Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second-degree arson stemming from a fire that occurred in Defendant's home, for which she submitted a claim to her insurer seeking to recover for the damage to her home, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal and that she was denied her fundamental right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court's factual findings were legally sufficient to support a conviction of second-degree arson; (2) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (3) Defendant was not denied her constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. View "State v. Krouse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the postconviction court partially granting Defendant's motion to vacate his first-degree murder convictions and sentences of death pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the postconviction court erred in granting a new penalty phase.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder. After waiving a penalty-phase jury, Defendant was sentenced to death. Defendant later filed a postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851. The postconviction court summarily denied Defendant's four purely legal claims but granted a new penalty phase, ruling that counsel was deficient in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence, which prejudiced Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to establish deficient performance in any respect. View "State v. Mullens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder and carrying a dangerous weapon, holding that there was no deprivation of Defendant's due process right to a fair trial in this case.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed two instances of impropriety during the State's closing and rebuttal arguments, neither of which the defense objected to at trial. The Supreme Court upheld Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the first challenged argument did not exceed the bounds of permissible argument; and (2) as to the prosecutor's second challenged argument, even if the prosecutor's remarks were improper, there was no possibility that they deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Hinds" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree following the entry of his conditional plea of nolo contendere, holding that the prosecution of Defendant was time barred by the five-year statute of limitations set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-193(b).The robbery in this place took place on November 29, 2013. The next day, Defendant confessed to a detective as to his involvement in the robbery. On December 6, 2018, Defendant was transported to the superior court, where he was served with an arrest warrant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the prosecution was barred under section 54-193(b). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the State made at least some effort to execute the warrant on or before November 29, 2018. After Defendant entered his nolo contendere plea he appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State did not meet its burden to demonstrate that the warrant for Defendant's arrest was executed without unreasonable delay. View "State v. Freeman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for several drug-related offenses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during a search of Defendant's home.Officer Cody Scott was investigating a robbery when he detained Defendant for an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The officer asked Defendant if he would escort him inside the house, and Defendant agreed to the request. After Officer Scott observed possible narcotics in the residence he obtained a search warrant, the execution of which revealed various drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's protections under Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975), were violated in this case, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during the search. View "McCoy v. State" on Justia Law

Police were called to a motel to break up a fight between Graham and his coconspirator, Moore. Their body cameras captured Moore in an agitated state shouting that Graham was holding and prostituting a 19-year-old. Graham was later charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and related crimes stemming from his operation of an interstate commercial sex enterprise. The government played the body-camera recordings at Graham’s trial during an officer’s testimony. Moore had pleaded guilty and was on the government’s witness list. Graham’s attorney moved for a mistrial, arguing that if Moore did not testify, Graham would be denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront her about the recorded statements. The government did not call Moore as a witness. The judge agreed that a Confrontation Clause violation had occurred but declined to grant a mistrial, reasoning that a curative instruction was adequate to remedy any prejudice. The jury found Graham guilty.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There was no Confrontation Clause violation. Moore uttered her statements spontaneously as the officers were responding to a fight in progress and to rapidly evolving circumstances suggesting that sex trafficking might be occurring at the motel. When statements are made to law-enforcement officers under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the police encounter is to respond to an ongoing emergency, the statements are not testimonial and do not implicate the Confrontation Clause. View "United States v. Graham, Jr." on Justia Law

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 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