Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves a petition challenging the public release of a grand jury report by the 30th County Investigating Grand Jury. The petitioner argued that the report did not meet the statutory definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" under the Investigatory Grand Jury Act (IGJA) and that the supervising judge erred in ordering its release. The petitioner also contended that the report's criticism of named, unindicted individuals violated their due process rights and the fundamental right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas initially accepted the report and ordered its public release. The supervising judge provided notice and an opportunity to respond to some, but not all, named, unindicted individuals criticized in the report. The petitioner, along with others, sought to have the report permanently sealed or redacted. The supervising judge made some redactions but ultimately ordered the report to be unsealed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the report did not satisfy the IGJA's definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" because it neither related to organized crime or public corruption nor proposed recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest. The court found that the report focused on punishing specific individuals and providing answers to the deceased-accused's family, rather than addressing broader public concerns.The court also determined that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond for all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a grand jury report. The supervising judge's failure to provide such notice to all criticized individuals was deemed an error. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the supervising judge's order and remanded the case with instructions to permanently seal the report. View "In Re: The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury" on Justia Law

Lisa Smith, the appellant, lived with her boyfriend, Keiff King, and her four-year-old son, Tahjir, in a home in Abington Township, Pennsylvania. On January 22, 2018, after Tahjir spilled cereal, he was subjected to severe punishment by Smith and King, including being forced to hold difficult positions and being beaten. Tahjir was also placed in a hot shower, resulting in severe burns. Later, when Tahjir showed signs of severe distress, Smith and King delayed seeking medical help. Eventually, Smith called 911, but Tahjir was pronounced dead at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Tahjir died from "crush syndrome" due to severe beatings and burns.Smith and King were charged with first-degree murder, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal conspiracy. Smith's motion to suppress her statements to the police was partially granted, excluding statements made before receiving Miranda warnings. At trial, King's redacted statement, which replaced Smith's name with feminine pronouns, was admitted. The trial court instructed the jury to consider King's statement only against him. Both Smith and King were convicted, and Smith was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus additional years.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether Smith's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by admitting King's redacted statement. The court held that there was no violation, as the redacted statement did not directly or powerfully implicate Smith in the crime. The court emphasized that the statement did not identify Smith as a participant in the abuse and that the jury was properly instructed to consider the statement only against King. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, upholding Smith's conviction and sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Smith" on Justia Law

Dagoberto Machado was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses related to the inappropriate touching of I.A., his girlfriend’s young niece. The incidents allegedly occurred during the summers of 2016 and 2017 when I.A. was staying with Machado and his girlfriend. I.A. testified that Machado touched her inappropriately on several occasions, including at a public pool and in their home. She did not immediately report the incidents due to uncertainty and fear of affecting family relationships. The government introduced expert testimony from Dr. Stephanie Wolf, a child psychologist, to provide context for I.A.'s delayed reporting, including cultural barriers within Latino communities.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia admitted Dr. Wolf’s testimony over Machado’s objections. Machado argued that Dr. Wolf’s statements about “machismo” in Latino culture were prejudicial. The trial court qualified Dr. Wolf as an expert and allowed her to testify about cultural norms that might impede a child from disclosing abuse. Dr. Wolf mentioned that in Latino culture, men might have a higher standing, which could impact how sexuality and abuse are viewed. The jury found Machado guilty on all counts.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Wolf’s testimony about Latino culture. The court held that the testimony had minimal probative value and was substantially outweighed by its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against Machado based on ethnic stereotypes. The court emphasized that such testimony could lead the jury to view Machado as more likely to have committed the abuse simply because of his ethnicity. Consequently, the court reversed Machado’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Machado v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves Warren Balogh, who participated in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The rally, organized to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, quickly turned violent between protesters and counterprotesters. Balogh alleged that the Charlottesville Police, under Chief Al Thomas, and the Virginia State Police, under Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, failed to protect his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not intervening in the violence and declaring an unlawful assembly, which he claimed amounted to a heckler's veto.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Balogh's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to police intervention to protect First Amendment rights from third-party violence. The court also held that Balogh failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, noting that the police did not selectively enforce the unlawful assembly order and that Balogh's allegations of intentional discrimination were conclusory.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not obligate police to protect protesters' constitutional rights amid violence, explicitly stating that the First Amendment is a shield against invasive speech regulations, not a sword to wield against violent disruptions. The court also found that Balogh's equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment failed because he did not provide sufficient facts to show intentional or purposeful discrimination. Additionally, the court rejected Balogh's Monell claim against the City of Charlottesville, as he did not demonstrate that the City Manager, the final policymaker, had ratified or delegated authority to Chief Thomas. View "Balogh v. Virginia" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, parents of minor children, challenged a public act that eliminated the religious exemption from vaccination requirements for school enrollment. They argued that the act violated their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, equal protection, and a free public education, as well as their statutory rights under Connecticut law. The defendants, state and municipal officials, moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity.The trial court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims satisfied the substantial claim exception to sovereign immunity, and their statutory claim under Connecticut law satisfied the statutory waiver exception. The defendants appealed this decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the trial court must assess the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations to determine whether they have asserted a substantial claim of a constitutional violation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed as a matter of law. The act was deemed a neutral law of general applicability, rationally related to the state's interest in protecting public health. The court also found that the act did not violate the plaintiffs' right to a free public education, as it imposed a reasonable vaccination requirement.However, the court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs' statutory free exercise claim under Connecticut law satisfied the statutory waiver exception to sovereign immunity. The court found that the scope of the waiver extended to free exercise challenges to the enforcement of legislation and that applying the statute to the public act did not violate any constitutional principles.The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision in part, directing the dismissal of the constitutional claims, but affirmed the decision regarding the statutory claim, allowing it to proceed. View "Spillane v. Lamont" on Justia Law

The case involves the Estate of Charles Anthony Hurtado, which brought an action against Dr. Jerry A. Smith, alleging that Dr. Smith acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Hurtado’s serious medical needs. Mr. Hurtado, an inmate, was treated for a perineal abscess at a medical center where Dr. Smith performed a diagnostic needle aspiration but did not find an abscess cavity. Dr. Smith prescribed oral antibiotics and pain medication, and Mr. Hurtado was discharged. Later that evening, Mr. Hurtado returned to the emergency room with intense pain, was diagnosed with sepsis, and underwent surgery. He was later transferred to another hospital where he died from complications related to the abscess and other health issues.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Smith. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Dr. Smith knew of and disregarded a significant risk to Mr. Hurtado’s health. The court concluded that even if Dr. Smith’s diagnosis and treatment were incorrect, they did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference but were, at most, medical negligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that there was no evidence from which a jury could infer that Dr. Smith consciously disregarded a substantial risk to Mr. Hurtado’s health. The court noted that Dr. Smith’s treatment was not patently unreasonable and that the expert testimony provided by the plaintiff did not establish deliberate indifference but rather suggested medical negligence. The court emphasized that deliberate indifference requires more than a misdiagnosis or negligence; it requires a showing that the medical professional knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate’s health. View "Estate of Hurtado v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2006, an individual was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and later subjected to civil management under New York's Mental Hygiene Law due to a "mental abnormality." Initially confined, he was released to a strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) program in 2016. In 2019, he violated SIST conditions by tampering with an alcohol monitoring bracelet, leading to his temporary confinement based on a psychologist's evaluation and a probable cause finding by the court.The Supreme Court initially found probable cause to believe he was a "dangerous sex offender requiring confinement" and ordered his detention pending a final hearing. He filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the statutory scheme violated procedural due process by not providing an opportunity to be heard at the probable cause stage. The Supreme Court denied the petition, and the Appellate Division converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, ultimately declaring the statute constitutional.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court held that the statutory scheme under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 (d) (4) appropriately balances individual and state interests. It concluded that the statute provides sufficient procedural safeguards, including a prompt judicial probable cause determination and a full hearing within 30 days, to mitigate the risk of erroneous confinement. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to him. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed without costs. View "People ex rel. Neville v Toulon" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting three minors between 2007 and 2009. The police obtained a search warrant and found child pornography on the defendant's computers, including an encrypted file they could not access. The defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including sexual conduct against a child and possession of child pornography. He posted bail and was released but was later remanded to jail for allegedly posting a blog that intimidated a witness.The trial court assigned counsel and experts to assist the defendant, who later chose to represent himself. During the trial, the defendant's daughter testified about a recorded conversation in which one of the victims allegedly recanted her accusations. The prosecution used recorded jail phone calls to challenge the daughter's testimony, revealing that the defendant had discussed trial strategies with her. The jury found the defendant guilty of one count of sexual conduct against a child and all child pornography counts but deadlocked on other charges. The defendant entered an Alford plea to the deadlocked counts.The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, and the New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The primary issue was whether the defendant's right to present a defense was violated by the prosecution's monitoring of his jail phone calls. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant's right to present a defense was not violated. The court noted that the defendant had ample time to prepare his defense while out on bail and had other means to communicate with witnesses. The court also found that the defendant's request to proceed pro se was unequivocal and that the trial court had conducted a proper inquiry into the risks of self-representation. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Dixon" on Justia Law

A juvenile court judge in Hamilton County, Ohio, presided over the trial of a thirteen-year-old accused of felonious assault. The judge found the juvenile not delinquent and sealed the case record under Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2151.356(B)(1)(d). After the juvenile was later killed, the Cincinnati Enquirer requested the trial transcript, which the judge denied, citing the statute.The Cincinnati Enquirer challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 2151.356, arguing that the Ohio Constitution's open courts provision prohibits sealing court records without an individualized determination balancing the interests of the juvenile and the public. The juvenile court judge argued that the open courts provision does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, relying on precedent from the Ohio Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the open courts provision of the Ohio Constitution applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The court determined that R.C. 2151.356 is unconstitutional because it mandates the sealing of records without an individualized balancing of interests. The court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the juvenile court judge to provide access to the trial transcript and a writ of prohibition preventing the enforcement of the sealing order. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom" on Justia Law

Alfred Moore was convicted in 2016 of first-degree burglary and other crimes, resulting in a total sentence of 45 years. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Moore then filed a habeas corpus petition, later amended, arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the first-degree burglary count in the indictment. Moore contended that the indictment did not allege an essential element of first-degree burglary, specifically that he entered a "dwelling house" or a building "designed for use as [a] dwelling."The habeas court denied Moore's petition, concluding that the indictment was sufficient because it referenced the first-degree burglary statute. Moore appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which granted his application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, focusing on whether the habeas court erred in its ruling.The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the indictment failed to allege all essential elements of first-degree burglary, as it only mentioned that Moore entered a "business." The court determined that trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a special demurrer to challenge the indictment. This failure was not a reasonable trial strategy, and it was reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the indictment had been challenged. The court also found that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue on appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the habeas court's denial of relief regarding Moore's first-degree burglary conviction and remanded the case with directions to vacate that conviction and grant appropriate relief. View "MOORE v. WHITE" on Justia Law