Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court approved the decision of the court of appeal affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress eyewitness identifications resulting from an out-of-court police procedure, holding that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion review and that the court of appeal correctly analyzed the merits under that standard.In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the court of appeal applied the abuse of discretion standard of review to the trial court's ruling on the out-of-court identification by the eyewitness. On appeal, the court of appeal affirmed "[d]ue to the abuse of discretion standard of review." The Supreme Court approved the decision below, holding (1) abuse of discretion review is the proper standard; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the out-of-court identification. View "Alahad v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation but vacated his conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder, holding that the felony-murder conviction was improper.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, with aggravated kidnapping as the predicate felony. In this appeal, consolidated with the appeal of his motions for a new trial and for reconsideration, Defendant argued, and the Commonwealth conceded, that the conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder was improper because the predicate felony of aggravated kidnapping did not exist at the time of the killing. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's felony-murder conviction and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's conviction of felony-murder lacked sufficient evidence to support it; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Samia" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not require a court to pre-screen eyewitness identification testimony before the eyewitness can be permitted to make an identification of the defendant for the first time in open court.Defendant was indicted on four counts of robbery and four counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony for robbing a bank. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to forty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) due process did not compel the circuit court to pre-screen the identification at issue when that identification was made for the first time in court; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Defendant's identification was more probative than prejudicial; and (3) Defendant was properly convicted of a second or subsequent offense of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. View "Walker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of aggravated burglary and obstructing a police officer and sentencing him to forty years for aggravated burglary and six months for obstructing a peace officer, holding that the case must be remanded for resentencing.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated; (2) Defendant's claim of instructional error not warrant plain error review because he failed to show how he was prejudiced; (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail because Defendant he to show any prejudice; and (4) Defendant was entitled to resentencing because the district court relied on incorrect information when it imposed the sentence. View "State v. Kirn" on Justia Law

Michigan’s 1994 Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (amended in 2006 and 2011) imposed registration requirements, restrictions on living and working in a school zone, and reporting requirements. Michigan retroactively imposed these obligations, including those contained in the amendments, on offenders convicted before 2006 and 2011. In another suit, the Sixth Circuit held, in 2016, that the retroactive application of SORA amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. While an interim order was in effect, in another suit, Michigan passed a fourth version of SORA, effective on March 24, 2021, removing or modifying provisions that had been declared unconstitutional.In 2021, five Michigan sex offenders filed suit, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983. They alleged that the Michigan State Police enforced unconstitutional provisions of SORA from 2006 onwards, including after the previous cases were decided. They alleged that state officials, whom they purported to sue “in their individual capacities,” knew that the invalidated provisions were unconstitutional, but failed to stop their subordinates from enforcing them, noting the governors’ duty under the Michigan Constitution to ensure the faithful execution of federal and state law. The district court dismissed the complaint on various grounds, including sovereign immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on different grounds. The plaintiffs fail to state a claim of supervisory liability. They do not plausibly allege that the defendants authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct. View "Does 1-5 v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying the Commonwealth's petition filed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from a superior court judge's denial of the Commonwealth's motion to disqualify Rosemary Scapicchio, Defendant's appellate counsel, on the ground that she had a conflict of interest, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying the motion.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. Later, represented by Scapicchio, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging ineffective of counsel. Thereafter, Scapicchio represented Michael Barros at a hearing in an unrelated criminal case. The Commonwealth moved to disqualify Scapicchio on the grounds that her representation of both Defendant and Barros gave rise to a conflict of interest. The superior court denied the motion. The Commonwealth then filed the petition at issue. The single justice denied relief without reaching its merits. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying the petition. View "Commonwealth v. Monteiro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree felony murder under an aiding and abetting theory of criminal liability, holding that Appellant's arguments did not entitle him to relief.In his petition for postconviction relief, Appellant claimed in part that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel did not communicate an Alford plea deal to him. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Appellant failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed first-degree felony murder under an aiding and abetting theory of criminal liability. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Contra Costa County Superior Court found McKneely, the defendant in multiple criminal actions, incompetent to stand trial. McKneely was admitted to Napa State Hospital. A year later, the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) issued a certificate that McKneely had regained mental competence, with a comprehensive report prepared by a senior forensic psychologist. McKneely was returned to court. His attorney filed an “Objection,” accompanied by counsel’s declaration “setting forth the basis for her good faith belief that [McKneely] was not competent to stand trial.” A 2022 amendment to Penal Code 1372(b) required that “[i]f the court rejects a certificate of restoration, the court shall base its rejection on a written report of an evaluation, conducted by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, that the defendant is not competent.” The attorney argued that no further expert declaration should be required if McKneely could present a sufficiently detailed declaration from his attorney.The court concluded that the court could not reject a certificate based solely on that declaration. Although the court was prepared to appoint an expert, McKneely requested that it not do so. The court of appeal rejected McKneely’s arguments that section 1372(c)(2)’s requirement of the appointment of an expert violated separation of powers principles and due process because, by “dictat[ing] the form of proof” required to reject a certificate of restoration, the Legislature “usurps the judiciary’s role.” View "McKneely v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Cal. Penal Code 667.6(d), which requires that a sentencing court impose "full, separate, and consecutive" terms for certain sex crimes if it finds certain facts, complies with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Defendant was convicted of six counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under the age of fourteen and one lesser-included offense of attempt and sentenced to full, consecutive terms for each of his convictions. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by sentencing him under section 667.6(d) without submitting to the jury the question of whether each of his offenses was committed on a separate occasion. The court of appeal denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the operation of section 667.6(d) does not violate the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). View "People v. Catarino" on Justia Law

In 2011, Gaona fired a gun with the intent to kill a certain individual but accidentally shot and injured a bystander. Gaona pleaded guilty in Michigan state court to assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Gaona was sentenced to two years for the firearm conviction, consecutive to a 17-to-50-year sentence for the assault conviction, based on a PSR which reported three prior misdemeanors, including one stemming from a 2009 incident, for which Gaona was (without the assistance of counsel) convicted of possession of marijuana via plea and sentenced to 30 days’ time served. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected his argument that state courts may not rely on an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction in enhancing a sentence if that conviction resulted in a sentence of actual imprisonment.The district court denied Gaona’s 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition on the same sentencing argument but stayed his petition so that he could exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court. The state courts rejected those claims. The federal court then rejected his ineffective assistance claims as he had not filed an amended habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. No Supreme Court case clearly establishes that state courts may not, in enhancing a sentence, rely on an uncounseled misdemeanor that resulted in a sentence of time served. View "Gaona v. Brown" on Justia Law