Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A man was accused of picking up a woman in El Paso, Texas, under the pretense of giving her a ride, then driving her across state lines to his home in Anthony, New Mexico, where he violently sexually assaulted her. The woman testified that she was handcuffed, physically assaulted, and raped multiple times before escaping at a stoplight in El Paso and seeking help. The defendant’s adopted daughter also testified that he had sexually assaulted her repeatedly when she was a minor and again as an adult.A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico indicted the defendant for kidnapping and transporting an individual across state lines with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. At trial, the defendant argued that the encounter with the woman was consensual and related to commercial sex, and he sought to introduce evidence of her prior prostitution to support his consent defense. The district court excluded this evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, finding it irrelevant to consent. The court also allowed the adopted daughter’s testimony under Rule 413, concluding that her allegations of prior sexual assault by the defendant were admissible and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The jury convicted the defendant on both counts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The court held that excluding evidence of the victim’s prior prostitution did not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights, as such evidence is not probative of consent under established precedent. The court also affirmed the admission of the adopted daughter’s testimony, holding that Rule 413 applies based on the conduct underlying the charges, not the statutory elements, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403. The court further found that the defendant had waived arguments regarding limitations on cross-examination of the adopted daughter. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

Two individuals, both members of a San Francisco gang known as Mac Block, were involved in a shootout at a funeral reception that resulted in the death of a man named Simmons and injuries to several bystanders. The government alleged that the defendants, after a confrontation with Simmons, retrieved firearms and returned to the scene, where a gunfight ensued. One defendant was accused of aiding and abetting the murder, while the other was alleged to have directly participated in the shooting. Both were charged with murder in aid of racketeering under the VICAR statute and with being felons in possession of firearms.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presided over the trial. Before trial, the court considered, but ultimately denied, a motion to bifurcate the trial so that the jury would first decide whether the defendants committed murder, and only if so, then consider the racketeering elements. The court concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent, specifically United States v. Barker, precluded such bifurcation. The court also addressed a Batson challenge to the government’s peremptory strike of a Black juror, finding the government’s race-neutral explanation sufficient and not pretextual. The jury convicted both defendants on all counts, and the court denied post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions. The court held that Barker forecloses bifurcation of the elements of a single VICAR murder charge, reasoning that such bifurcation would impermissibly alter the structure of the offense as defined by Congress. The court also upheld the district court’s rejection of the Batson challenge, finding no clear error in the determination that the government’s strike was not racially motivated. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA V. MANNING" on Justia Law

Christopher Skaggs was released on parole in 2019 after serving a prison sentence for felony violations of the Vehicle Code. In December 2020, the Mendocino County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke his parole, alleging new criminal conduct, and also filed a related criminal complaint. Skaggs failed to appear for hearings, resulting in bench warrants. He was later arrested in Lake County on these warrants and new charges, convicted, and sentenced to additional prison time. While incarcerated, Skaggs repeatedly requested to resolve the Mendocino County parole revocation and criminal matters. The criminal complaint was dismissed under Penal Code section 1381, but the court declined to dismiss the parole revocation petition, finding section 1381 inapplicable.Skaggs subsequently filed a nonstatutory motion to dismiss the parole revocation petition on constitutional due process grounds, arguing that delays prejudiced him by preventing concurrent sentencing and prolonging his custody. The Mendocino County Superior Court construed his motion as a Penal Code section 1385 motion and denied it, reasoning that section 1385 does not apply to parole revocation proceedings. The court then held a contested revocation hearing, found Skaggs violated parole, sentenced him to 90 days in jail, and ordered his parole terminated upon release. Skaggs appealed the denial of his motion and the parole revocation.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, determined that Skaggs’s appeal was moot because his parole had already been terminated and no effective relief could be granted. However, the court exercised its discretion to address the trial court’s error, holding that the trial court improperly construed Skaggs’s constitutional due process motion as a section 1385 motion and incorrectly concluded it lacked authority to consider the motion. The appellate court clarified that trial courts have jurisdiction to entertain nonstatutory motions to dismiss parole revocation petitions on constitutional due process grounds. The appeal was dismissed as moot. View "People v. Skaggs" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted by an Arizona jury of child molestation after he helped bathe young girls who were in his and his wife’s care through the foster system. The relevant Arizona statute defined child molestation as any direct or indirect touching of a child’s private parts, and, at the time, allowed a defendant to raise an affirmative defense by proving he was not motivated by sexual interest. The petitioner admitted to the touching but argued he lacked sexual motivation.After his first trial ended in a mistrial, the Arizona Supreme Court decided State v. Holle, which held that sexual motivation was not an element of the crime and that the lack of sexual interest was an affirmative defense the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. At the petitioner’s second trial, the court instructed the jury accordingly, and he was convicted on some counts. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Holle, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court also denied certiorari. The petitioner then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing that the statutory scheme unconstitutionally shifted the burden of disproving an essential element of the crime to him. The district court denied relief, finding the state courts’ application of federal law was not objectively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that Arizona’s statutory scheme violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by shifting to the defendant the burden of disproving sexual motivation, which is the critical fact distinguishing criminal from innocent conduct. The court concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the conviction was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to grant the writ of habeas corpus. View "BIEGANSKI V. SHINN" on Justia Law

A woman was stopped by a county deputy in Texas around 2:00 AM after the officer claimed to observe multiple traffic violations, including speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The woman, who had just left a family event with her husband, denied any wrongdoing and began recording the encounter on her phone. The officer reported smelling alcohol and observing signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech and glossy eyes. The woman refused to answer certain questions or perform field sobriety tests, leading to her arrest. Body camera footage later showed her being uncooperative and verbally abusive during the arrest and subsequent blood draw at the jail. A blood test revealed a low blood alcohol content, and the criminal charge was later dismissed for insufficient evidence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the county and the arresting officer on all claims. The court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and that there was probable cause for the arrest based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s observations and the woman’s refusal to cooperate. The court also rejected claims of First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and excessive force, as well as Monell claims against the county for alleged unconstitutional policies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and summary judgment de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest for driving while intoxicated, that the woman failed to show a constitutional violation necessary for her claims, and that the county could not be held liable under Monell without an underlying constitutional violation. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary decisions. View "Wood v. Bexar County" on Justia Law

Rodney Owen Skurdal, who is not a licensed attorney, attempted to represent Ronald Trow during Trow’s initial appearance in a criminal case in Yellowstone County Justice Court. Judge Jeanne Walker, presiding over the case, ordered Skurdal to vacate the defendant’s table and did not permit him to represent Trow, as Skurdal was not a member of the bar. Trow subsequently entered a plea of not guilty, and a public defender was appointed. Skurdal then filed a lawsuit in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County against Judge Walker, later joined by Yellowstone County as a defendant, alleging violations of his and Trow’s rights and advancing various arguments, including those associated with the “Sovereign Citizen” movement.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court dismissed Skurdal’s complaint with prejudice, holding that Judge Walker and Yellowstone County were protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in the course of judicial duties. The court also found that Skurdal, as a non-lawyer, had no statutory or constitutional right to represent another individual in a criminal proceeding in Montana. The court denied leave to amend the complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile due to the immunity defense.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that Montana law does not permit non-lawyers to represent others in criminal cases, and that Judge Walker’s actions were judicial acts performed within her jurisdiction, entitling her and Yellowstone County to absolute immunity from suit. The Court also concluded that the District Court did not err in denying leave to amend, as further amendment could not overcome the immunity bar. View "Skurdal v. Walker" on Justia Law

Kenin Edwards was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for tax fraud after a series of procedural complications. Edwards, who was represented by four different attorneys throughout the process, delayed his trial multiple times before pleading guilty. After his guilty plea, he fired his final attorney, decided to represent himself, recanted his admission of guilt, sought to vacate his plea, and filed numerous frivolous motions. The government, which had initially agreed to recommend a five-month split sentence, sought a 21-month sentence due to Edwards's conduct.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois handled the case. Edwards's initial attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in strategy, and his subsequent attorney was disqualified due to a conflict of interest. Edwards then retained a fourth attorney, with whom he eventually reached a plea agreement. However, Edwards later discharged this attorney as well and chose to represent himself. The district court conducted a Faretta hearing to ensure Edwards's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Despite Edwards's numerous pro se filings and attempts to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court denied his motions and sentenced him to 21 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Edwards argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court disqualified his attorney and allegedly forced him to proceed pro se at sentencing. He also claimed the government breached the plea agreement by recommending a higher sentence. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Edwards's appeal, finding that he had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court held that Edwards's claims did not fall within the exceptions to the appeal waiver and that the government did not breach the plea agreement. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In February 2023, police officers arrested Charlie Vick for domestic assault and battery involving a firearm. After his arrest, officers discovered that the car he had been driving was uninsured, unregistered, and had invalid license plates. They waited until Vick's uncle attempted to drive the car away and then stopped him shortly after he exited the parking lot. The officers impounded the car and conducted an inventory search, which revealed a gun. Vick was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the officers had staged the impounding and that their sole motive for the search was investigatory. Consequently, the court ordered the suppression of the evidence found during the search. The government appealed, arguing that the district court should not have considered the officers' subjective motives and that the court's finding of a sole investigatory motive was clearly erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government that the district court's finding of a sole investigatory motive was clearly erroneous. The appellate court noted that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for impounding the car, as it was unregistered, uninsured, and had invalid plates, making it a safety hazard. The court also found that the officers' decision to impound the car was lawful under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant of the motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "US v. Vick" on Justia Law

In this case, the applicant was convicted of capital murder for the 2004 killing of an elderly man, James Tomlin, during a robbery. The applicant and his girlfriend, Leketha Allen, were implicated in the crime, with the applicant providing statements to the police detailing their involvement. The medical examiner, Dr. Nizam Peerwani, testified that Tomlin's death was caused by smothering with positional asphyxia, which was critical in proving the applicant's intent to kill.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals previously affirmed the applicant's conviction and death sentence. The applicant's first post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. In his subsequent application, the applicant raised claims that his due process rights were violated by the presentation of false or misleading testimony by Dr. Peerwani and that new scientific evidence contradicted the evidence presented at trial.The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the lower court to review the merits of these claims. The habeas court held evidentiary hearings and considered testimony from various experts, including Dr. Peerwani, who reaffirmed his trial testimony. The habeas court recommended granting relief based on the new evidence and alleged false testimony.Upon review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the habeas court considered evidence beyond the scope of the claims raised in the application. The court determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate that Dr. Peerwani's testimony was false or misleading and that the new scientific evidence did not meet the requirements for relief under Article 11.073. Consequently, the court denied the applicant post-conviction habeas relief. View "EX PARTE CARTER" on Justia Law

In 2024, Carlos Huerta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, seeking relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA). The superior court denied the petition without appointing counsel, concluding that Huerta had failed to establish a prima facie claim for relief. Huerta then filed a petition in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, alleging racial discrimination in his charges and sentence, supported by statistical data.Previously, in 2010, Huerta was convicted of three counts of premeditated attempted murder and other felonies, with gang enhancements, and sentenced to 53 years to life plus 14 years. In 2022, he was resentenced to a determinate term of 26 years following changes in the law concerning attempted murder, retaining multiple gang enhancements. The RJA was not addressed during the resentencing.The Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause (OSC) in October 2024, appointing counsel for Huerta and directing the parties to address the legal showing required for the appointment of counsel in an RJA petition. The respondent initially argued that a prima facie showing was necessary for counsel appointment but later conceded that the McIntosh decision correctly interpreted section 1473, subdivision (e), which requires the appointment of counsel if the petition alleges facts that would establish an RJA violation.The Court of Appeal held that the superior court misapplied the statutory sequence by requiring a prima facie showing before assessing the lower pleading threshold for appointing counsel. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that Huerta's petition was facially defective as it failed to allege facts showing a qualifying offense under the RJA. The petition relied solely on gang enhancements, which do not fall within the scope of the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court of Appeal denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Huerta" on Justia Law