Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Edward Mather, the defendant, was charged with multiple counts of domestic assault, vandalism, and violation of a no-contact order. Following his arraignment, he was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial. The evaluation concluded that Mather was incompetent to stand trial and required hospitalization. Subsequently, he was committed to an outpatient facility, LaBelle House Group Home, under the custody of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH).The Superior Court held a commitment hearing and based on a report from BHDDH, found Mather remained incompetent to stand trial. The court ordered Mather to remain committed to BHDDH's custody but allowed him to be placed in an outpatient facility without endangering himself or others. The court also ordered that if Mather violated the conditions of the order, engaged in threatening or aggressive behavior, or required hospitalization, he should be immediately returned to Eleanor Slater Hospital.Mather filed a petition to discharge from the detention order of commitment in both of his pending criminal matters. He argued that his continued institutionalization at the outpatient facility restricted his liberty and violated due process. The trial justice denied Mather's petitions, reasoning that his commitment to the outpatient facility did not constitute "detention" pursuant to the relevant statute. Mather sought review of the decision, and the Supreme Court of Rhode Island granted the petitions, consolidated the cases for review, and issued the writ.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island quashed the orders of the Superior Court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court held that the trial justice committed a reversible error of law when he denied the petitions to discharge from detention orders of commitment. The court concluded that Mather's continued commitment no longer bore a reasonable relationship to the purpose of his commitment under the relevant statute. The court held that where a defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial and competency is nonrestorable prior to the statutory dismissal period, the defendant is entitled to be discharged from detention under the order of commitment thirty days thereafter. View "State v. Mather" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Needham, who was referred for evaluation as a possible Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) after serving his prison term for certain sex offenses. Two evaluators initially determined that Needham had a mental disorder making him likely to engage in sexual violence unless civilly committed. However, before the probable cause hearing, one evaluator changed his opinion, leading to the appointment of two other evaluators. One of these evaluators concluded that Needham qualified as an SVP, while the other did not. The trial court found probable cause to believe Needham was an SVP and ordered a trial.The People retained Dr. Craig King as an expert and sought discovery of Needham's evaluations and records. The trial court granted the request and ruled that Dr. King could interview and test Needham. Needham filed motions to preclude Dr. King from testifying at trial, which were denied. Needham sought a writ of mandate/prohibition to prevent Dr. King from conducting any further interviewing or testing and from testifying at trial. The Court of Appeal granted Needham's writ petition and directed the trial court to exclude Dr. King's testimony. The People petitioned for review from that ruling.The Supreme Court of California held that, under the SVPA, the People may call their retained expert to testify at trial, both to contest the testimony of other witnesses and to offer an independent opinion as to whether the defendant qualifies as an SVP. However, the People's retained expert may not compel a defendant to be interviewed or participate in testing before trial. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's contrary judgment and remanded the case for trial. View "Needham v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Milton Jonas Arias Molina, was charged with special circumstances murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and street terrorism. During the preliminary examination, Molina and his two co-defendants were required to share a single Spanish-language interpreter. Molina sought relief after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss based on the failure to provide him with his own interpreter throughout the preliminary examination.The charges arose from a homicide that occurred in October 2018. The Santa Cruz County District Attorney charged Molina and his two co-defendants with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and street terrorism. The complaint also alleged two special circumstances—that the murder was committed by means of lying in wait and that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang—along with various other firearm and gang sentencing enhancements.The preliminary examination was conducted in 13 sessions over the course of 15 months. During the first day of the preliminary examination, Molina’s counsel objected that the hearing would be conducted with a single interpreter for all three defendants. The prosecutor also voiced her concerns about the lack of interpreters. The magistrate stated that he intended to proceed with the hearing, with the understanding that if any of the defendants needed to speak with counsel, he would interrupt the proceedings to permit that.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District concluded that the failure to provide an individual interpreter for Molina at his preliminary examination reasonably might have affected the outcome. The court issued the writ of mandate instructing the trial court to vacate its order denying Molina’s motion to dismiss and enter a new order granting that motion, without prejudice to the Santa Cruz County District Attorney refiling the charges and conducting a new preliminary examination. View "Molina v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Rodney Lass was initially charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse. However, the case ended in a mistrial due to the alleged victim's disregard of a court order. Subsequently, the prosecutors recharged the case, adding multiple felony counts. Lass was found guilty on all but one charge and was sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. Lass contended that the second set of charges were the product of an unconstitutional vindictive prosecution. He argued that the prosecutors leveled the expanded charges against him in retaliation for his seeking and receiving a mistrial in the misdemeanor case.Lass sought post-conviction relief in Wisconsin state court and later in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that Lass failed to allege facts that would establish a presumption of vindictiveness or actual vindictiveness. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined review.Lass's application for relief in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 also fell short. The district court found that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not apply a presumption of vindictiveness and that its declining to do so was neither contrary to nor reflected an unreasonable application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The district court also declined to consider Lass's two remaining claims, finding both procedurally defaulted.In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, Lass's contentions were seen as procedurally defaulted. The court affirmed the district court's disposition of these two claims. The court also found no basis for federal habeas relief under § 2254(d) on Lass's vindictive prosecution claim. The court concluded that no aspect of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' rationale was contrary to or reflected an unreasonable application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. View "Lass v. Wells" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Jascha Chiaverini, a jewelry store owner, and police officers from Napoleon, Ohio. The officers charged Chiaverini with three crimes: receiving stolen property, dealing in precious metals without a license, both misdemeanors, and money laundering, a felony. After obtaining a warrant, the police arrested Chiaverini and detained him for three days. However, county prosecutors later dropped the case. Chiaverini, believing that his arrest and detention were unjustified, sued the officers, alleging a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. To win this claim, he had to show that the officers brought criminal charges against him without probable cause, leading to an unreasonable seizure of his person.The District Court granted summary judgment to the officers, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that Chiaverini’s prosecution was supported by probable cause. In its decision, the court did not address whether the officers had probable cause to bring the money-laundering charge. The court believed that there was clearly probable cause to charge Chiaverini with the two misdemeanors. As long as one charge was supported by probable cause, it thought, a malicious-prosecution claim based on any other charge must fail.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, all agreed with this conclusion, which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Florida was asked to interpret Florida’s law prohibiting riot, section 870.01(2), Florida Statutes (2021). The question was whether the law applies to a person who is present at a violent protest, but neither engages in, nor intends to assist others in engaging in, violent and disorderly conduct. The court ruled that it does not.The case originated from a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs against Governor Ron DeSantis, three Florida sheriffs, and Attorney General Ashley Moody in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs argued that the statute was vague and overbroad in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court agreed and enjoined the enforcement of the statute. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the central constitutional question was the statute’s scope and certified the question to the Supreme Court of Florida.The Supreme Court of Florida concluded that a "violent public disturbance" under section 870.01(2) is characterized by harm to persons or property, and not by peacefulness. To "willfully participate" in a "violent public disturbance," a defendant must have "intentionally, knowingly, and purposely" chosen to be part of it. Therefore, to be guilty of the crime of riot, one must "engage in," or at least "intend to assist others in engaging in, violent and disorderly conduct." The court found that the statute was not ambiguous and returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. View "DeSantis v. Dream Defenders" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to sixty years in prison. The defendant was the victim's mother's boyfriend, and they lived together for about five years. The victim testified that the defendant sexually abused her when she was six or seven years old. The abuse was reported to the Polk County Sheriff’s Department by Alyssa Crawford, who learned about it from the victim. Two years later, during the trial, the State moved to present Crawford’s testimony via Zoom due to her fear of retaliation, her responsibility of caring for her husband with a broken back, and a conflicting court appearance in Colorado. The defendant objected, arguing that allowing Crawford to testify remotely would violate his right to confront her face to face.The trial court overruled the defendant's objection and allowed Crawford to testify via Zoom. The court of appeals, however, reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court’s necessity finding in support of its ruling was too general and unjustified by any public-policy interest.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals. It held that the trial court’s necessity finding was sufficient and justified by the witness’s fear of retaliation. The court noted that retaliation is a crime and protecting witnesses from retaliation is an important public-policy interest. The court also pointed out that Crawford had provided a basis for her fear—death threats and break-ins at her home soon after her report to the sheriff. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MCCUMBER v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

Anthony Buntyn, an employee of a private company that transported detainees for law enforcement agencies, was charged with willfully violating the detainees' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause due to inhumane conditions of confinement. The conditions developed while Buntyn transported the detainees in a van to various detention facilities. The government alleged that Buntyn had violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause through deliberate indifference to intolerable conditions of confinement and that this indifference had resulted in bodily injury to three detainees. The jury found Buntyn guilty of depriving the detainees of humane conditions, acting willfully and with deliberate indifference, and causing bodily injury to one detainee.Buntyn appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the evidence was insufficient for a finding of guilt, that the district court erred in preventing his attorney from using the term malice in closing argument, and that the court coerced the jury to reach a verdict. The Tenth Circuit rejected Buntyn's arguments and affirmed his conviction. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of inhumane conditions, deliberate indifference, and willfulness. The court also found that the district court did not err in prohibiting the use of the term malice in closing argument, and that Buntyn had waived his challenge to the district court's instruction for the jury to continue deliberating. View "United States v. Buntyn" on Justia Law

On March 26, 2017, two men robbed a restaurant in Queens. One of the robbers, a Black man wearing a red hoodie, black jacket, and a bandana over his face, approached the Assistant Manager, Sumintra Ramsahoye, and demanded she open the safe. When she couldn't, she handed over the contents of the cash register drawers. Meanwhile, the other perpetrator stood next to another employee, Jordan Guzman. After the robbers fled, Guzman called the police. Police Officer Bryce Blake and his partner arrived at the restaurant within minutes and observed the defendant, Freddie T. Wright, standing in the parking lot dressed in a black jacket and red hoodie. Wright fled upon seeing the patrol car, but was eventually arrested. Guzman and Ramsahoye were brought to the house where Wright was arrested to identify him.Wright moved to suppress the identification testimony, arguing that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive. The court denied the motion, finding that the identifications were not "overly suggestive and improper" because they were made in a "very short spatial and temporal time between the incident and arrest." During jury selection, Wright raised a Batson challenge to the People's use of peremptory strikes on two prospective jurors—C.C. and K.C. The court found that the reasons proffered by the People for their strike of C.C. and K.C. were not pretextual. Wright was ultimately convicted of second-degree robbery and second-degree criminal trespass.The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that Wright had "failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong of the Batson test, that the facially race-neutral explanation given by the prosecutor was a pretext for racial discrimination." The Court of Appeals granted Wright leave to appeal.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that there was record support for the determinations that the People had valid, race-neutral reasons for striking the two prospective jurors. The court also found record support for the conclusions of the courts below that the show-up procedure used by police was not unduly suggestive. The court concluded that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. View "People v Wright" on Justia Law

The case involves Earl Johnson, a former inmate of the Maryland Correctional Training Center, who alleged that corrections officer Chad Zimmerman sexually harassed and abused him during strip searches, in violation of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights. Johnson also sued Zimmerman’s supervisor, Lt. Richard Robinette, alleging supervisory and bystander liability. The district court dismissed Johnson’s claims against Robinette due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies but held that Johnson’s claims against Zimmerman were exempt from this requirement. The court also granted summary judgment to Zimmerman and Robinette on the merits of Johnson’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that Johnson’s claims against Robinette were subject to exhaustion requirements. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to both defendants. The court found that the strip searches, including those involving momentary touchings of Johnson’s genitalia or buttocks, did not rise to the level of an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that Johnson failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Zimmerman had the requisite malicious intent to sexually abuse him, sexually arouse him or himself, or otherwise gratify sexual desire. Furthermore, the court found that Johnson’s evidence fell short of establishing supervisory or bystander liability against Robinette. View "Johnson v. Robinette" on Justia Law