Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Ross was charged with battery on a nonconfined person by a prisoner. Ross pleaded guilty to the administrative charge of battering the counselor. At trial, several officers and an intercepted letter corroborated the victim’s testimony about the attack. The defense presented no evidence. During discussions about jury instructions, Ross declared, “Man, you are fired” and “I will represent myself.” Ross cursed at the court, which had him removed. Defense attorney Fallman stated that he tried to talk with Ross, who refused and declined to return to the courtroom. Fallman noted that Ross had fired his previous attorney and that he knew of no “provocation.” The court continued without Ross. During closing arguments, Fallman admitted Ross touched the officer willingly, in a harmful or offensive manner, but argued there was no preplanning or weapon. Fallman asked the jury to find Ross guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery. The jury convicted Ross, finding two prior strike allegations true. Finding six aggravating factors true and no mitigating factors, the court sentenced Ross to the upper term of four years, doubled to eight years under the Three Strike Law.The court of appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting Ross’s argument that his attorney violated his Sixth Amendment rights by conceding his guilt. There was no evidence that his claimed desire to maintain innocence to the exclusion of all other defense strategies was ever communicated to Fallman or the court. The court remanded for resentencing due to Senate Bill 567., which requires that when a statute specifies three potential terms of imprisonment, a court must presumptively impose the middle term. View "People v. Ross" on Justia Law

Stapleton lured women into prostitution and exploited them using threats, force, and other forms of coercion. An anonymous tip led to his arrest. Indicted for sex-trafficking crimes, Stapleton claimed that the police had fabricated the anonymous tip and tampered with his cellphone. The court appointed a succession of defense attorneys, but Stapleton constantly disagreed with them regarding his police-misconduct claims. The judge denied his motion to suppress the evidence derived from the anonymous tip. Stapleton then insisted on representing himself. After making the inquiries required by Supreme Court precedent, the judge granted Stapleton’s motion and appointed a standby attorney. Before trial, Stapleton unsuccessfully moved for a court-funded expert to investigate his phone-tampering claim. Before opening statements, Stapleton announced that he would conditionally plead guilty, reserving the right to challenge the suppression ruling. The judge conducted a colloquy and accepted Stapleton’s pleas. Before sentencing, Stapleton unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his pleas. The judge sentenced him to life in prison.Stapleton did not appeal the suppression ruling but argued that his guilty pleas were invalid because he did not have counsel and was confused about his appellate rights and challenged the denial of his motion for a court-funded expert. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Stapleton validly waived his right to counsel after two thorough colloquies; his guilty pleas were also knowing and voluntary. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Stapleton’s request for a court-funded cellphone expert. View "United States v. Stapleton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree murder, and kidnapping, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erroneously joined his and his codefendant's cases for trial and by denying subsequent severance motions. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions, holding (1) the district court did not improperly join Defendant's and his codefendant's cases for trial and did not erroneously refuse to sever the cases once the trial was underway; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief as to the claims he raised in a pro se supplemental brief. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for second-degree sexual abuse, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to a public trial was violated when the trial court closed his trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.Defendant was set to stand trial on felony charges in March 2020, but his trial was repeatedly rescheduled due to COVID. The district court ultimately concluded that allowing anyone in to attend Defendant's trial, including his family and friends, violated COVID protocols previously set by the Supreme Court. The district court also rejected the option of live-streaming the trial. The jury subsequently convicted Defendant of second-degree sexual abuse. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's exclusion of all members of the public from Defendant's trial violated Defendant's constitutional rights, requiring a new trial. View "State v. Brimmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered as a result of a constitutionally-defective search warrant, holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply to the search of cell phones in this case.At issue was a constitutionally-deficient search warrant authorizing the search of cell phones found at the scene of a car crash. Nothing in the affidavit connected the cell phones to the accident except a police officer's averment that evidence of how the accident occurred may be found on the phones. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause, upholding the cell-phone search under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the warrant was constitutionally defective for want of probable cause in the warrant's supporting affidavit; and (2) the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. View "State v. Schubert" on Justia Law

The California Constitution directs that laws be made to exclude “persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes” from serving on juries. Former Code of Civil Procedure 203(a)), provided, “All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except” “Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored.” In 2019, Senate Bill 310 eliminated the exclusion of persons convicted of felonies from serving on juries. Section 203(a) now excepts from eligibility to serve as jurors “Persons while they are incarcerated. … Persons who have been convicted of a felony and are currently on parole, postrelease community supervision felony probation, or mandated supervision for the conviction of a felony. … Persons who are currently required to register as a sex offender … based on a felony conviction.”Plaintiffs alleged that the categorical exclusion of current sex offender registrants from jury service denied registrants equal protection under the California Constitution. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The statutory disparity withstands rational basis scrutiny. Plausible reasons for the Legislature’s line-drawing include ensuring impartial juries by excluding those persons convicted of felonies deemed more likely to harbor anti-government bias. View "Doe v. Finke" on Justia Law

In the fall of 2015, D.T. enrolled as a freshman at Cherokee Trail High School in Aurora, Colorado. During his time at Cherokee Trail, he suffered from depression and a general decline in academic performance. His mother regularly communicated with school officials regarding his well-being and coordinated in-school support. During the first semester of his junior year, D.T. was reported for making a school shooting threat. As a result, he was expelled from Cherokee Trail and the Cherry Creek School District (“the District”) initiated a special education assessment. In December 2017, the District concluded D.T. suffered from a Serious Emotional Disability and approved an individualized education program (“IEP”) to assist his learning. D.T. appealed a district court's judgment finding the District did not deny him access to a free and appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). D.T. asked the Tenth Circuit to conclude the District violated its obligation to identify, or “child find,” students with disabilities who required supplementary academic supports. The Tenth Circuit declined D.T.'s request, finding the District acted reasonably to preserve his access to the benefit of general education. "The District’s duty to assess and provide D.T. with special education services did not begin until his emotional dysfunction manifested in the school environment by way of his shooting threat." View "D.T. v. Cherry Creek School" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for gross sexual assault but remanded for the court to determine the appropriate length and conditions of supervised release to be imposed, holding that there was otherwise no error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) because a principal and accomplice are not subject to different processes or analyses when a sentencing court applies the Hewey analysis set out in Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 1602, the sentencing court did not err when it set the basic sentence at twenty years in compliance with Me. Rev. Stat. 17A-1252(4-E); and (2) remand was required for the district court to determine the length and conditions of supervised release to be imposed and to articulate its analysis and the factors that led to its decision. View "State v. Ringuette" on Justia Law

In this case where Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Massachusetts Constitution protects a fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide, thereby immunizing the practice from criminal prosecution, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the proposed right, as defined by Plaintiffs, was not supported in the relevant provisions of the Constitution.Plaintiffs were a licensed physician who wished to provide physician-assisted suicide and a retired physician who had been diagnosed with an incurable cancer. Plaintiffs brought a civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that terminally ill patients with six months or less to live have a constitutional right to receive a prescription for lethal medication in order to bring about death in a manner and time of their choosing. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not protect physician-assisted suicide; and (2) the law of manslaughter prohibits physician-assisted suicide without offending constitutional protections. View "Kligler v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Department of State Hospitals (DSH) serves defendants found incompetent to stand trial (IST). Chunn was found incompetent to stand trial. After being ordered admitted to Napa State Hospital, he waited 75 days for admission. Chunn argued that DHS’s failure to promptly commence competency assessment and treatment violated his state and federal due process rights. Other defendants, also found incompetent to stand trial, sought sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 against DSH. The trial court consolidated the cases and ordered DSH to implement specific steps within specific timeframes to meet its obligations to IST defendants in Solano County. DSH appealed. Four months later, another court of appeal (Stiavetti) concluded that the DSH had systematically violated the due process rights of all California IST defendants, holding that 28 days is the maximum constitutional limit for commencing substantive services to restore IST defendants to competency.The court of appeal remanded the Chunn order. The trial court’s ruling did not violate separation of powers principles at the time it was made, nor, for the most part, does it conflict with Stiavetti. The court did not abuse its discretion. The problems created by limited funding, resources, and bed space and the many efforts by DSH do not relieve DSH of its responsibilities. Some aspects of the order must be modified and others may be reconsidered, due to changes in the law. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4335.2 now allows DSH to conduct “reevaluations” of IST defendants after the initial commitment order. View "In re Chunn" on Justia Law