Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Luke LeFever was involved in a series of criminal activities following a roadside encounter with Deputy Castellanos of the Dawson County Sheriff’s Department. LeFever lunged at the deputy, was tased twice, and fled the scene. He attempted to steal multiple vehicles, broke into a home, assaulted a resident, and led officers on a high-speed chase, driving recklessly and endangering public safety. The chase ended when officers fired 60 to 70 rounds at LeFever’s vehicle, resulting in serious injuries.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied LeFever’s requests for appointed counsel and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Deputy Castellanos had probable cause for the initial arrest and that the use of force, including the tasings and the shot fired at the utility vehicle’s wheel, was reasonable. The court also found that the report of “shots fired” by Deputy Castellanos did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Additionally, the court ruled that the actions of the other officers during the chase and subsequent shooting were reasonable under the circumstances and that qualified immunity applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the use of force by Deputy Castellanos and the other officers was reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of LeFever’s requests for appointed counsel, noting that the facts and legal issues were clear and uncomplicated, and that the district court had provided adequate assistance to LeFever in managing his case. View "LeFever v. Castellanos" on Justia Law

Four condemned inmates challenged the constitutionality of a South Carolina statute that provides three methods of execution: electrocution, lethal injection, and firing squad. They argued that the statute violates the South Carolina Constitution's prohibition against cruel, corporal, or unusual punishment.The Richland County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the inmates, declaring the statute unconstitutional. The court found that electrocution and firing squad methods violate the state constitution's prohibition on cruel, corporal, or unusual punishment. It also found the statute's provision allowing inmates to choose their method of execution unconstitutionally vague and an improper delegation of authority. The court further ruled that the retroactive application of the amended statute violated ex post facto prohibitions.The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the statute does not violate the South Carolina Constitution. It found that electrocution is not unconstitutionally cruel, corporal, or unusual, noting that the inmates did not meet their burden of proving that electrocution causes unnecessary and excessive pain. The court also held that lethal injection, as conceded by the inmates, is constitutional if properly administered. Regarding the firing squad, the court found it to be a relatively quick and painless method of execution, thus not cruel or unusual.The court also addressed the inmates' claims about the statute's vagueness and improper delegation of authority, finding that the term "available" is not unconstitutionally vague and that the statute does not unlawfully delegate authority to the Director of the Department of Corrections. The court emphasized that the statute's provision allowing inmates to choose their method of execution is a constitutional innovation aimed at making the death penalty less inhumane. The court concluded that the statute is constitutional in its entirety. View "Owens v. Stirling" on Justia Law

Carlos Martinez, a former federal prison guard, was convicted of multiple charges related to the repeated rape of an inmate, referred to as "Maria," at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Maria testified that Martinez raped her on five occasions, using both physical force and threats to coerce her. The jury found Martinez guilty of several counts, including sexual abuse by threats or fear, deprivation of civil rights, and aggravated sexual abuse for one of the rapes.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York sentenced Martinez to ten years in prison. Martinez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for two counts, arguing that the jury's acquittals on other counts indicated they did not believe Maria's testimony. The government cross-appealed, arguing that the ten-year sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Martinez's sufficiency challenge, affirming that the jury was entitled to credit Maria's testimony that Martinez physically restrained her during one of the rapes. The court also noted that inconsistent verdicts do not undermine a conviction.The court found the district court's sentence procedurally unreasonable due to several errors: relying on clearly erroneous factual findings, misapprehending the law, and failing to sentence Martinez based on all his convictions. The district court had improperly treated the convictions for sexual abuse by threats or fear as equivalent to sexual abuse of a ward, and it had given undue weight to its doubts about the jury's guilty verdicts.The Second Circuit held that the ten-year sentence was also substantively unreasonable because it did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Martinez's offenses. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction, ordered that a specific paragraph in the Presentence Investigation Report be stricken, and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Jamal L. Smith was convicted of first-degree intentional murder while committing a drive-by shooting, among other charges, for the fatal shooting of Jay Boughton during a road rage incident. Smith was driving a rented Chevrolet Suburban with two passengers from Chicago to Minnesota. During the trip, Smith brandished a pistol in a video, and later, the Suburban was involved in a road rage incident where Smith allegedly pointed a gun at another driver. On the night of the murder, Smith's Suburban paced Boughton's truck on the highway before a single .45-caliber bullet was fired from the Suburban, striking Boughton in the neck and causing his death.The Hennepin County District Court denied Smith's motion to dismiss the indictment based on the racial composition of the grand jury and admitted evidence of Smith's prior bad acts under the immediate episode exception. A jury found Smith guilty, and he was sentenced to life with the possibility of release for the murder charge and a concurrent sentence for possession of ammunition or a firearm after being convicted of a crime of violence. Smith appealed, arguing judicial bias, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury pool composition, erroneous admission of prior bad acts, and insufficient evidence to prove he fired the fatal shot.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Smith failed to demonstrate judicial bias or ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also held that Smith did not show that Black persons were underrepresented in the jury pool or that any underrepresentation resulted from systematic exclusion. The court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Smith's prior bad acts, as it was admissible under the Spreigl exception or as direct or corroborative evidence of a charged crime. Finally, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference from the circumstances proved was that Smith fired the fatal shot. The court affirmed the judgment of convictions. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Harry Malbry, who was convicted in 1991 for committing lewd acts on a child, sought to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. His offenses involved daily sexual abuse of a five-year-old girl over three years. After serving a six-year prison term, he was released and required to register annually as a sex offender. In 2022, Malbry petitioned the trial court to end his registration duty, citing his crime-free record since 1991 as evidence that he no longer posed a danger to the community.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Malbry’s petition, emphasizing that community safety would be significantly enhanced by his continued registration. The court highlighted the persistence and severity of his offenses, his lack of insight into his actions, and his exploitation of a trusting child. The court also noted that Malbry had not sought any professional help or therapy to address his behavior.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court considered several factors, including the nature and facts of the offense, the age of the victim, and Malbry’s lack of participation in a certified sex offender treatment program. The court also noted that legislative changes, such as the enactment of section 288.7, which mandates lifetime registration for similar offenses, underscored the heightened danger posed by Malbry’s conduct. The court concluded that continuing Malbry’s registration as a sex offender significantly enhances community safety, given the severity and persistence of his past offenses and his lack of demonstrated rehabilitation. View "People v. Malbry" on Justia Law

On December 26, 2019, Officers Rozeboom and Malone responded to a shoplifting report at Dick’s Sporting Goods in Papillion, Nebraska. The suspects were described as a black male and black female in a silver four-door sedan. Malone spotted a similar vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. Storrs, a black male, was driving, and Smith, a white female, was the passenger. Despite the discrepancy in the suspect description, the officers detained Storrs and Smith. During the encounter, Storrs and Smith were uncooperative, leading to their arrest and a search of their vehicle, which allegedly smelled of marijuana.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. The court determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and probable cause for the continued detention and search based on the alleged odor of marijuana. The court also found no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, agreeing that the officers had probable cause to arrest Storrs and Smith for obstructing a peace officer and that there was no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the claim of unlawful continued detention, finding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion once they saw Smith was white. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact regarding the alleged odor of marijuana, precluding summary judgment on the illegal search claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Storrs v. Rozeboom" on Justia Law

Kenneth Hunt arrived at the Lee County Courthouse to testify in a criminal case. Directed outside due to courtroom scheduling, Hunt re-entered and sat on a staircase. Officer Dale Acosta confronted Hunt, leading to a heated exchange. Despite Hunt's explanation of his courthouse business, Acosta arrested him for obstruction, claiming Hunt disrupted the county tax office.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed most of Hunt's claims but allowed his Fourth Amendment claim against Acosta, a failure to train or supervise claim against Mayor Jimmy Williams and Chief of Police Martin Wilson, and a Monell claim against the City of Marianna. The court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta and qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson. Acosta, Williams, and Wilson appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta's initial stop of Hunt, as Acosta acted under a judge's directive. However, the court affirmed the denial of quasi-judicial and qualified immunity for Acosta's arrest of Hunt, finding no probable cause for obstruction. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson, ruling that Hunt failed to show a pattern of unconstitutional acts by Acosta that would have put them on notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Hunt v. Acosta" on Justia Law

Joseph Smith was convicted of child sexual abuse and related offenses after sexually abusing his stepdaughter, A.S., starting when she was twelve years old. Smith forced A.S. to engage in sexual acts, sent her explicit messages, and coerced her into sending him nude photos. The abuse was reported to the police in April 2017, leading to a search of Smith’s residence, where incriminating evidence was found on a personal computer and two cell phones.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Smith’s pretrial motions, including a motion to dismiss the indictment based on an alleged underrepresentation of Black residents in the jury pool, a motion to suppress evidence found on the seized devices, and motions related to the government’s case agent’s presence and testimony. Smith was convicted on multiple counts, including child sexual abuse, production and possession of child pornography, and enticement of a minor, and was sentenced to two concurrent life terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed Smith’s appeal and rejected all four of his challenges. The court held that Smith failed to demonstrate systematic exclusion of Black residents in the jury-selection process, as required by the Sixth Amendment. The court also found that the search warrant for Smith’s residence was sufficiently particular and that the good-faith exception precluded suppression of the evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not plainly err in allowing the case agent to remain in the courtroom and testify based on her knowledge of Cellebrite, as any error did not affect the trial’s outcome given the overwhelming evidence against Smith. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed Smith’s convictions. View "U.S. v. Smith" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Marion Correctional Institution, Willard McCarley, submitted a statement alleging sexual assault by a prison doctor. The institutional investigator found the allegation to be false and issued a conduct report accusing McCarley of violating Rule 27, which prohibits giving false information to departmental employees. The Rules Infraction Board (RIB) found McCarley guilty and placed him in disciplinary control for 14 days. McCarley appealed the decision to the warden and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (DRC) chief legal counsel, both of whom affirmed the RIB’s decision.McCarley then filed a mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, seeking to compel the DRC to vacate the RIB’s decision. He argued that there was no evidence to support the finding that he lied. The court referred the matter to a magistrate, who recommended granting the DRC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, stating that McCarley failed to show a clear legal right to the relief sought or a clear legal duty on the part of the DRC. The court of appeals initially remanded the case to the magistrate to address the sufficiency of evidence but ultimately adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and denied the writ.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District’s judgment. The court held that McCarley did not demonstrate that the RIB’s guilty finding imposed an atypical and significant hardship or affected the duration of his confinement, which are necessary to establish a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Additionally, the court found that the RIB’s decision was supported by “some evidence,” specifically the “unfounded” finding of the PREA investigation. Therefore, McCarley was not entitled to mandamus relief, and the DRC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "State ex rel. McCarley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Paul Rundo and Robert Boman, who were charged with conspiracy to violate the Anti-Riot Act and with substantively violating the Act. The indictment alleges that Rundo is a founding member of the "Rise Above Movement" (RAM), a militant white supremacist group. Rundo and Boman, along with other RAM members, attended several political rallies where they violently attacked counter-protesters. The indictment details their involvement in rallies in Huntington Beach, Berkeley, San Bernardino, and Charlottesville, where they engaged in organized violence and later boasted about their actions online.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially dismissed the indictment, finding the Anti-Riot Act unconstitutional due to facial overbreadth under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the Act was not facially overbroad except for certain severable portions. On remand, the district court dismissed the indictment again, this time based on a claim of selective prosecution. The district court concluded that the government selectively prosecuted RAM members while ignoring the violence of Antifa and related far-left groups, suggesting that the prosecution was based on the offensive nature of RAM's speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that Rundo did not meet his burden to demonstrate that similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted and that his prosecution was based on an impermissible motive. The court found that the district court erred by comparing collective conduct to individual conduct and by holding that individual Antifa members were similarly situated to Rundo. The Ninth Circuit also held that Rundo failed to show that his prosecution was based on an impermissible motive, noting that timing and other factors cited by the district court were insufficient. The court reinstated the indictment and remanded the case for trial. View "USA V. RUNDO" on Justia Law