Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's plea-based convictions, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the record as a whole demonstrated that his pleas were entered voluntarily and intelligently.Defendant was charged with eleven felonies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of no contest to three charges. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that his no contest pleas were not entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in finding that Defendant's no contest pleas were voluntarily and intelligently entered because the record did not affirmatively show that Defendant understood his rights or that he expressly waived them. View "State v. Mead" on Justia Law

In 1988, Kerins was convicted of sodomy with a person under 18, a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) qualifying offense. In 1998, Kerins pleaded guilty to two counts of annoying or molesting a child under 18. The trial court sentenced him to 13 years in prison. Before Kerins’s scheduled release date in 2006, two psychologists concluded Kerins met the SVP criteria, Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(a). After his probable cause hearing there were multiple continuances, reevaluations, and substitutions of attorney. In November 2020. Kerins filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the People did not bring him to trial in a timely manner and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.The trial court denied the petition in November 2021, describing the delay as “considerable,” but finding that the “overwhelming reason” for the delay was that Kerins’s counsel sought “continuance after continuance.” The court further observed that Kerins did not assert his right to a speedy trial until 2019 and that nothing indicated Kerins’s defense had been impaired. The court of appeal upheld the decision. The court’s findings about the reasons for the delays and concerning prejudice were supported by substantial evidence. Kerins offered no evidence to rebut the presumption that his attorneys provided reasonable assistance. View "In re Kerins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, holding that a district court's invocation of general, as opposed to case-specific, concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic does not justify dispensing with a defendant's right to in-person confrontation.Appellant fatally shot his girlfriend in a car in which two children were present. During the jury trial, the district court permitted two witnesses to testify remotely via video. On appeal, Defendant argued that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated because the witnesses' convenience did not justify permitting remote testimony and that the district court should have made case-specific findings before summarily ordering that the witnesses may appear remotely. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that because the court did not make the required findings of necessity before allowing the two witnesses to testify remotely Defendant's right to confrontation was violated, but the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Newson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the post-conviction review (PCR) court denying Appellant's PCR petitions, holding that the PCR court misconstrued aspects of the relevant law.In his speedy trial petitions, Defendant argued that his rights to a speedy trial had been violated and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise his speedy trial claims. The PCR court denied the petition. Thereafter, Defendant sought a certificate of probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the PCR court utilized a faulty analysis in concluding that there was no merit to Defendant's speedy trial claim; and (2) because the PCR court did not analyze counsel's strategy in failing to assert Defendant's right to a speedy trial the case must be remanded. View "Winchester v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs and two counts of criminal forfeiture, holding that the trial court did not err in denying either Defendant's motion to suppress or his motion for discovery.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress and his request for additional discovery relating to the State's cooperating defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) law enforcement agents had probable cause to support their stop of Defendant, and therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's discovery motion. View "State v. Lepenn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court admitting two 911 calls reporting a shooting and a dash cam video containing statements from an eyewitness during Defendant's criminal trial, holding that any error was harmless.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree battery, and other crimes. After he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fifteen years, Defendant filed a motion for a mistrial, which was deemed denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly ruled that the statements from the 911 calls were nontestimonial and thus admissible; (2) the circuit court erred in admitting the dash cam video, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) Defendant's final two arguments were not preserved for appellate review. View "McNeil-Lewis v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of stalking his ex-wife, holding that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in instructing the jury.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony stalking and sentenced to four to six years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under either Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48 or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by giving instruction number fourteen because it described stalking as a general intent crime when it, in fact, is a specific intent crime, but Appellant did not meet his burden to demonstrate prejudice. View "Person v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the articulable facts combined to establish reasonable suspicion that Defendant had committed armed robbery.At issue was whether information known to other investigating officers may be imputed to the officer who initiated the stop under the collective knowledge doctrine. The superior court judge denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a stop, concluding that the officer who conducted an investigatory stop on Defendant had adequate reasonable suspicion to do so. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, with or without the imputed knowledge, the officer who stopped Defendant had reasonable suspicion to do so. View "Commonwealth v. Privette" on Justia Law

A man walked into Walgreens wearing clothes with white stains, placed a pack of gum on the counter, asked for cigarettes, then pulled out an apparent handgun. The man fled with the money and the cigarettes, leaving the gum. Police found Jacobs’s fingerprint on the gum and got an arrest warrant. Jacobs learned of the warrant and voluntarily went to the police station. Jacobs met with Detective Agee, who read him his Miranda rights. Showing Jacobs pictures from the Walgreens robbery and other robberies, Agee noted that the stains on the robber’s clothes resembled stains on Jacobs’s jacket. Jacobs denied involvement in the robberies. Agee highlighted the strength of the fingerprint evidence and said that he would get a warrant to search Jacobs’s dad’s house, where Jacobs was living, and Jacobs’s car. Agee said that Jacobs would likely face a severe sentence but things might be different if Jacobs changed his story. Jacobs then said: “The weapons—them is gone.” Agee gave Jacobs a phone to make calls and offered food and drink. After a break, Jacobs said he “f—ed up bad” because he was “broke” and needed to pay child support. He made statements about the gun and helped police retrieve the clothes from his girlfriend’s house. The interview lasted less than two hours.The district court granted Jacobs’s suppression motion, concluding that Agee used impermissibly coercive tactics. On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. Jacobs’s statements were voluntary. View "United States v. Jacobs" on Justia Law

Another detainee threw hot coffee on King while the assigned tier officer, Szul, was gone, assisting another officer. When Szul returned, King stated that he needed medical attention. King was not examined until the next day. He was transferred to Stroger Hospital. A jail employee gave King an Inmate Grievance Response/Appeal Form for his failure-to-protect grievance, stating: “Your allegation(s) have been forwarded to the Offices of Professional Review [OPR] and Divisional Superintendent for review and/or investigation. You may follow-up with [OPR]”; “[t]o exhaust administrative remedies, grievance appeals must be made within 15 calendar days." The response to his delayed-treatment grievance stated only that he had been treated at Stroger Hospital and referred to exhausting administrative remedies. King appealed that response. King was later interviewed for the OPR investigation and signed a “Detainee/Complaint Notification,” stating, “I understand that if I do not file a complaint register within 10 days that OPR will close the investigation.” King did not file a complaint register.In King's section 1983 suit, the court granted the defendants summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Although King appealed his delayed-medical-treatment grievance, he failed to give the defendants notice of the claim because it did not allege wrongdoing by any correctional officer. The Seventh Circuit reinstated the failure-to-protect claim. Because the jail’s procedure for grievances that are referred to OPR is so obscure that no ordinary prisoner could understand it, the remedy was unavailable. View "King v. Dart" on Justia Law