Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In the state of Montana, William James Rupnow Jr., a licensed bail bondsman, was accused of criminal offenses after he tried to apprehend a client, Victorianne Dahl, who had violated her bail conditions. Dahl had consistently been late with payments and had violated other conditions of her release. Rupnow resorted to using pepper spray in his attempt to detain Dahl, leading to the State charging him with felony assault with a weapon and aggravated assault. Rupnow was ultimately acquitted on the aggravated assault charge, but the jury could not reach a verdict on the assault with a weapon charge. In response, Rupnow filed a lawsuit against the Montana State Auditor and Commissioner of Insurance, Mike Winsor, Jennifer Hudson, and XYZ government subdivision, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and violation of his rights under the Montana Constitution. The defendants requested the case be dismissed based on prosecutorial immunity, a motion which the District Court granted. Rupnow appealed the decision, arguing that as a bail bondsman, he had the authority to arrest Dahl without a warrant.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Rupnow's case. The Court found that Montana's statutory scheme for pre-trial release, or bail, did not provide bail bondsmen with an unfettered right to remit a bail bond client to jail without an outstanding warrant. The Court reasoned that the legislature did not intend to grant bail bondsmen arrest authority that far exceeded that of law enforcement officers. Therefore, Rupnow did not have the authority to arrest Dahl without a warrant, meaning there was probable cause to charge Rupnow with the crimes he was accused of. The Court concluded that Rupnow's claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process failed as a matter of law. View "Rupnow v. State Auditor" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, Benjamin Adams, an inmate at Indiana’s Plainfield Correctional Facility, sued the current and former commissioners of the Indiana Department of Corrections and various other officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Adams was sentenced to a prison term of 30 years for attempted murder and a consecutive term of four years for involuntary manslaughter. He was assigned to work in the prison kitchen, but that assignment was rescinded due to concerns that he might use the assignment to smuggle drugs into the prison. He was later charged with offense A-100 for engaging in criminal gang activity related to an assault in the prison. Disciplinary Hearing Officer J. Peltier found Adams guilty of that offense on March 16. He was ordered to spend one year in disciplinary segregation, 365 days of his earned good time credits were revoked, and he was demoted from credit-earning class 1 to class 3.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The appellate court concluded that Adams' claim of First Amendment retaliation lacked sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendants were motivated by a retaliatory intent to pursue the assault charge against him. The court also held that Adams was not deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as prison disciplinary hearings require only informal due process, which leaves substantial flexibility in the hands of prison administrators. Regarding the Equal Protection claim, the court found no evidence that Adams was treated differently based on his race. Lastly, the court concluded that the defendants could not be held liable for violating Adams' Eighth Amendment rights as there was no evidence that they had control over the conditions of restrictive housing where Adams was placed. View "Adams v. Reagle" on Justia Law

Darrell J. Robinson was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Robinson appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing that the state suppressed material evidence that violated his due process rights. The evidence in question included undisclosed deals with jailhouse informant Leroy Goodspeed, serology reports and notes, other forensic evidence, and eyewitness accounts inconsistent with trial testimony.The court found that the state did suppress evidence and this evidence was favorable to the defense. The court further found that the undisclosed evidence was material and its suppression undermined confidence in the verdict. Consequently, the court decided that Robinson did not receive a fair trial, resulting in a verdict unworthy of confidence. The court reversed Robinson's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for a new trial. View "STATE EX REL. ROBINSON VS. VANNOY" on Justia Law

The case involves Michael Earl Mosby III, an African-American man charged with multiple murders, including a drive-by shooting, by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in California. The District Attorney sought the death penalty in Mosby's case. Mosby filed a motion claiming that the decision to seek the death penalty violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, which prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race. The motion was denied by the trial court, which ruled that Mosby had failed to make a prima facie showing of a violation as required under the Act.Mosby then petitioned the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order denying his request for a hearing on his Racial Justice Act claim and to enter a new order granting an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court agreed in part with the trial court that Mosby was required to present not only statistical evidence of racial disparity in the charging of the death penalty by the District Attorney but also evidence of nonminority defendants who were engaged in similar conduct and were similarly situated but charged with lesser offenses, to establish a prima facie case.However, based on the evidence presented in this case, which included factual examples of nonminority defendants who committed murder but were not charged with the death penalty in cases involving similar conduct and who were similarly situated, e.g., had prior records or committed multiple murders, and statistical evidence that there was a history of racial disparity in charging the death penalty by the District Attorney, the appellate court concluded that Mosby met his burden of establishing a prima facie case under section 745, subdivision (a)(3). Therefore, the appellate court granted the writ petition and directed the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. View "Mosby v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A sex offender, who was convicted in the 1980s and had lived a law-abiding life for 37 subsequent years, petitioned the trial court to be removed from California’s registry of sex offenders. The People opposed the petition, arguing that one of the offender’s sex crimes would render him ineligible for removal from the registry if prosecuted today under a statute enacted 21 years after his conviction. The court had to decide whether a petition for removal from the sex offender registry could be denied on the grounds that the offender's underlying sex crime also constitutes a different, later-enacted sex crime that requires lifetime registration. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Two held that the trial court erred in giving controlling weight to the nature of the underlying sex offenses and ignoring the defendant's lack of reoffending over the years. The court's decision was reversed, and the defendant was ruled eligible for removal from the registry. View "People v. Franco" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the defendant, Denzel McFarlane, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and other related charges, appealed for a new trial. He based his appeal on the fact that a police officer who had arrested and testified against him was found civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment in an unrelated lawsuit. McFarlane argued that the existence of the civil lawsuit against the officer was exculpatory information that the prosecution should have disclosed to the defense but failed to do so.The primary legal issue was whether the existence of a pending civil lawsuit against a police officer must be disclosed by a prosecutor as exculpatory evidence. The court held that the existence of a pending civil lawsuit against a police officer does not need to be disclosed by a prosecutor as exculpatory evidence. The court reasoned that until a finding of liability has been made, a pending civil lawsuit constitutes an unsubstantiated allegation of police misconduct that does not tend to negate the guilt of the defendant. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of McFarlane's motion for a new trial.In addition, the court established that while a prosecutor has no duty to inquire into pending civil lawsuits against a prosecution team member, the duty of inquiry does require that prosecutors inquire about the existence of any findings of civil liability related to the performance of a police officer's duties. In other words, if a police officer has been found liable in a civil lawsuit, the prosecution has a duty to discover that information and potentially disclose it to the defense. View "Commonwealth v. Mcfarlane" on Justia Law

In this case, six plaintiffs -- two criminal defense organizations, two defense attorneys, and two former criminal defendants -- filed a petition against the District Attorney's Office for the Hampden District in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged multiple failures by the District Attorney's Office, primarily stemming from its handling of evidence of misconduct within the Springfield Police Department (the department). The U.S. Department of Justice had previously conducted an investigation and found that officers in the department, particularly those within the narcotics bureau, routinely falsified police reports and engaged in a pattern of excessive force.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the District Attorney's Office, through certain discovery policies, committed a breach of both the duty to disclose evidence that tends to exculpate defendants and the duty to investigate or inquire about such evidence. Specifically, the court identified three problematic practices: 1) disclosing adverse credibility findings made about the department's officers only on a discretionary basis; 2) withholding instances of officer misconduct from disclosure where a specific bad act cannot be clearly attributed to a particular officer; and 3) failing to gain access to all documents known to have been reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).To rectify these breaches, the court ordered the District Attorney's Office to obtain access to all categories of documents known to have been reviewed by the DOJ and disclose them to the plaintiffs. From there, case-by-case adjudication can begin to address the claims of individual defendants affected by the department's misconduct. In issuing this order, the court emphasized the importance of a prosecutor's dual duties -- to disclose and to investigate -- in upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system. View "Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden District" on Justia Law

In 2011, Daniel Santillanes was convicted of a felony charge for facilitating the sale or transportation of marijuana in Arizona. In 2020, Arizona voters passed Proposition 207, which permitted the expungement of certain marijuana-related offenses. Following this, Santillanes sought to have his felony marijuana conviction expunged and his civil rights restored, including his right to possess a firearm. The trial court granted his request. The state then appealed the decision, questioning whether they had the right to do so.The main issue under consideration by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona was whether the state had the right to appeal the trial court's decision to expunge Santillanes's record and restore his civil rights. The court concluded that the state did indeed have the right to appeal this expungement order under A.R.S. § 13-4032(4). The court found that an order expunging records of a felony conviction affects the substantial rights of the state, and therefore, the state has the right to appeal such a decision.The Supreme Court vacated parts of the lower court's opinion and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, consistent with the remainder of the appellate court's opinion. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v SANTILLANES" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, James McCray, appealed from a 2022 order that recommitted him for another one-year term under a statutory scheme governing violent offenders with mental health disorders. McCray argued that there was insufficient evidence that he represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others due to a severe mental health disorder, that he voluntarily absented himself from his recommitment trial, and that the trial court failed to obtain from him a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found that McCray's appeal was moot due to his subsequent recommitment in 2023. However, the court decided to address the trial court's failure to engage in a robust enough oral colloquy with McCray to establish that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. The court concluded that the record is insufficient to support the determination that McCray made a valid waiver of his right to a jury. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal as moot but found that McCray's waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent. View "People v. McCray" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Iowa addressed whether the district court erred in ordering the placement of a sexually violent predator in a transitional release program over the State’s objection. The State argued that the offender was ineligible for that program without a relapse prevention plan (RPP) accepted by his treatment provider at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) as required by Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2)(d) (2022). The district court determined that the offender’s plan, approved by the offender’s expert, satisfied that statutory requirement. The State appealed, asserting that the court erred by substituting its judgment for that of CCUSO’s staff.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that a writ of certiorari is the proper form of appellate review, and granted the petition. On the merits, the court held that the district court erred by substituting its judgment for that of CCUSO’s staff. The court agreed with the State that the offender was ineligible for placement in the transitional release program because his treatment provider at CCUSO had not accepted his proposed RPP. The court also rejected the offender's substantive due process claims. Consequently, the court sustained the writ and vacated the district court’s ruling. View "In Re Detention of Schuman" on Justia Law