Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Gilbert, on parole for a state conviction, was arrested for printing false identifications and credit cards and was returned to the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Federal authorities charged Gilbert with identity theft crimes. Wolf was Gilbert's appointed counsel. Gilbert consented to federal detention pending trial. Gilbert pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(4) and 1028A(a)(1). After reviewing Gilbert’s PSR, Wolf realized that he had mistakenly led Gilbert to believe that the time Gilbert had spent in federal detention would be credited against his federal sentence. Wolf acknowledged the error. The court offered Gilbert the opportunity to withdraw his plea but Gilbert decided to continue with sentencing. The court sentenced Gilbert to 15 months on Count 1, concurrent to the undischarged Michigan term, and 24 months on Count 2, “consecutive to Count 1 and all other terms of imprisonment.”Gilbert filed a habeas motion. Wolf admitted that he gave Gilbert erroneous advice and that because of his incorrect understanding of the law he did not expedite Gilbert’s guilty plea and sentence; did not seek a downward adjustment under USSG 5G1.3; and did not object when the court ruled that the aggravated identity theft sentence had to run consecutive to all other undischarged sentences. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Even if Gilbert could demonstrate that counsel’s performance—initial error followed by correction—was deficient, he failed to present evidence of prejudice. Sentences imposed under the aggravated identity theft statute must run consecutive to all other (including state) sentences and are not subject to USSG 5G1.3 adjustments. View "Gilbert v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendants' motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210 and his subsequent motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness when he entered the plea, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that Defendant did not preserve any issue on appeal as it related to his section 60-1507 motion and that Defendant made new arguments that were inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal. As to the denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d)(2), the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea. View "Shelton-Jenkins v. State" on Justia Law

Several defendants were charged by indictment in separate cases with various offenses arising from their alleged participation in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Among other charges, the government also charged each Defendant with one count of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding under 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2). The district court granted each Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The government filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court denied. At issue on consolidated appeal is whether individuals who allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot can be charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2). The DC Circuit reversed. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2). The court wrote that Defendants’ alleged conduct falls comfortably within the plain meaning of “corruptly . . . obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] [an] official proceeding, or attempt[ing] to do so.” The alternative interpretations of Section 1512(c)(2) proffered by the district court and Defendants failed to convince the court to depart from the natural reading of the statute’s unambiguous text. View "USA v. Joseph Fischer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and two counts of failure to possess a tax stamp, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Officers entered Defendant's apartment without a warrant over the objections of the occupants. They then obtained a search warrant, finding evidence resulting in criminal charges. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the initial warrantless entry was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the search was justified under the emergency aid doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the emergency aid doctrine permitted the police officers' entry into the residents to render emergency aid to a possible shooting victim hidden inside. View "State v. Youm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court concluding that Defendants discriminated against prospective tenants in violation of municipal law by steering prospective tenants of a protected religion or national origin away from their rental properties, holding that there was insufficient evidence against Defendants under the proper jury instruction.The Des Moines Civil and Human Rights Commission brought this action alleging that Defendants, a husband and wife who owned rental properties together, engaged in housing discrimination. The jury found the husband was liable for steering and imposed a civil penalty of $50,000 against him. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the steering charge against the husband, holding that the district court's instructions misled the jury to the husband's detriment. View "Des Moines Civil & Human Rights Comm'n v. Knueven" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, harassment of a public official, and interference with official acts, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was out drinking when his wife called him. When Defendant arrived home, his wife had been arrested for child endangerment and was handcuffed in a squad car. Knowing Defendant was agitated, the followed him inside his home where a social worker was interviewing three children in her investigation of child endangerment. At issue was whether the police needed a warrant to enter the home to protect the social worker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers' warrantless entry under these exigent circumstances did not violate Defendant's rights pursuant to the Fourth Amendment or Iowa Const. I, 8. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

Around midnight, Woolridge walked through an Akron neighborhood where police were searching for a fugitive. Officer Collins approached him and asked for his name. Woolridge turned and ran, tossing several items. Officers caught Woolridge, who immediately said, “I got a warrant” and “I got a parole violation.” Collins moved Woolridge to a containment van while, Woolridge tried to speak with Collins, who brushed him off. Eventually, Collins asked Woolridge about the items he threw during the chase. Woolridge ultimately explained that his brother had been murdered and “I had a firearm.” Officers found the gun only after asking Woolridge to specify where he threw the gun. As Collins began reading the Miranda warnings, Woolridge said “I know my rights.” Collins proceeded to give them. Woolridge again explained that he had carried the gun due to his brother’s murder.Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Woolridge moved to suppress the statements he made before receiving the Miranda warnings. The district court suppressed the unwarned statements and permitted the admission of the post-Miranda statements. Woolridge pleaded guilty. The court varied upward by 13 months, imposing a 46-month sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Woolridge knew he had a choice and decided to speak anyway. The court explained its reasons for the sentence: Woolridge’s numerous offenses, his pattern of illegally possessing firearms, and many prison rule infractions. View "United States v. Woolridge" on Justia Law

In 1991, Jackson was wrongfully convicted of murder. In 2016, the Innocence Project requested from the Cleveland Police documents relating to the investigation, pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act. Receiving no response, Innocence Project sent a request to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Marburger produced a heavily redacted file. The Act exempts “investigatory work product” and “[t]rial preparation record[s]” from production as public records. Months later, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the investigatory-work-product exception did not extend beyond the conclusion of a trial. Cleveland then produced the unredacted file, which included significant exculpatory evidence. The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office also produced an unredacted file. A state-court judge vacated Jackson’s conviction. In 2019, he was finally exonerated. Jackson filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Against Marburger, Jackson alleged denial of access to courts.The Sixth Circuit held that Marburger is not entitled to absolute immunity. Responding to a records request after the conclusion of a trial and appeal is not an action that is an inherent part of a prosecutor’s adversarial function. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity. Jackson plausibly stated a claim that Marburger violated his right of access to the courts when she removed exculpatory information from the file and effectively prevented him from filing for postconviction relief but in 2016 it was not clearly established that redacting exculpatory information from a response to a public-records request effectively covered-up evidence. View "Jackson v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

A gambling dispute incited a fistfight between gang subsets. Witnesses later testified that after they thought the fight was over, they saw Ferrell shoot a gun, then saw Rawlings, lying on the ground, bloodied. Ferrell dropped the gun and fled. Ferrell later claimed he had only shot once, into the air. The juvenile court transferred Ferrell, age 17, to a court of criminal jurisdiction, where he was charged with murder, with alleged sentencing enhancements for use of a firearm.The Court of Appeal affirmed Ferrell’s second-degree murder conviction and 40-year sentence. The California Supreme Court granted Ferrell habeas relief. The jury instructions erroneously permitted the conviction based on a felony-murder theory invalidated in 2009. The unadorned guilty verdict does not show that the jury avoided that theory. The court rejected an argument that the jury’s additional finding — that Ferrell intentionally discharged a firearm and caused death in committing his offense — along with other evidence, establish that any rational jury would have found Ferrell guilty under a valid theory of second-degree murder, implied malice. Even in light of the entire record, the jury’s additional finding fails to establish the mental component of implied malice, which requires a defendant to act with a conscious disregard for life, knowing his act endangers another’s life. The jury could have, consistent with its finding, concluded Ferrell shot Rawlings while trying to stop a fight without believing he was shooting toward any person. View "In re Ferrell" on Justia Law

In July 2013, Koger began serving a 300-day sentence in Cook County Jail. While incarcerated, he received 42 books by mail. Per Jail policy, contained in the Inmate Information Handbook, inmates can keep no more than three books or magazines (excluding religious texts) in their cell at any time. Koger received a copy of the Handbook. Inmates with excess books can mail them out of the Jail using supplies available at the Jail commissary, can have someone outside the Jail pick up personal property, and are free to donate their books to other inmates. The policy was not strictly enforced during Koger’s stay.In October 2013, Jail administrators warned Koger they would soon search cells and take excess books. On October 5, officers searched the cells and took all but three books from Koger’s cell. Koger did not file a grievance. The Jail acknowledges the search but disputes whether any books were taken and what became of them. The Jail has no policy for dealing with confiscated books. The Jail released Koger on October 24, 2013; he died in 2020.Koger’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 has twice previously been before the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s summary judgment rejection of Koger’s claim that the county deprived him of his books without due process. Koger received constitutionally sufficient due process surrounding any property deprivation, and presented insufficient evidence to hold the county liable under “Monell.” View "Orozco v. Dart" on Justia Law