Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence of a 108-month term of immurement for attempted possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant waived his claim that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his arrest and the subsequent search of his person were unreasonable; (2) the district court did not plainly error in allowing the testimony of a detective; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (4) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Concepcion-Guliam" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had violated the conditions of his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court's determination that the government proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he possessed a firearm in violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) a releasee does not have a Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses during revocation proceedings, and Appellant's remaining constitutional challenge was waived; (2) the district court erred in failing to make the explicit balancing determination contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C), but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Teixeira" on Justia Law

Scott was suspected of shooting and killing Bishop. Scott claims he asked for an attorney during his arrest, but no questioning occurred at that time. Approximately four hours later, Scott was taken for an interview. After the detectives read Scott his Miranda rights, he admitted in a recorded interview to murdering Bishop. Four attorneys worked on Scott’s case before trial; one moved to exclude Scott’s confession on the basis of intoxication. The judge denied the motion, doubting Scott’s testimony. The jury heard the confession and convicted Scott.In a postconviction motion, Scott unsuccessfully alleged that his attorney was ineffective for not moving to suppress his confession on the theory that, because he requested an attorney during his arrest, his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Scott's second unsuccessful postconviction motion claimed his first postconviction counsel deficiently pleaded his claim by failing to marshal facts showing he informed his trial counsel of his request for an attorney.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his federal habeas petition, in which he claimed both his trial and first postconviction attorneys were ineffective. The Wisconsin appellate court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, which has never extended Miranda beyond the context of custodial interrogation to permit an accused to request an attorney at the time of his arrest so as to cut off questioning before any attempt at questioning. View "Scott v. Hepp" on Justia Law

Perry died from gunshot wounds sustained during a fight with Shirley. In 2008, Shirley was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide. Shirley uses a prosthetic device below his knee. Although he can walk, during his trial Shirley was in a wheelchair with his legs shackled. To prevent the jury from observing the shackles, fabric was draped over both counsel tables. During voir dire, Juror 34 stated, if he’s in cuffs, "he did something.” Juror 34 separately confirmed he had seen the restraints, had not mentioned them to other jurors, and that his observations did not bias him. Shirley and his counsel said they were satisfied with those responses and did not request accommodations to muffle the noise of the shackles while Shirley was on the witness stand.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected claims that his presumption of innocence was violated because Juror 34 noticed his restraints, that being shackled inhibited his right to present a complete defense because it limited his ability to approach exhibits, make demonstrations and show the jury which leg his prosthesis was on. The court could not locate an explanation in for the restraint decision but found Shirley “had little difficulty communicating” in an “intelligent and articulate” manner from the witness stand. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Shirley’s petition for habeas relief. No Supreme Court case clearly establishes that the decision to shackle a criminal defendant while testifying violates the defendant’s constitutional rights. View "Shirley v. Tegels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the single justice of the county court neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying, without a hearing, Petitioner's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.In 1985, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated rape and other offenses. In 2005, the Sex Offender Registration Board issued a decision ordering Petitioner to register as a level three sex offender, thereafter denying Petitioner's motion for relief from the registration requirement. In this petition, Petitioner brought, among other claims, constitutional challenges to both federal and state sex offender registration laws. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not abuse his discretion in finding that no exceptional circumstances were present in this case warranting extraordinary relief. View "Rancourt v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing Defendant's conviction following her conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, holding that the appellate court incorrectly determined that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence seized by the police following a warrantless entry into her apartment on the grounds that the exigent circumstances and emergency aid doctrines supported the warrantless search of her apartment. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the warrantless entry was supported by the exigent circumstances doctrine; and (2) the evidence supported an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside Defendant's apartment was in need of emergency medical aid. View "State v. Curet" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Elsa Palacios, personal representative of the estate of the deceased, Bernardo Palacios Carbajal, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants-Appellees Salt Lake City Police Officers Neil Iversen and Kevin Fortuna in their individual capacities, as well as Salt Lake City Corporation. Plaintiff alleged the officers violated Palacios’ Fourth Amendment rights when he was fatally shot during a police pursuit. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in favor of Defendants, finding a lack of a constitutional violation and that Plaintiff failed to show a violation of clearly established law. On appeal, Plaintiff contended that disputes about material and historical facts precluded summary judgment. According to Plaintiff, the district court erred by not making reasonable factual inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, primarily that: (1) Palacios may have been unaware he was being pursued by police because officers did not verbally identify themselves, because he was severely intoxicated, and he did not match the full description of the robbery suspect; (2) once Palacios fell onto his side during the shooting and did not point his gun at officers, he was effectively subdued; and (3) Palacios’ conduct showed he was attempting to avoid confrontation, not evade arrest. Plaintiff also contended that officers exaggerated the seriousness of the offenses that precipitated the pursuit and that officers should have used less intrusive means of apprehension because Palacios did not pose an imminent threat. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's case. View "Palacios v. Fortuna, et al." on Justia Law

In consolidated proceedings, Petitioners each sought a writ requiring the Superior Court to dismiss their cases for violating their speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1382.2. Petitioners argued there was no good cause to continue their cases past the statutory deadline because the Superior Court can no longer rely on the “exceptional circumstances” resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.The court of appeal denied the petitions. The pandemic and its adverse impacts on the courts did not end when the courts reopened; courts had to address both the backlog that had developed during the closure of the courts and new cases. Although the courts reopened, the pandemic continued to wreak havoc, with 36 judicial officers, court staff, sheriff’s deputies, attorneys, defendants, and jurors contracting COVID-19, being required to quarantine due to exposure, or having to care for family members. The persistence of a backlog during the period at issue was principally the result of continuing consequences of the pandemic. Not only the pandemic, itself, but its length, seriousness, and continuing effects were unexpected and unanticipated and resulted in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. The Superior Court did not, in these cases, abuse its discretion in concluding that exceptional circumstances justified the continuance of Petitioners’ trials past their statutory last days. View "Estrada v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder but vacated his sentence, holding that a criminal defendant's decision to exercise his constitutional right to a trial by jury may not be considered at sentencing.After a seven-day trial at which Defendant did not testify, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to murder. After a sentencing hearing, the court found that there were no mitigating circumstances and imposed a thirty-two-year sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it denied Defendant's request to provide him with access to the grand jury transcript; but (2) abused its discretion by referencing Defendant's demand for a jury trial in determining the genuineness of Defendant's claim of personal reform and contrition. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the circuit court's order dismissing Appellant's appeal from the district court absent a conviction as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(a), holding that the district court illegally imposed court costs and probation in violation of Appellant's state and federal constitutional due process rights and his federal and state constitutional right to a trial.Appellant pled guilty to carrying a weapon in a publicly owned building. The district court ordered Appellant to pay court costs of $140 and told Appellant if there were no further charges within thirty days the charge would be dismissed. The court dismissed the case at the end of thirty days for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that there was no underlying conviction. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear Appellant's challenge to the legality of his de facto sentence, and Appellant should have been heard on the merits. View "Gillette v. City of Fort Smith" on Justia Law