Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of two counts of murder in the first degree on the theory of premeditation as to Mark Greenlaw and Jennifer O'Connor and on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty as to O'Connor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial regarding the victim's fear of rape; (2) the prosecutor's statement during closing argument impermissibly appeal to the jury's sympathy, but the statement did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider voluntary ingestion of drugs in determining extreme atrocity or cruelty, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (4) the judge did not err in excusing juror number fifteen; (5) the indictment charging attempted burning of a dwelling was not defective; and (6) there was no error warranting relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Doughty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of kidnapping in the first degree and one count of committing violence against an employee of the Department of Corrections, holding that there was no plain error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in failing to conduct a sufficient Faretta hearing to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and in ordering his sentence to consecutively to his prior sentence, in violation of his plea agreement with the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the circuit court plainly erred in sustaining Defendant's request to represent himself; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ordering Defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Teter" on Justia Law

After an overnight stay at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel, Plaintiff sued the Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc. for discrimination and unfair reprisal. Plaintiff claimed he was locked out of the main entrance, greeted inhospitably, forced to provide proof of his Marriott-sponsored Bonvoy rewards program membership at check-in, assigned to a room with dirty bedding, required to bring it to the front desk to exchange for clean bedding, forced to change the bedding himself, and denied a request to switch rooms. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hotel because it provided unrebutted, non-pretextual justifications for its treatment of Plaintiff, and he did not show a causal link between his complaint of discrimination and the Hotel’s adverse actions. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff failed to show that the Hotel’s reasons are pretextual. He has not provided sufficient probative evidence to support a finding that his treatment in the Hotel was so at variance with the treatment expected of premium hotels during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Hotel on the MHRA discrimination claim. Further, the court wrote that because Plaintiff cannot show that the Hotel called the police to escort him out of the Hotel because of his complaints, he failed to satisfy the third element of a prima facie case of MHRA unfair reprisal: “that the adverse action was causally linked to the protected conduct.” View "Larry Johnson v. Schulte Hosp. Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Howell received medical screenings from nurses employed by NaphCare, which contracts with the Jail to provide medical services. Nurses noted his sickle cell disease diagnosis. Howell returned to the medical unit after he started a fight. Video shows Howell repeatedly falling in the hallway. Officers placed Howell in a wheelchair. At the medical sallyport, Howell complained loudly of pain and stated that he could not feel his legs. Howell slid out of the wheelchair and was eventually left on the floor. Nurse Jordan reviewed Howell’s medical chart. Medical staff had previously sent Howell to a hospital for sickle cell pain. Jordan concluded Howell was in pain but was experiencing a psychiatric issue. Around 5:40 p.m., officers placed Howell in a restraint chair, transported Howell to the mental health unit, and placed him in a cell with a small window on its door. At 6:06 p.m., Nurse Arthur checked on Howell, who was still yelling. but decided that he did not need further medical treatment. No NaphCare employee checked on Howell again. Officers checked Howell approximately every 20 minutes by looking through the window, seeing only a side profile. Officers falsified log entries and failed to comply with regulations concerning removal, rotating Howell’s limbs, or providing water or the restroom. At 9:45 p.m., Officers went to remove Howell and found him dead. The coroner determined that Howell died from sickle cell crisis.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed as to Nurse Jordan and Deputy Erwin on deliberate indifference claims; a reasonable jury could find that they recklessly failed to act to mitigate an unjustifiably high risk of harm to Howell that a reasonable official would have recognized. Erwin was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Howell v. NaphCare, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a long-term employee of Defendant St. Cecilia Catholic School. In her final year of employment, Defendant worked part-time as an art teacher and office administrator. Following her discharge, Defendant filed this action against St. Cecilia for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) The trial court granted St. Cecilia’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the ministerial exception, a constitutional doctrine that precludes certain employment claims brought against a religious institution by its ministers.   The Second Appellate District reversed the judgment in favor of St. Cecilia and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the ministerial exception applies in this case. Further, the court wrote that St. Cecilia did not waive the ministerial exception by failing to assert the defense in its answer. The evidence that Plaintiff promoted “Christ-like” behavior in her class does not establish, as a matter of law, that she performed vital religious duties for St. Cecilia or otherwise qualified as a minister. Because there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the ministerial exception applies to Plaintiff’s former job position as an art teacher and an office administrator, St. Cecilia was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s age discrimination suit. View "Atkins v. St. Cecilia Catholic School" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, within the particular facts and overall context of this criminal case, the trial court did not violate either the United States Constitution or the North Carolina General Statutes by declining to conduct further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed following his apparent suicide attempt on the morning of the sixth day of trial.Defendant's suicide attempt occurred before the jury was given its instructions but after the jury had heard closing arguments from both sides. To determine whether Defendant had forfeited his right to be present for the trial's ongoing proceedings the trial court received evidence concerning his medical history and state of mind at the time of his apparent suicide attempt. The court ultimately concluded that Defendant's injuries were entirely caused by his own voluntary actions, and therefore, Defendant had voluntarily absented himself from the trial proceedings. The trial was continued in his absence, and the trial court entered judgments against Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not erroneously decline to make further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed during the trial proceedings. View "State v. Flow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order and judgment of the trial court in this case involving challenges to N.C. Gen. Stat. 13-1, the statute setting forth the criteria that felons must satisfy to be eligible for re-enfranchisement, holding that the trial court erred in entering an order allowing all felons not in jail or prison to register and vote.Nearly fifty years after the legislature rewrote section 13-1 to make re-enfranchisement automatic for all eligible felons Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the requirement that felons complete their probation, parole, or post-release supervision before they regain their voting rights. Plaintiffs alleged that this requirement was intended to discriminate African Americans. The trial court ruled for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that legislators intended their reforms to section 13-1 to disadvantage African Americans; and (2) Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their other constitutional claims. View "Community Success Initiative v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that S.B. 824 violates N.C. Const. art. I, 19 and permanently enjoining that law, holding that S.B. 824 does not violate the protections set forth in Article I, Section 19.Pursuant to S.B. 824, registered voters are required to present one of several acceptable forms of identification prior to casting a ballot and require the State to provide free voters identification cards to any registered voter. At issue was whether North Carolina's photo identification statute is constitutional. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation and enforcement of S.B. 824. The trial court denied the injunction. The court of appeals reversed, holding that S.B. 824 violates Article I, Section 19 because it was enacted with discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that S.B. 824 was enacted with discriminatory intent or actually produces a "meaningful disparate impact along racial lines." View "Holmes v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, selling sexual relations, and two counts of felony theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in determining that her incriminating statements made to law enforcement confessing to the murder were made voluntarily. Among other things, Defendant contended that sleep deprivation and drug use tainted her interview and that her confinement in the interview room was coercive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly held that Defendant's statements were freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given and admissible at trial; and (2) ample evidence supported the jury's finding of premeditation. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law

In 1998, Evans was charged with murder. While awaiting trial, Evans asked his cellmate to kill two witnesses. The cellmate secretly recorded those conversations for the authorities. State charges followed for soliciting murder. In 1999 two separate juries convicted Evans of both murder and solicitation. After Illinois courts affirmed both convictions on direct appeal, Evans filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court in 2003. His petition is still pending. In 2019, frustrated with the delay, Evans invoked 28 U.S.C. 2254 and turned to federal court for relief. He claimed that Illinois’s postconviction relief process had proven “ineffective,” allowing him to seek federal habeas relief without waiting further for relief in the Illinois courts.The Seventh Circuit agreed with Evans and vacated the denial of relief. “The delay Evans has experienced of twenty years and counting is beyond the pale and indefensible.” The exhaustion requirement is neither ironclad nor unyielding. A state-law remedy can become ineffective or unavailable by virtue of delay if the delay is both inordinate and attributable to the state. In this case, the “extraordinary delay has stemmed in no small part from the state’s own conduct, both in its capacity as a respondent to the litigation and as the state trial court itself.” View "Evans v. Wills" on Justia Law