Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2012, three people were shot and killed outside a nightclub in Houston, Texas. Feanyichi E. Uvukansi was identified by an eyewitness, Jeresano, who picked him out of a photo array. Uvukansi was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. At trial, Jeresano testified that he had no agreement with prosecutors regarding his testimony, but it was later revealed that he did have an agreement that could reduce his federal drug sentence in exchange for his testimony.Uvukansi did not raise the issue of false testimony on direct appeal but did so in state habeas proceedings. The state district court found that Jeresano's testimony was false but deemed it immaterial because the jury was aware of parts of the agreement through other testimony. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Uvukansi’s application without a written order. Uvukansi then filed a Section 2254 application in federal district court, which was dismissed on the grounds that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the state district court applied the correct "reasonable likelihood" standard for materiality and did not impose a higher burden of proof on Uvukansi. The court also found that the state district court did not err in considering the false testimony's impact on Jeresano's credibility rather than the identification itself. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent and affirmed the dismissal of Uvukansi's Section 2254 application. View "Uvukansi v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Jorge Rivera-Guadalupe was living in a rooming house in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, when he was mugged and robbed. His friend, Christopher Valkosak, came to stay with him for protection. The next evening, Valkosak was shot by a stranger in the hallway outside Rivera-Guadalupe’s room. Detective Jacob Pierce investigated the incident, interviewed a neighbor who described the shooter as a tall Black male, and obtained a search warrant for Rivera-Guadalupe’s room. The search yielded marijuana, a knife, and IDs but no gun. Rivera-Guadalupe was arrested and charged with multiple offenses, including attempted homicide and possession of marijuana. He was acquitted of all charges after being incarcerated for over eighteen months.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed claims against other defendants but allowed the malicious prosecution claim against Det. Pierce to proceed. Det. Pierce sought dismissal based on qualified immunity, arguing that probable cause for some charges precluded a malicious prosecution claim. The District Court, referencing Johnson v. Knorr, held that probable cause for one charge does not insulate officers from liability for malicious prosecution on other charges lacking probable cause. Det. Pierce’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and he appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the right to be prosecuted only on charges supported by probable cause was not clearly established at the time of Rivera-Guadalupe’s prosecution due to conflicting precedents within the circuit and among other circuits. The court reversed the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity for Det. Pierce and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss on that basis. The court clarified that the any-crime rule applies to false arrest claims but not to malicious prosecution claims. View "Rivera-Guadalupe v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Johnnie Franklin Wills, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition challenging his life sentence under West Virginia’s recidivist statute. He argued that the judicially crafted test for determining whether a recidivist life sentence is proportional to the crime is unconstitutionally vague. Wills was convicted of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in 2016, and due to his prior eight felony convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years under the recidivist statute.The West Virginia courts denied Wills relief, stating that the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to their proportionality test. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, distinguishing Wills’s case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, which invalidated certain statutory provisions as unconstitutionally vague. The state court maintained that the proportionality test was clear and did not fall under the same scrutiny as the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya.Wills then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia also denied. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the proportionality test serves as a judicial limitation on the recidivist statute, unlike the statutory mandates in Johnson and Dimaya.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the void-for-vagueness doctrine to judicially crafted proportionality tests. Therefore, Wills’s habeas petition was denied. View "Wills v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law

Correctional officers at an Illinois state prison brutally beat inmate Larry Earvin, who later died from his injuries. Todd Sheffler and two others were charged with various federal crimes related to the killing and its cover-up. After a mistrial, Sheffler was retried and found guilty by a jury.In the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Sheffler was convicted on five counts, including conspiracy to deprive civil rights, deprivation of civil rights, conspiracy to engage in misleading conduct, obstruction-falsification of documents, and obstruction-misleading conduct. Sheffler argued that there was no reasonable likelihood that his incident report and interview with state police would reach federal officials, challenging his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and § 1519. He also contended that the district court erred in ruling he breached a proffer agreement and allowed a biased juror to sit on his trial. Additionally, he claimed prosecutorial misconduct during the rebuttal closing argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported Sheffler’s convictions, as it was reasonably likely that his false statements would reach federal officials, given the severity of the crime and the cooperation between state and federal authorities. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that Sheffler breached the proffer agreement by making false statements during FBI interviews. Furthermore, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in handling the juror bias issue or in denying Sheffler’s motion for a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Sheffler’s motion for a new trial and upheld his convictions. View "USA v Sheffler" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin D. Rieker, a Lincoln Police Department officer, who was working off-duty as a security guard at a hospital. On October 31, 2020, Jan Noch, a patient, became disruptive and was asked to leave the hospital. Rieker encountered Noch in a hallway and instructed him to leave through the ambulance bay exit, but Noch insisted on leaving through the main lobby. Rieker claimed Noch threatened him and made aggressive movements, prompting Rieker to push Noch, causing him to fall. Security footage and eyewitnesses provided conflicting accounts of the incident.The county court for Lancaster County convicted Rieker of third-degree assault and false reporting after a bench trial. Rieker was sentenced to 18 months’ probation for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Rieker appealed to the district court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his motion to suppress certain statements should have been granted. The district court affirmed the convictions and sentences.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that the evidence, including security footage and eyewitness testimony, supported the conclusion that Rieker’s use of force was not justified under the defense of property statute. The court also found that Rieker knowingly provided false information in his reports and during an interview with law enforcement, intending to impede the investigation of an actual criminal matter.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Rieker’s convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support both the assault and false reporting convictions. The court did not find it necessary to address the suppression issue, as any potential error in admitting the ACI form was deemed harmless given the other competent evidence supporting the convictions. View "State v. Rieker" on Justia Law

Enrique Sanchez, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to vacate a trial court order directing the San Bernardino County Public Defender to assign a new attorney to represent him. This order was issued after evidence suggested that the deputy public defender currently assigned to Sanchez's case made racially charged remarks during plea negotiations, potentially violating the Racial Justice Act (RJA). Sanchez argued that the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion.The trial court received a motion from the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence and evaluate the deputy public defender's conflict of interest. The motion included a declaration from the prosecutor detailing the deputy public defender's remarks, which implied racial bias. During a closed hearing, the trial court read the prosecutor's declaration to Sanchez and asked if he wanted the current public defender to continue representing him. Sanchez expressed his desire to retain his current counsel. However, the trial court later ordered the public defender's office to assign a new attorney, citing potential RJA issues and the risk of ineffective assistance of counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded 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 trial court's decision to prevent potential future RJA claims and ensure adequate representation was within its discretion. 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

Two defendants, Fredi Analberto Lopez-Flores and Christian Alejandro May Quintero, were convicted of multiple sex crimes, including forcible rape, sodomy, and oral copulation in concert, after they abducted an inebriated woman, Jane Doe, from the streets of San Francisco, drove her 50 miles away, and assaulted her. The prosecution used terms like "monsters" and "predators" during closing arguments, which the defendants later claimed violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) and constituted prosecutorial misconduct.In the lower court, the jury found both defendants guilty on all counts. Lopez-Flores was also found to have a prior conviction, which was considered during sentencing. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (d), finding that the offenses occurred on separate occasions. The court also stated that even if this finding was incorrect, it would impose consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (c), based on the nature of the crimes and aggravating factors.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the prosecution's use of the terms "monsters" and "predators" did not violate the RJA, as these terms were race-neutral and based on the defendants' conduct. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct, determining that the comments were within the permissible range of descriptive commentary based on the evidence. The court held that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (c), and any potential error under subdivision (d) was harmless because the court provided adequate reasons for its discretionary decision. The judgments were affirmed. View "P. v. Quintero" on Justia Law

Jose Villegas, a 39-year-old inmate at Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) in Florida, died following a physical confrontation with correctional officers. The incident began when officers found Villegas unconscious in his cell. Upon regaining consciousness, Villegas resisted the officers' attempts to restrain him. The officers eventually subdued Villegas and transported him to a medical unit, but he was pronounced dead upon arrival. The autopsy reported that Villegas died from restraint asphyxia, with excited delirium as a contributing factor, and noted the presence of synthetic cannabinoids in his system.Douglas B. Stalley, representing Villegas's estate and his minor children, filed a lawsuit against the officers, their supervisors, and the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) for negligence, wrongful death, excessive force, deliberate indifference, and supervisory liability. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the constitutional claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law wrongful death claim, remanding it to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. Stalley appealed the district court's decision regarding the deliberate indifference and supervisory liability claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers' decision to transport Villegas to a medical unit rather than provide on-scene care did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Consequently, the supervisory liability claim also failed, as it was contingent on the underlying constitutional violation. View "Stalley v. Lake Correctional Institution Warden" on Justia Law

A Black man, known for his career in the NFL, was accused by an intellectually disabled woman of raping her at gunpoint during a babysitting job interview at his home. The jury found him guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment, with firearm use in the first two offenses. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The prosecution argued that the police did not search his house due to his fame and race, suggesting a search would have caused controversy.The trial began in March 2020 but was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resuming three months later. The jury acquitted him on two counts related to the victim's incapacity to consent. The trial court sentenced him in October 2020. The defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution's statements violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 by appealing to racial bias.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the prosecution violated the Racial Justice Act by explicitly asserting that the defendant's race influenced the police's decision not to search his house, implying he gained an undeserved advantage at trial because he was Black. The court concluded that the prosecution's statements constituted racially discriminatory language under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(2). The court held that Penal Code section 745, subdivision (e)(2)(A) precludes harmless error analysis and mandates vacating the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for new proceedings consistent with the Racial Justice Act. View "P. v. Stubblefield" on Justia Law

Steven Catlin, a California state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1990 conviction for the murders of his fourth wife, Joyce Catlin, and his adoptive mother, Martha Catlin, as well as his death sentence. Catlin was convicted of murdering three family members with paraquat, a poisonous herbicide. The habeas petition in this case relates to his convictions for the murders of Joyce and Martha and the death sentence for Martha’s murder.The California Supreme Court (CSC) summarily denied Catlin’s first state habeas petition on the merits in 2007 and rejected his second state habeas petition in 2013 as procedurally barred. The district court denied Catlin’s federal habeas petition and his motion for discovery and evidentiary development in 2019, granting a certificate of appealability on several claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Catlin’s claims under the deferential standard set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Catlin’s habeas petition, concluding that the CSC reasonably rejected Catlin’s claims. The court held that the CSC acted reasonably in rejecting Catlin’s claims of error arising from the state trial judge’s ex parte discussion with a juror, concluding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases of Catlin’s trial, and determining that there was no violation of due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.The Ninth Circuit also declined to issue a certificate of appealability for Catlin’s uncertified claim that the state violated his due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and presenting false evidence. The court found that no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s resolution of this claim. View "CATLIN V. BROOMFIELD" on Justia Law