during plea negotiations that invoked Sanchez's race, potentially violating the Racial Justice Act (RJA). Sanchez argued that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the reassignment.The trial court received a motion from the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence and evaluate a conflict of interest after the deputy public defender made racially charged comments. During a closed hearing, Sanchez expressed his desire to retain his current counsel. However, the trial court ordered the reassignment of the deputy public defender, citing potential issues under the RJA and the risk of ineffective assistance of counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing the deputy public defender. The appellate court noted that the RJA's provisions and the potential for implicit bias created an actual conflict of interest that the deputy public defender could not objectively investigate. Additionally, the court found that the trial court's decision to prevent a potential future RJA claim was within its discretion to avoid substantial impairment of the proceedings.The appellate court concluded that Sanchez's arguments regarding constitutional violations and the necessity of an actual conflict were without merit. The court emphasized that the trial court's order was narrowly tailored and did not violate Sanchez's rights. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandate was denied, and the stay on trial court proceedings was vacated. View "Sanchez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Jeannine Bedard, a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer, refused to comply with the City of Los Angeles’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and did not sign a notice enforcing the mandate. Consequently, the Chief of Police sought to terminate her employment. The LAPD Board of Rights reviewed the proposed discipline, found Bedard guilty of failing to comply with conditions of employment, and upheld her discharge. The Board also found that the City violated Bedard’s due process rights by not providing sufficient time to respond to the charges and awarded her back pay, which the City did not pay.Bedard filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, arguing that the disciplinary action was procedurally and legally invalid and seeking reinstatement and back pay. The trial court found the termination justified but agreed that the City violated Bedard’s due process rights by giving her insufficient time to respond. The court awarded her back pay.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Bedard argued that her termination was improper because it was based on her refusal to sign an allegedly illegal contract, was too harsh a penalty, and violated her due process rights under Skelly v. State Personnel Board. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Bedard’s refusal to comply with the vaccination mandate justified her termination. The court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that Bedard’s termination was not solely based on her refusal to sign the notice but also on her refusal to comply with the vaccination requirement. The court also held that the appropriate remedy for the due process violation was back pay, not reinstatement. View "Bedard v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

A transgender woman, who had legally changed her name and gender marker in 2018, sought to have the entire record of her name change and gender marker correction sealed in 2023. She argued that the public availability of these records had led to harassment and threats after her transgender status was disclosed on social media, revealing her personal information and former name. The trial court denied her request to seal the entire record but did seal her application to seal, its supporting documentation, and a physician’s letter attached to her initial petition.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County initially granted her petition for a name and gender change in 2018 without any objections. In 2023, she filed an application to seal the entire record, citing harassment and threats due to the public availability of her records. The trial court denied the request to seal the entire record, reasoning that there was no evidence the harassment was initiated by the court’s records and that sealing the records would not necessarily solve the problem. The court also noted the strong presumption that name changes be public to prevent fraud and ensure creditors and others can locate individuals who have changed their names.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court concluded that the appellant’s privacy and safety interests in concealing her transgender identity outweighed the public’s right of access to the records. The court held that the entire record should be sealed to protect her privacy and safety, as there was no less restrictive means to achieve these interests. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to seal all records revealing the appellant’s name change or gender marker correction. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

Khyle Armando Briscoe, a youth offender, was sentenced to life without parole for a special circumstance murder committed when he was 21. The murder occurred during a robbery where Briscoe and an accomplice, Shaun P., attacked an acquaintance, Ben P. During the struggle, Ben P. managed to take Briscoe’s gun and fatally shot Shaun P. Briscoe was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary, with the jury finding true the special circumstance that he acted with reckless indifference to human life and was a major participant in the underlying felonies.The trial court sentenced Briscoe to life without parole, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. Briscoe later filed a motion for a parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, which grants certain youth offenders the opportunity to seek parole but excludes those sentenced to life without parole. The trial court denied his motion, and Briscoe appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for special circumstance murder, while including those convicted of first-degree felony murder under section 189, subdivision (e)(3), violated equal protection. Both statutes employ the same standard of liability, and the underlying felonies were the same. The court held that there was no rational basis for treating these offenders differently under section 3051.The court reversed the trial court’s order denying Briscoe a section 3051 hearing and remanded the case for the trial court to conduct a Franklin proceeding and a parole hearing. The court reformed section 3051 to include youth offenders like Briscoe, who were sentenced to life without parole under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for murder during a robbery or burglary. View "P. v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Martin Field and John Asher, were found to be sexually violent predators (SVPs) by separate juries and committed indefinitely to a state hospital. They were compelled to testify against themselves during their commitment trials. Both argued on appeal that they were similarly situated to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs), who are not required to testify against themselves at their commitment trials. They claimed that this disparity violated equal protection principles.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, had previously determined that Field’s equal protection argument had merit and remanded the case to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County for an evidentiary hearing. The same conclusion was reached for Asher’s case by Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the People had not satisfied their burden to justify the disparate treatment of SVPs and NGIs. Consequently, the court concluded that equal protection principles were violated by requiring Field and Asher to testify during their commitment trials and ordered new commitment trials for both.The People appealed the new trial orders, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the disparate treatment of SVPs was not justified. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court held that the People had not demonstrated that the testimony of SVPs was more necessary than that of NGIs to justify the disparate treatment under the strict scrutiny standard. The court emphasized that there were sufficient records and other means to evaluate SVPs without compelling their testimony, and thus, the orders for new trials were affirmed. View "P. v. Field" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old, M.L., challenged a civil harassment restraining order issued to protect E.G., a former romantic partner of M.L.’s mother. E.G. sought the order after M.L. posted E.G.’s personal information on social media, alleging E.G. supported M.L.’s mother in abusive conduct against M.L. and her younger brother. The restraining order prohibited M.L. from publishing E.G.’s contact information online and from defaming or harassing her. M.L. contended there was no clear and convincing evidence of harassment and argued that the trial court failed to consider circumstances making future harassment unlikely.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a three-year civil harassment restraining order against M.L. The court found that M.L.’s social media posts, which included E.G.’s contact information and accusations of supporting child abuse, constituted harassment. The court concluded that E.G. had met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the harassment was likely to continue without a restraining order.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order, including M.L.’s repeated social media posts and the resulting threats and harassment E.G. received from third parties. The court concluded that M.L.’s conduct was not for a legitimate purpose and was not constitutionally protected. However, the court modified the restraining order to expire on M.L.’s 18th birthday, reasoning that the circumstances leading to the harassment were tied to M.L.’s status as a minor and her parents' custody dispute. The order was affirmed as modified. View "E.G. v. M.L." on Justia Law

In 1998, Khyle Armando Briscoe, then 21, participated in a robbery with Shaun P. During the robbery, Briscoe and Shaun P. both had guns. A struggle ensued, resulting in Ben P., the robbery victim, fatally shooting Shaun P. Briscoe was charged with first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary, with firearm-use enhancements and a special circumstance of murder during a robbery and burglary. A jury convicted Briscoe on all counts, and he was sentenced to life without parole.Briscoe filed a motion in 2022 for a parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, which allows certain youth offenders to seek parole but excludes those sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder. He argued that this exclusion violated equal protection under the California and U.S. Constitutions. The trial court denied his motion, adhering to the majority view that section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Briscoe appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court noted that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder was previously upheld in People v. Hardin. However, Briscoe raised a narrower challenge, arguing that excluding youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for special circumstance murder, while including those convicted of first-degree felony murder under section 189, subdivision (e)(3), violated equal protection. The court agreed, finding no rational basis for treating these equally culpable offenders differently.The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for a Franklin proceeding and a section 3051 parole hearing, holding that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for murder during a robbery or burglary violated equal protection. View "People v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

Deari Cole was committed to a developmental center under California's Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, which allows for the commitment of individuals with developmental disabilities who pose a danger to themselves or others. Near the end of his commitment period, a petition to extend his commitment was filed, but it was too late for a trial to occur before the original commitment expired. Cole was held pending trial and subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus, arguing that equal protection principles required his release pending trial.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially found Cole incompetent to stand trial on charges including felony possession of a firearm and second-degree burglary. He was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for one year. Two days before this commitment was set to expire, the People filed a petition to extend it, and the court ordered Cole held pending trial on the recommitment petition. Cole's petition for writ of mandate and/or habeas corpus was summarily denied by the Court of Appeal, but the California Supreme Court directed the appellate court to issue an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and rejected Cole's equal protection argument. The court held that the statutory scheme under section 6500, which allows for continued confinement pending a hearing on a recommitment petition, did not violate equal protection principles. The court reasoned that the differences between individuals with developmental disabilities and those with mental health disorders justified the disparate treatment. The court concluded that the legislative distinctions were reasonable and factually based, and thus, Cole's continued confinement pending trial was constitutionally permissible. The petition was ultimately dismissed as moot. View "Cole v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

George Loy Clarke challenged the California Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) decision to suspend his driver’s license following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Clarke argued that the DMV's administrative hearing violated due process and that his refusal to submit to a breath or blood test should be excused. The DMV had conducted an administrative per se (APS) hearing, which led to the suspension of Clarke’s license.The Superior Court of Orange County initially denied Clarke’s petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to overturn the DMV’s decision. Clarke’s first APS hearing resulted in a suspension, but the trial court later granted his petition for a writ of mandate, remanding the case for a new hearing. At the second hearing, Clarke contested the allegations of refusal to submit to a chemical test. Despite his objections, the hearing officer (HO) admitted the DMV’s evidence and ultimately reimposed the suspension.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the DMV’s practice of having a single employee act as both advocate and adjudicator during the APS hearing violated due process, as established in California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles and Knudsen v. Department of Motor Vehicles. The court concluded that the HO in Clarke’s case failed to separate her roles adequately, resulting in a due process violation. This constituted structural error, necessitating a reversal of the trial court’s denial of Clarke’s petition.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case, directing the lower court to grant Clarke’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court also denied requests for judicial notice and to augment the record, leaving those issues to be addressed in a potential new APS hearing. View "Clarke v. Gordon" on Justia Law

In 1987, Michael Hill was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death. Hill maintained that the murders were committed by Michael McCray, whose statements to the police incriminated both himself and Hill. McCray did not testify at trial, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, but his statements were admitted under the hearsay rule. Decades later, Hill discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose a promise not to prosecute McCray for his involvement in the case. Hill filed a habeas corpus petition alleging violations of Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.The trial court dismissed Hill’s claims, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case. The court concluded that the evidence against Hill was overwhelming and that the failure to disclose the non-prosecution agreement did not undermine confidence in the verdict. The court also found that Hill did not plead that false evidence was presented to the jury, as required under Napue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that Hill established a prima facie case for both Brady and Napue violations. The court noted that McCray’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was misleading and that the prosecution’s suppression of the non-prosecution agreement allowed McCray to assert his privilege against self-incrimination, leading to the admission of his statements without cross-examination. The court concluded that the suppressed evidence was material and could have affected the jury’s verdict. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause. View "In re Hill" on Justia Law