Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death but struck the enhancement that Defendant committed the murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, holding that there was no basis for reversing Defendant's convictions or sentence.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury found true the gang enhancement and the special circumstances of robbery murder and torture murder. The jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court denied Defendant's motions for a new trial, for reduced punishment, and to modify the verdict. The Supreme Court struck the gang enhancement and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) there was assumed or either found error regarding certain jury instructions, the failure to bifurcate, and the admission of hearsay and certain evidence, but each assumed or found error was harmless; (2) Defendant's gang enhancement was incorrectly imposed, but this error did not require reversal of the guilty verdicts or death judgment; and (3) there was no other basis for reversing Defendant's convictions or sentence. View "People v. Tran" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of the warrantless search of his backpack and the warranted search of his cell phone, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal.After a school resource officer broke up a fight in which Defendant was involved, Defendant's backpack dropped to the ground. When the officer picked up the backpack Defendant ran from the scene. The officer subsequently searched the backpack and discovered a stolen firearm and three cell phones. The officers obtained a warrant to search one cell phone. Thereafter, Defendant was charged with robbery and other offenses. After the trial court denied Defendant's suppression motion as to both searches Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant abandoned his backpack the warrantless search of his backpack was constitutionally permissible; and (2) the warrant authorizing the search of the cell phone did not comply with the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the fruits of the cell phone search. View "Richardson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the Gary Housing Authority and dismissing allegations that the Housing Authority's notice of its administrative taking of 624 Broadway, LLC's property was constitutionally deficient, holding that the deficient notice was not harmless.The Housing Authority only provided notice of its taking of 624 Broadway's property by publication, despite knowing how to contact the LLC. After 624 Broadway unsuccessfully requested the Housing Authority to postpone the meeting to its appraiser could assess the property 624 Broadway brought this complaint, alleging that the Housing Authority violated its federal due process rights. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Housing Authority. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Housing Authority's constitutionally deficient notice to 624 Broadway was prejudicial; and (2) 624 Broadway was entitled to a damages hearing. View "624 Broadway, LLC v. Gary Housing Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for four counts of possession of pornographic work involving minors, holding that, assuming that Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his online cloud storage account, the government's search of his account was lawful under the private search doctrine.At issue in this case was the conduct of law enforcement officers who discovered digital child pornography files stores in Defendant's cloud storage account with Dropbox. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence acquired from his Dropbox account, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant's online cloud storage account did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Pauli" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's convictions for second-degree assault and second-degree child abuse by a custodian, holding that Defendant, an Afrian American man, was prejudiced by the fact that the Sheriff's deputies who served as courtroom bailiffs during his trial wore thin blue line face masks, as required by the Sheriff.On appeal, Defendant argued that the bailiffs' display of the thin blue line flag on their face masks violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The court of special appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the display of the thin blue line flag did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial. The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the bailiffs' display of the thin blue line flag and the pro-law enforcement message that it conveyed was inherently prejudicial to Defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this case involving violent peer conflicts between adolescents in middle school, holding that the circuit court erred.Plaintiffs filed a five-count complaint against several school defendants and the Board of Education for Dorchester County, alleging violations of their daughter's state constitutional right to due process and other causes of action stemming from their daughter's bullying by other students. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the Act does not preempt CJ § 5-518, and Plaintiffs' negligence claims against the individual school employees were not preempted by federal law; (2) the educational malpractice doctrine does not apply to Plaintiffs' negligent supervision claims; and (3) material disputes of fact precluded the entry of summary judgment. View "Gambrill v. Bd. of Education of Dorchester County" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated a rule prohibiting the use of lit tobacco products in HUD-subsidized public housing units and their immediate surroundings. Appellants, led by New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.), brought an action raising a number of statutory and constitutional challenges to the Rule. The district court rejected all of C.L.A.S.H.’s claims.The D.C. Circuit affirmed, finding that the Department did not exceed its authority in passing the rule and was not arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The Court similarly rejected C.L.A.S.H.’s constitutional claims under the Spending Clause and the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. View "NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. Marcia L. Fudge" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Appellant's sentencing proceeding complied with the constitutional protections recognized in recent decisions of the Supreme Court.In 2010, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder and other crimes for his involvement in a burglary at the age of sixteen that resulted in a murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison with all but sixty years suspended for the murder conviction and will be eligible for parole at the time he is forty-two years old. In 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, as interpreted in recent decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's sentence did not amount to a de facto sentence of life without parole, and his sentence was not grossly disproportionate. View "Jedlicka v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that ambiguity in a sentencing court's remarks about a juvenile offender's post-offense conduct and character, when made before the Supreme Court issued its decisions governing the sentencing of a juvenile offender to life without the possibility of parole, requires that the offender receive a new sentencing hearing for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.Petitioner was seventeen years old when he committed a series of murders. In Maryland, Petitioner pled guilty to six counts of first-degree murder. The sentencing court sentenced him to the maximum sentence of six terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. After the Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that because opposing inferences could be drawn as to whether the sentencing judge determined that Petitioner was not "the rare juvenile offender whose crimes reflects irreparable corruption" for whom the Eighth Amendment allows a sentence of life without parole. View "Malvo v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a person of color and of mixed heritage, reported to school administrators that she was harassed by her peers on the basis of her race and national origin during her sixth-grade year in the Austin Independent School District. Plaintiff alleged that she was told to "go back where [she] came from" and that, in some cases, the harassment involved physical shoving. There were also incidents in which Plaintiff responded physically to verbal threats and name-calling, resulting in the school requesting she be transferred. Through her parents, Plaintiff sued the District for failure to address the harassment under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's 1983 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the district on Plaintiff's Title VI claim.While the Fifth Circuit took issue with some of the district court's findings, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court ultimately reached the correct result. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's 1983 claim and the court's grant of summary judgment on the Title VI claim. View "Menzia v. Austin Indep School Dist" on Justia Law