Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case concerned Everett Maynard, a police officer in West Virginia, who was convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law. This conviction was based on his use of excessive force against an arrestee, Robert Wilfong, which resulted in Wilfong being hospitalized with a broken nose and lacerations on his upper head. During the trial, witnesses were required to wear face masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maynard appealed his conviction, arguing that the mask requirement violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and for causing "serious bodily injury."The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. It held that the mask requirement did not violate Maynard's Sixth Amendment right, as the protection against the spread of COVID-19 is an important public policy interest and the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony was assured. This was because the witnesses were under oath, cross-examined, and the jury could observe their demeanor. The court also found no error in the application of sentencing enhancements. The court agreed with the district court's finding that the injuries inflicted on Wilfong constituted "serious bodily injury," and affirmed the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement, finding that a defendant's perjurious testimony at trial is relevant to sentencing because it reflects on a defendant’s criminal history, willingness to obey the law, and general character. View "US v. Maynard" on Justia Law

In the case from the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, the defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances and an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury or death, appealed his conviction on the grounds that his trial counsel exhibited racial bias towards him in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020. He argued that his counsel's advice to testify in his natural linguistic style, which included the use of slang terms and a certain accent, displayed racial bias or animus. The court disagreed, ruling that advising a defendant to testify in an authentic and genuine manner did not indicate racial bias or animus and did not violate the Racial Justice Act. The defendant also argued that the trial court erred in imposing two sentence enhancements and a parole revocation restitution fine. The court agreed that the parole revocation restitution fine should be stricken, as the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The judgment was thus modified to remove the parole revocation restitution fine, but otherwise affirmed. View "People v. Coleman" on Justia Law

This case concerns Johnnie Wesley, who was brought in for questioning by Wisconsin police in connection with a murder investigation. Wesley invoked his right to remain silent during the initial interrogation, and the interrogation ceased. However, he was interrogated two more times, during which he made incriminating statements implicating himself in the murder. Wesley was subsequently charged with felony murder. He moved to suppress the incriminating statements on two grounds: (1) the officers did not honor his initial invocation of his right to remain silent, and (2) he unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent during the third interrogation. The motion was denied and Wesley was convicted. He then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which was dismissed.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the court affirmed the lower court's decisions. It held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent to Wesley’s case. The court determined that Wesley's right to remain silent was "scrupulously honored" after he invoked it during the first interrogation, and that he did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent during the third interrogation. The court reasoned that Wesley's statements during the third interrogation could reasonably be interpreted as exculpatory, rather than as an invocation of silence. View "Wesley v. Hepp" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming, appellant Darrell Leonardo Alexander claimed that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement after they entered his apartment without a warrant or his consent. The case revolved around the question of warrantless entry and consent.The court held that the warrantless entry into Alexander's apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This was because the officers reasonably believed that Alexander's girlfriend, identified as E.B., had the apparent authority to consent to their entry. E.B. had called the police to report domestic violence, and when the officers arrived, she opened the door to the apartment and stepped inside, holding the door open for the officers. This action was seen as an invitation for the officers to enter the apartment.The court also found that E.B. had given implied consent for the officers to enter the apartment based on her nonverbal gestures and actions, such as opening the door and stepping inside when asked about the location of her boyfriend. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court ruled that the officers' reliance on E.B.'s apparent authority to consent to their entry was reasonable. As such, the district court's decision to deny Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence was affirmed. View "Alexander v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The court case in question involves James McCray, a violent offender with mental health disorders (OMHD), who has been committed to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) since 2005. McCray appealed a 2022 order recommitting him for another one-year term, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove he represented a substantial danger to others due to his severe mental health disorder, that he voluntarily absented himself from his recommitment trial, and that the trial court did not obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury from him before the trial.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four dismissed McCray's appeal as moot since the recommitment order he appealed from had expired and he had been recommitted for another year. However, the court addressed his claim that the trial court failed to ensure he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial, given its recurring importance.Upon review, the court found that the trial court relied entirely on McCray's counsel's brief questioning about his understanding of the right to a jury trial and did not take any steps to ensure McCray fully understood the significance of a jury trial and the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial. The court concluded that McCray did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial, and highlighted the importance of the court directly informing an OMHD defendant about the right being waived to ensure a meaningful record of the defendant's understanding of a jury waiver. View "P. v. McCray" on Justia Law

In an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, two defendants, Robert Brumfield and Jeremy Esteves, convicted for their roles in a 2013 armed truck robbery in New Orleans, challenged the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial. This motion was based on their claim that the Government had suppressed evidence related to the credibility of two witnesses, which they argued violated the rules established in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. In addition, Brumfield separately claimed that the Government failed to correct false testimony and also appealed his sentence.The Court found that the new evidence was not material in Brumfield's case, his claim of false testimony was without merit, and his sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. However, the Court concluded that the new evidence was material as to Esteves, and thus his Brady claim required further consideration by the district court. Consequently, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of Esteves’s Brady claim. View "USA v. Brumfield" on Justia Law

In November 2010, Mario Cruzado was brought in for questioning by Boston police regarding the death of Frederick Allen III, a gay, African-American man. During the interview, Cruzado used a racial slur when referring to a picture of Allen. In 2012, Cruzado was charged and convicted of first-degree murder for killing Allen and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Cruzado's conviction was based, in part, on the recorded police interview, which was admitted as evidence to show Cruzado's racial animus and thus his motive for the killing. Cruzado appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the admission of the recorded police interview violated his right to due process.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) consolidated Cruzado's appeals and denied them, holding that the state trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. The SJC also stated that Cruzado's argument that the admission of the racial slur violated his due process rights was unavailing, as the slur came from his own mouth. Cruzado then filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.In an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Cruzado argued that the admission of the recorded police interview violated his right to due process. The Court held that Cruzado's due process rights were not violated, as the racial slur held substantial probative value in demonstrating whether the crime may have been partially motivated by racial animus. The Court also noted that the potential prejudicial effect of the racial slur was mitigated by the trial judge conducting an individual voir dire of potential jurors to eliminate potential bias and that Cruzado did not request a limiting instruction to disregard or not infer anything from his use of the racial slur. Therefore, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's rejection of Cruzado's petition for habeas relief. View "Cruzado v. Alves" on Justia Law

This case involves Daryl McGhee, who was charged with several federal offenses related to possession of a firearm and cocaine. The charges arose after the police received a 911 call from McGhee's wife reporting domestic violence and alleging that McGhee had left their house carrying a gun and a leather bag. The police followed footprints in the snow to find McGhee and later found the bag, which contained the gun and cocaine, under a nearby dumpster. During the trial, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois issued an order prohibiting McGhee from testifying about the domestic violence incident, even to deny the allegation, threatening to jail him and his defense counsel if they violated the order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that while the district court's decision to limit McGhee's testimony was valid as it avoided turning the trial into a domestic dispute, the order was overly broad as it completely silenced McGhee, leaving the jury to potentially conclude that he did hit his wife. Despite this, the appellate court concluded that the exclusionary order did not have a substantial influence over the jury and did not result in a verdict inconsistent with substantial justice. The court expressed concerns about the district court's treatment of McGhee's defense counsel but ultimately affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v. McGhee" on Justia Law

In this case, Tyler Reece Rambo was convicted on three counts of aggravated assault upon a peace officer following an incident with police at a city park in Idaho. Rambo appealed his conviction, challenging several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings concerning the admission of evidence at his trial. Rambo argued that the court erred in excluding evidence of a civil lawsuit against the Coeur d’Alene Police Department, admitting body camera footage of his gun discharging, excluding body camera footage of officers returning fire, prohibiting him from testifying about the trajectory of a bullet, and prohibiting him from showing the jury his bullet scars. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the majority of the district court’s rulings and determined that the district court's one erroneous relevancy determination regarding the exclusion of body cam footage indicating that Rambo’s gun did not discharge a second time, was harmless. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed Rambo’s judgment of conviction. View "State v. Rambo" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Keyon Paylor, appealed from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which denied his petition to vacate his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Paylor had entered a guilty plea, which he later sought to vacate, asserting that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. He claimed that law enforcement officers involved in his arrest planted the firearm and stole thousands of dollars from him, and that his plea was induced as a result of egregious law enforcement misconduct. The district court denied his petition, concluding that Paylor did not produce enough evidence to establish that information regarding former Detective Daniel Hersl’s misconduct materially influenced his decision to plead guilty. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court's decision and vacated it, concluding that Paylor is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing in order to attempt to gather evidence to support his claim. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. View "US v. Paylor" on Justia Law