Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Russell William Tucker, the defendant argued that his conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death should be overturned due to alleged discrimination in jury selection. He asserted that newly discovered evidence, a continuing legal education handout and a statistical study, supported his claim of purposeful discrimination. However, the defendant had failed to raise a Batson claim (a claim of discrimination in jury selection) during his original trial or in previous post-conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court of North Carolina found that the defendant’s claim was procedurally barred and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.The defendant killed a security guard and shot two police officers in 1994. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. During jury selection, the defendant raised objections to the State’s peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors. The trial court found that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, and the defendant did not raise a Batson claim on direct appeal or in previous post-conviction proceedings.In this appeal, the defendant argued that the handout and study constituted newly discovered evidence that would support a Batson claim. The defense argued that these materials showed a pattern of racial discrimination in jury selection in North Carolina. However, the Court held that the defendant's claim was procedurally barred because he could have raised a Batson claim during his original trial or in previous post-conviction proceedings but failed to do so. The Court also found that the handout and study did not constitute newly discovered evidence and did not show that the defendant was prejudiced by the alleged discrimination. Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendant’s Batson claim was procedurally barred and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

In an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Erma Wilson sought to overturn the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas which dismissed her federal civil rights suit against Midland County, Texas, and individuals Ralph Petty and Albert Schorre. Wilson was convicted of cocaine possession 22 years prior and she maintained her innocence, claiming that the cocaine found was not hers. The case revolved around her claim that she was denied due process since the assistant district attorney in her case, Ralph Petty, was also moonlighting as a law clerk for the judge presiding over her trial. Wilson was sentenced to eight years of community supervision which derailed her dream of becoming a nurse.Upon review, the Fifth Circuit held that Wilson's claim is barred by the "favorable termination" rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The rule states that a convicted party cannot seek § 1983 damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment without first showing that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal or otherwise declared invalid. The court noted that Petty’s dual role indeed constituted a conflict of interest that violated Wilson's constitutional right to a fair trial. However, under the court's precedent, noncustodial plaintiffs, such as Wilson, must meet the favorable-termination requirement, even if it’s practically impossible for them to do so. The court found that it was bound by prior circuit precedent and could only affirm the lower court's decision. The court noted that only the en banc court or the United States Supreme Court could deliver a different result. The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. View "Wilson v. Midland County" on Justia Law

Shiheem Amos appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm, which was found after he was stopped by police officers who suspected him of being involved in a disturbance reported at a nearby location. Amos argued that he was seized without reasonable suspicion, and therefore the firearm should not have been admissible in court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Amos was not seized until after he attempted to flee from the police officers, and at that point, the officers had reasonable suspicion to seize him based on his attempt to flee. Thus, the firearm was admissible, and the motion to suppress was correctly denied.Amos also challenged his 62-month sentence, which included an enhancement for a previous state court conviction that was classified as a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The court records did not specify which subsection of the Pennsylvania aggravated assault statute Amos had been convicted under, but the government argued that all possible subsections qualified as a crime of violence. However, the Third Circuit held that one of the subsections, which can be violated by a failure to act, does not meet the definition of a crime of violence because it does not require the use of violent force. Therefore, the court vacated Amos's sentence and remanded for resentencing without the crime of violence enhancement. View "USA v. Amos" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit examined an appeal by John Lee Ralston, who was charged with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm after a search of his residence. The search was conducted under a warrant that was primarily issued based on criminal activity suspected of another person, Colton Varty, who was believed to be residing on the same piece of property but in a different residence. Ralston argued the warrant did not establish probable cause that evidence would be located inside his house.The district court had denied Ralston’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his residence, ruling that even though the warrant lacked probable cause, the officers acted in good faith, relying on the Leon good-faith exception. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed and reversed the district court's decision.The Court of Appeals held that the Leon good-faith exception did not apply in this case. The court found that the affidavit supporting the warrant was so lacking in evidence connecting Ralston and his residence to the suspected criminal activity of Varty that no reasonable officer would have relied upon a warrant that was issued based on it. The Court of Appeals concluded that without evidence that Varty had access to Ralston’s residence or facts pointing to a fair probability that Ralston’s residence contained stolen property or was being used to fence stolen property, the Leon good-faith exception could not apply. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court with directions to vacate Ralston’s guilty plea and grant his motion to suppress. View "United States v. Ralston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld the conviction of Eric Berry, who was found guilty of first-degree burglary, first-degree sexual assault, two counts of fourth-degree assault, first-degree fleeing or evading, and resisting arrest. The court rejected Berry's appeal that his right to a speedy trial was violated, arguing that delays in his trial were due to valid reasons such as Berry's own actions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and personal reasons of his attorneys. The court also denied Berry's argument that the trial court erred in not giving an intoxication defense instruction, stating that while Berry was intoxicated during the incident, he clearly knew what he was doing and acted deliberately. The court further dismissed Berry's claim that his former testimony from a domestic violence hearing should have been allowed, as the Commonwealth did not have an opportunity to cross-examine him during that hearing. Additionally, the court found no error in the joinder of the April and December incidents for the trial, as Berry failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the record. Lastly, the court rejected Berry's claim for cumulative error, as they found no error in the other arguments presented. View "BERRY V. COMMONWEALTH" on Justia Law