Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Jessie Grace was convicted of second-degree murder in 1994 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction. Over the next 18 years, Grace filed several post-conviction relief applications, all of which were denied until 2012, when he was granted leave to reopen his federal proceedings based on newly discovered evidence. Grace obtained state grand jury testimony that revealed discrepancies between the grand jury and trial testimonies of two key witnesses: Sergeant Snow and Michelle Temple. These discrepancies suggested that another individual, Darrick Hudson, might have been involved in the crime.In 2015, Grace filed a third application for post-conviction relief in state trial court, alleging Brady violations based on the grand jury testimony. The state trial court granted his application, vacated his conviction, and ordered a new trial. The State appealed, and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court's decision, reinstating Grace's life sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Grace's subsequent writ application in 2019. Grace then filed a second supplemental application in federal district court, asserting a Brady claim. The district court granted relief, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings.On remand, the district court again granted Grace's habeas relief, finding that the state court erred in its consideration of the materiality of the suppressed evidence. The State appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The Fifth Circuit determined that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that the suppressed evidence was not material enough to undermine confidence in the verdict. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and denied Grace's application for habeas relief. View "Grace v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Artell Young, a federal supervised releasee, was subject to a search condition allowing federal probation officers to search his person, vehicle, or home upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or release condition violations. After receiving information that Young was dealing drugs and possessing a firearm, federal probation officers searched his home, finding small amounts of crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, and marijuana. The federal authorities turned the case over to Iowa authorities, leading to Young's conviction on several drug offenses.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Young moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The district court upheld the search, citing the "special needs" exception under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8. The court also noted that the search was conducted by federal officers under federal standards, thus not subject to Iowa constitutional standards. Young was convicted by a jury of three counts of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to six years in prison.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The court held that the constitutionality of the search should be evaluated by the law of the sovereign that conducted the search—in this case, federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the search was lawful under federal standards and that the evidence obtained was admissible in the state prosecution. The court rejected Young's claim of an illegal search and affirmed his convictions. View "State of Iowa v. Young" on Justia Law

Nathan Wilson and Christopher Beasley were alleged to have set fire to a police car during a protest in Santa Monica, California, following the killing of George Floyd. They were federally indicted on one count of arson. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing they were selectively prosecuted based on perceived anti-government views. Alternatively, they sought discovery on their selective-prosecution claim.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss but granted discovery on the selective-prosecution claim. The government indicated it would seek appellate review rather than comply with the discovery order, leading the district court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, which allows for government appeals in criminal cases without requiring final decisions. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by granting discovery based on an erroneous view of the law. The district court had incorrectly defined the control group for determining discriminatory effect, failing to account for relevant factors beyond committing the same crime in the same location.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s selective-prosecution discovery order and the dismissal of the indictment without prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not address whether the defendants presented evidence of discriminatory intent. View "USA V. WILSON" on Justia Law

The defendant, Angelo Clark, was charged with multiple counts of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery following a gang-related shooting in 2013 that injured two people. Clark moved to quash his arrest, which was based on an investigative alert issued by the Chicago Police Department. The circuit court denied his motion, and Clark did not contest this denial further in the circuit court.In 2017, a jury in the Cook County Circuit Court convicted Clark of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm under an accountability theory. He was initially sentenced to 46 years in prison, which was later reduced to 32 years upon reconsideration.Clark appealed, and the Appellate Court, First District, affirmed his conviction and sentence. The appellate court rejected Clark's argument that his arrest was unconstitutional because it was based on an investigative alert rather than a warrant. The court also found no plain error in the circuit court's consideration of sentencing factors for juvenile offenders, as Clark was 17 at the time of the offense.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that warrantless arrests based on probable cause do not violate the Illinois Constitution, even if communicated via an investigative alert. The court also found that the circuit court had considered the relevant factors for sentencing juvenile offenders, as required by section 5-4.5-105(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections, and thus, there was no clear or obvious error in the sentencing process. View "People v. Clark" on Justia Law

David Vincent was stopped by Officer David Robertson of the Edmonton Police Department based on a tip from a known informant and an alleged equipment violation. The informant reported that two individuals at a gas station appeared to be intoxicated. Officer Robertson observed a vehicle with red parking lights, which he believed violated a new law that had not yet taken effect. He followed the vehicle, observed no traffic violations, and stopped it. Vincent was found to have a suspended license, and a search of the vehicle revealed drugs and paraphernalia.The Metcalfe Circuit Court denied Vincent's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop, ruling that the officer's belief about the equipment violation was an objectively reasonable mistake of law. The court also found the informant's tip provided a sufficient basis for the stop. Vincent entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and the subsequent search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the stop was not justified by the equipment violation because the law had not yet taken effect, and the officer's mistake of law was not reasonable. Additionally, the informant's tip did not provide reasonable suspicion for the stop, as it was based on observations that could be explained by innocent behavior and was not corroborated by the officer's own observations. The court remanded the case for the trial court to grant Vincent's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the unlawful stop. View "VINCENT V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

Tyler Story was charged with first-offense DUI after being observed driving at high speed with one headlight and failing field sobriety tests. He admitted to drinking and had a breathalyzer result of 0.178. Story requested an independent blood test, which was drawn but not tested immediately. The sample was stored by the police. Story was charged and sought to preserve the sample for independent testing. The District Court suppressed the breathalyzer results due to an error in administration, leaving the Commonwealth without evidence. The Commonwealth obtained a warrant to test the independent blood sample, which Story opposed.The Campbell District Court denied Story's motion to return the blood sample for independent testing, finding he had abandoned it. The Campbell Circuit Court denied Story's petition for a writ of prohibition against the search warrant. The District Court allowed the Commonwealth to test the sample, which showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. Story entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. The Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decisions, with the Court of Appeals disagreeing on the abandonment but upholding the testing as evidence.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and found that Story's statutory right to an independent blood test was infringed, but the error was harmless since the breathalyzer test was suppressed. However, the Court concluded that the Commonwealth's testing of the blood sample was conducted under an invalid warrant and without Story's consent, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court reversed the District Court's denial of Story's motion to suppress the test results, vacated his conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "STORY V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

Roderick Barnes III was convicted by a jury of three counts of attempted murder, three counts of attempted robbery, and three counts of assault with a firearm. The jury also found that Barnes personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and that he participated in a criminal street gang, committing the crimes for the benefit of the gang. Barnes was sentenced to 70 years to life in prison.Barnes appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror, failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 332, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang participation conviction and enhancements. The People conceded the latter two points but argued that the gang-related offenses could be retried.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in overruling Barnes’s objection to the peremptory challenge. The court determined that the prosecutor’s reasons for striking the juror were not valid and that the trial court improperly considered reasons not stated by the prosecutor. The court also found that substantial evidence did not support the gang participation conviction and enhancements, as the prosecution failed to provide a sufficient foundation for the expert’s opinion that the murder of P.M. commonly benefited the gang.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in its entirety and remanded the case for a new trial on counts 1 through 9. The court held that the prosecution could not retry Barnes for the gang participation offense or the gang enhancements due to insufficient evidence. View "People v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Henry Washington, a state prisoner, alleged that prison guard T.S. Oswald sexually assaulted him twice, once in 2013 and again in 2015. During the first incident, Washington claimed that Oswald and another guard handcuffed him, fondled him, and attempted to insert a nightstick into his rectum, causing him to bleed. In the second incident, Oswald allegedly fondled Washington and attempted to insert his finger into Washington's rectum while escorting him back to his cell.Washington sued Oswald under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment. The jury found in favor of Washington, awarding him $20,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for the 2013 assault, and $20,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages for the 2015 assault. Oswald moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and excessive punitive damages. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied these motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Oswald liable for both assaults. The court also upheld the punitive damages, finding them not excessive under the Due Process Clause. The court noted that Oswald's actions were highly reprehensible, the punitive damages were proportionate to the harm caused, and the awards were consistent with those in comparable cases. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, maintaining the jury's awards. View "Washington v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant charged with multiple first-degree sexual offenses against a victim, J, who has an intellectual disability. The defendant did not dispute J's disability but argued that she was capable of consenting to the sexual acts. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, and a jury convicted him of various charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that the state failed to prove that J's disability rendered her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct.The Oregon Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to show that J was incapable of understanding the sexual nature of the conduct or exercising judgment to consent to it. The state petitioned for review, challenging the Court of Appeals' interpretation and application of the relevant statutes.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the interpretation of ORS 163.305(3) and ORS 163.315(1)(b), which define when a person is incapable of consenting to a sexual act due to a mental defect. The court clarified that to be capable of consent, a person must be able to appraise the nature of their conduct, which involves exercising judgment and making choices based on an understanding of the conduct's significance. The court emphasized that the state must prove that the person's intellectual disability prevented them from appraising the nature of the conduct at the time of the alleged offense.The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find that J's intellectual disability rendered her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, but reversed the conviction on Count 5 due to a nonunanimous jury verdict, remanding for further proceedings. View "State v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Tam Steven Nguyen committed various crimes at the age of 22 and was convicted in 2003 of attempted murder, kidnapping, and assault with a firearm. The jury also found true firearm allegations. He was sentenced to a determinate term of 14 years, an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, and a life term with the possibility of parole. While incarcerated, Nguyen earned various credits, including good conduct and educational merit credits. His minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) is set for February 2036, and his youth parole eligible date (YPED) is set for October 2026.Nguyen petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus in 2022, arguing that he should be allowed to use all earned credits to advance his YPED, not just educational merit credit. The trial court denied his petition. Nguyen then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, which summarily denied the petition. The California Supreme Court granted review, ordered the appellate court to vacate its order, and issue an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and held that Nguyen's right to equal protection was not violated. The court found that youth and nonyouth offenders are not similarly situated for the purposes of the challenged regulations, as youth offenders have two parole eligibility dates (MEPD and YPED) while nonyouth offenders have only one (MEPD). The court also determined that there is a rational basis for the regulation, as it aligns with the legislative intent to provide youth offenders with a meaningful opportunity for release while maintaining a relatively fixed YPED. Consequently, the court denied Nguyen's petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Nguyen" on Justia Law