Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

Police found Miller lying on the sidewalk, bleeding from an apparent gunshot wound. An officer rendering aid removed a vehicle key fob from Miller’s hand, dropping it on the ground. A car, parked 15-20 feet from Miller, had bullet holes in the rear driver’s side door. Officers checked whether there was anyone in the car. One officer shined his flashlight through the windshield and saw what he thought was blood on the front passenger seat. An officer picked up the key fob and clicked a button. The car’s horn honked. Minutes later, an officer stated that he could see the barrel of a gun sticking out from under a hat on the front passenger seat. The car was towed to the police station. At the hospital, Miller said that he was using his girlfriend’s car. A database check showed that the impounded car was registered to Miller. The police obtained a warrant to search the car without mentioning the key fob. Police recovered the gun. DNA on the gun matched Miller’s. He was indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon.The Seventh Circuit upheld the denial of Miller’s motion to suppress. Miller argued that clicking the key fob qualified as a search. The district judge reasoned that the fob was used only to identify the car, not to gain entry, and that Miller had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identity of his car. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that the evidence was also admissible under the independent source doctrine. The car would have been searched regardless of the identity of its owner. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, the mayor of Green River, as time-barred, barred under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, holding that the district court did not err.In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated his oath of office during Plaintiff's underlying criminal matter by declining to order an investigation into a witness who recanted prior statements she made to law enforcement. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it determined that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983; (2) Plaintiff failed to present cogent argument on his collateral estoppel argument; and (3) therefore, the district court properly granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Mitchell v. Rust" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction, following a jury trial, of second-degree murder and second-degree weapon possession, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated in this case and that Defendant was entitled to a new trial.For the last four days of Defendant's eight-day jury trial, which included the testimony of several witnesses, summations, and the jury's verdict, the trial court ordered the courtroom closed to the public and all interested spectators. At the conclusion of trial the jury found Defendant guilty. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the record did not demonstrate that "unusual circumstances" necessitated closure of the courtroom, and therefore, the trial court improperly abridged Defendant's constitutional right to a public trial. View "People v. Reid" on Justia Law

Beechler and Turner, both serving home confinement through Marion County Community Corrections (MCCC), reported separate residences. An FBI Task Force was conducting a wiretap investigation involving individuals distributing controlled substances in Indianapolis. They discovered that a target of the investigation expected a shipment of marijuana to arrive at Turner’s residence. Watching the house, agents noticed a man with an ankle monitor and reported to MCCC that it suspected that one of the occupants was on home confinement and might be engaged in drug trafficking. An MCCC employee, with Indianapolis officers, went to Turner’s address to check compliance with the home detention contract. They encountered Turner and Beechler and discovered methamphetamine in the bedroom. Officers then obtained a search warrant and seized five firearms, ammunition, methamphetamine, heroin, and $1,508 in cash. After receiving his Miranda rights, Beechler acknowledged the drugs and guns, admitting that they were there to protect the drugs.Beechler unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that although police labeled the search as a community corrections compliance check, they actually conducted the search for law enforcement purposes so that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Convicted of multiple counts, Beechler was sentenced to 360 months in prison—below the bottom of the 420-month Guidelines range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, Beechler’s expectation of privacy was minimal; the government’s legitimate needs were significant. The search did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. View "United States v. Beechler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion of the court of appeals that the record refuted two of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to improper evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, there was no error in the court's ultimate judgment.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and sentenced to a term of twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to object to improper rule 404 evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, this Court's conclusion on the judgment was the same. View "State v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a stop and frisk, holding that the circumstances of this case did not warrant a level three stop and frisk under People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976).Defendant, who was stopped and frisked after he existed a parked car and walked down the street, filed a motion to suppress drugs found on his person as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The appellate division affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and directed that the indictment be dismissed, holding that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and frisk of Defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the minimum standard required to justify a stop and frisk under People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976), was not met in this case. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Police executed a search warrant at a Chicago home, forcibly entering the residence after nobody answered. Inside, officers saw Ramirez descending from the second floor. Ramirez was detained but allowed to return upstairs, where he retrieved his shoes from one of the bedrooms. Police searched the house and recovered a 20-gauge Benelli shotgun, a Mossberg shotgun, a 9-millimeter handgun, and ammunition. The Benelli shotgun was recovered from under the mattress of the single bed in the room where Ramirez had retrieved his shoes. From the same bedroom, police recovered mail bearing Ramirez’s name and the home's address. Ramirez was taken into custody, provided Miranda warnings, and made a statement that he bought the Benelli shotgun from a coworker for $100.Ramirez was charged with possession of a Benelli shotgun whose serial number had been “changed, altered, removed or obliterated” (720 ILCS 5/24-5(b)). The state did not present any direct evidence that Ramirez knew that the shotgun’s serial number was defaced. Ramirez did not testify or call any witnesses. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed his conviction. Section 24-5(b)’s implied mens rea of knowledge must apply to both elements of the offense, possession and defacement. The court remanded for a new trial. At the time of trial, binding precedent from an appellate court provided that the state did not have to present evidence that a defendant knew a firearm was defaced. View "People v. Ramirez" on Justia Law