Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In the case at hand, the defendant, Joshua Hart, and his girlfriend, Brittany Smith, entered the home of an elderly couple, Thomas Harty and his wife, Joanna Fisher, intending to steal their car and money. The couple ended up fatally attacking both Harty and Fisher, and then fled the state in the victims' vehicle. Hart was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, and he appealed on several grounds.Hart argued that his confession to law enforcement was involuntary and should have been suppressed, but the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed. The court found that Hart's confession was voluntary based on the circumstances of the interrogation, his experience with the criminal justice system, and his own actions and statements during the interrogation.Hart also argued that the trial should have been moved to another venue due to pretrial publicity. The court disagreed, stating that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the pretrial publicity caused either presumptive or actual prejudice. The court found that less than 20% of potential jurors were excused due to pretrial publicity, and the judge took extensive steps to protect Hart's right to a fair trial.Hart further contended that a statement made by the deceased victim, Fisher, to her nurse, which was relayed to the jury through the nurse's testimony, should have been excluded from evidence as it was hearsay and violated his right to confront witnesses. The court determined that Fisher's statements were non-testimonial and thus did not violate the confrontation clause. The court also found that even if Fisher's statements were admitted in error, there was no prejudice because the Commonwealth presented other compelling evidence of the facts relayed in Fisher's statements.Finally, Hart argued that his sentences of life without the possibility of parole constituted cruel or unusual punishment because he was under 25 years old at the time of the crimes. The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to extend the prohibition of life sentences without parole for juveniles to individuals under the age of 25.Accordingly, the court affirmed Hart's convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Hart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Arkansas heard an appeal from Michael Jenkins, who was challenging the denial of his pro se petition for a writ of "mandamus/prohibition" by the Jefferson County Circuit Court. Jenkins, who was convicted of first-degree sexual assault in 2018 and sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment, claimed that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and its record keeper had incorrectly deemed him ineligible for parole. He argued that the application of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b), which disqualifies for parole a sex offender previously convicted of a violent felony, was an ex post facto violation as it was based on his 1981 convictions for armed robbery and home invasion in Illinois - offenses that occurred before the enactment of the cited statute.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that there was no ex post facto violation in the ADC’s application of the statute to Jenkins's parole eligibility. The court pointed out that the statute was enacted in 2001 and eliminates parole eligibility for persons who committed a felony sex offense after August 13, 2001, and had been previously convicted of a violent felony offense or any felony sex offense. Jenkins was convicted of a sexual assault committed in 2016, and his previous violent offenses committed in Illinois before the act's enactment were valid grounds for the application of section 16-93-609(b)(2). Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's denial of Jenkins's petition for a writ and also denied his motion for the appointment of counsel. View "JENKINS v. DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION" on Justia Law

A plaintiff, Elvin Torres-Estrada, brought claims against several Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights. The district court dismissed his complaint, arguing that some of his claims were not filed within the required time frame and that the FTCA's discretionary function exception stripped the court of jurisdiction over his other claims. Torres-Estrada appealed the dismissal, arguing that his claims are timely, the discretionary function exception does not apply, and even if it does, it does not cover the alleged misconduct of the FBI.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the discretionary function exception. The court explained that this exception does not serve as a bar to FTCA tort claims that plausibly allege constitutional violations. In addition, at least two of Torres-Estrada's claims could be subject to the "continuing violation" doctrine, which means the district court erred in dismissing his claims as untimely without considering this doctrine. Given that new facts have emerged throughout the litigation, the court granted Torres-Estrada leave to amend his complaint. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.The background facts of the case are that Torres-Estrada was detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, pending prosecution for drug and money laundering offenses. During this time, he was investigated by the FBI as a potential suspect in the murder of a correctional officer at the MDC. Torres-Estrada alleges that the FBI violated his rights through various actions, including the use of informants to elicit incriminating statements about the murder, subjecting him to invasive body searches, and maintaining records falsely linking him to the murder. View "Torres-Estrada v. Cases" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, the court examined a claim brought by an inmate, Jeffrey Hout. Hout, who was convicted in 2010 of kidnapping and murder, accused Governor Michael Dunleavy of failing to provide him with proof of various bonds, oaths, and licenses, and alleged that certain people involved in his criminal trial had practiced law without valid licenses. He also filed a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Financing Statement seeking to secure a purported debt of $250 million in gold dollars owed to him by Governor Dunleavy and the State of Alaska. The superior court dismissed the lawsuit because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, prompting Hout to appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court highlighted that Hout's claims were consistent with the expressed belief system of a group known as “sovereign citizens” and stated that courts across the country have universally rejected these types of claims. The court noted that their jurisdiction to decide the case was derived from Alaska citizens who have provided “consent of the governed” by ratifying the Alaska Constitution. The court rejected Hout's argument that Alaska’s laws do not apply to him unless he provides personal consent to be governed by those laws.On the merits, the court found Hout's fraud claim to be without merit. The primary allegation underpinning Hout’s fraud claim was that Governor Dunleavy was legally obligated to provide him with proof of oaths, licenses, and bonds. The court held that there was no legal basis for this claim. The court also dismissed Hout’s civil rights claim seeking release from prison on the ground that certain officials who participated in his criminal trial were practicing law without valid licenses. The court explained that the proper vehicle for Hout’s claim seeking release from prison would be an application for post-conviction relief. Since Hout had already applied once for post-conviction relief, any subsequent application would be dismissed. View "Jeffrey Hout v. State of Alaska, Office of the Governor" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the second federal habeas corpus petition by Jaime Dean Charboneau, who sought to overturn his conviction for the 1984 shooting death of his ex-wife in Idaho. Charboneau alleged that Idaho officials violated their obligations under Brady v. Maryland by encouraging his ex-wife's daughter, Tira, to provide false statements and testimony regarding her mother’s death and to dispose of potentially exculpatory evidence. In support of these allegations, Charboneau relied on a letter written by Tira in 1989. However, the court held that Charboneau failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing actual innocence as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) for consideration of second or successive federal habeas petitions. The court held that, even if the letter was genuine, the statements in the letter, viewed in light of all the evidence, were not sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted Charboneau of first-degree murder. The court concluded that Charboneau’s new materials did not suffice to make the requisite showing of actual innocence. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed his petition without reaching the merits of his Brady claim. View "CHARBONEAU V. DAVIS" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of Iowa, the defendant, Robert Clark Geddes, was charged with trespass as a hate crime. The defendant had trespassed onto various properties, leaving behind anonymous notes that urged the residents to "Burn that gay flag." The homes targeted by the defendant were displaying LGBTQ+ flags or decals. Geddes appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that his convictions violated his rights to free speech and due process.The court rejected the defendant's arguments and affirmed his convictions. The court ruled that Geddes was not being punished for his speech, but rather for his conduct—trespassing onto properties with the intent to commit a hate crime. The court found that the statute under which Geddes was convicted does not criminalize speech, but rather conduct with a specific intent—namely, trespassing on property because of the property owner or possessor's association with persons of a certain sexual orientation. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support Geddes's conviction.The court held that the defendant's conduct of surreptitiously entering onto properties to post his harassing notes was not protected under the First Amendment rights. The court noted that hate crime laws are designed to punish conduct, not expression, and Geddes's motive or intent led to the more serious criminal consequence. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the trespass law was vague or overbroad, finding that it provides sufficient guidance to those enforcing it and does not intrude on protected freedoms. View "State of Iowa v. Geddes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court for attempted murder and other crimes with respect to Defendant's contended errors but vacated Defendant's sentences with respect to domestic violence assault and domestic violence terrorizing, holding that those sentences exceeded the maximum allowable under Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 1604(1)(D).On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction under M.R.U. Crim. P. 16(e) and that the jury venire was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences in part, holding (1) the trial court's discovery sanction constituted a fundamentally fair balance between the parties' competing interests; (2) Defendant did not sufficiently preserve or present a sufficient record for the Supreme Court to reach Defendant's second contention; and (3) the trial court erred by entering a one-year sentence for Defendant's convictions for domestic violence assault and domestic violence, both class D misdemeanors. View "State v. Page" on Justia Law

Sergeant Albee saw a truck pulling a partially loaded car hauler semitrailer with no driver’s side markings indicating the company name or the DOT number required by federal regulations. The hauler was only partially loaded, which Albee found unusual; no registration was displayed on the trailer. During the subsequent traffic stop, Webb displayed “a state of panic” and had no organized documentation. He volunteered that he had been stopped several times and that the vehicle had been checked for drugs. Albee found that statement “bizarre.” Webb gave Albee a cab card that was Illinois apportioned, but the displayed license plate was from California. Albee performed a free air sniff test with his canine partner. After a positive alert on the trailer, a search revealed an unlicensed firearm and 2736 grams of cannabis–street value $40,000.Webb was convicted of cannabis trafficking, possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, and possession of cannabis. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Webb’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the cannabis on the basis that the positive canine alert, without more, was not sufficient to establish probable cause following changes to Illinois cannabis legislation. Albee relied on more than the dog sniff. The totality of the facts and circumstances justified a reasonable person in believing that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of criminal activity. View "People v. Webb" on Justia Law

Montanez was convicted based on the 2002 murder of Villalobos and Ramirez. The court sentenced him to mandatory natural life for two first-degree murder convictions, a 20-year consecutive sentence for an aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction, and a 27-year consecutive sentence for an aggravated kidnapping conviction.Montanez challenged the denial of his request for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. He sought to raise a claim that the prosecution violated “Brady” by failing to disclose evidence relevant to his defense that was stored in a file in the basement of the Chicago Police Department and was discovered after his convictions. Montanez claims that although he became aware of the file during his first postconviction proceedings (which included 46 constitutional claims) he was unable to obtain the file during those proceedings to establish that it contained material that would have been helpful to his defense.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the denial. In addition to failing to raise a Brady violation claim based on the entirety of the CPD file in his proposed successive petition, Montanez’s attempt to raise this claim on appeal was barred by res judicata. Montanez’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition falls short of demonstrating that the procedural hurdles for filing a successive petition should be lowered in this case. View "People v. Montanez" on Justia Law

Webster, 17 years old, fatally shot 15-year-old Gutierrez with a sawed-off shotgun while in the garage behind Webster’s home. Gutierrez sustained a wound to his hand, consistent with his arm having been in a defensive position, and two shotgun wounds to his face. Webster hid the shotgun, dragged Gutierrez’s body down the alley, and tried to clean the crime scene, depositing bloodstained items in neighboring garbage receptacles. In a video-recorded interview at the police station, Webster initially said that no one had been at his house that day and he had last seen Gutierrez about a month earlier. Eventually, Webster admitted that he shot Gutierrez, claiming that Gutierrez pulled out a shotgun, pointed it at Webster, and pulled one of the hammers and that Webster grabbed the shotgun from Gutierrez, “blacked out,” and shot Gutierrez twice to “finish him off.”Webster was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a term of 40 years. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the sentence. Absent a finding of error or abuse of discretion, the appellate court is without authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(b) to vacate a defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. The 40-year sentence is within statutory sentencing limits and is presumed proper. View "People v. Webster" on Justia Law