Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements he had made during two separately recorded interrogations of him by police officers, holding that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress.The two interrogations at issue occurred on the same day. As to the first interrogation, Defendant claimed that the police failed to advise him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Defendant further claimed that the second interrogation was tainted by the alleged illegality of the first interrogation. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and, following a jury trial, convicted Defendant of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Miranda warnings were not required for the first interrogation because it was not custodial; and (2) the failure to provide the warnings did not taint the second interrogation. View "State v. Brandon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm. In his habeas petition, Petitioner argued that his trial counsel's concession of Petitioner's guilt to the manslaughter charge without Petitioner's prior approval violated his rights to effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and personal autonomy under McCoy v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __ (2018). The habeas court denied the petition, finding Petitioner's claims to be without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the habeas court correctly determined that Petitioner's right to autonomy was not implicated under the facts of this case; and (2) Petitioner's second claim on appeal was unpreserved. View "Grant v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

Defendant kidnapped Doe, then age twelve, and drove her from California to Nevada knowing that she would engage in prostitution. The defendant entered into a written plea agreement pursuant to which, in exchange for the government’s promise to drop five serious criminal charges, he would plead guilty to two lesser crimes (interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1952(a)(3)(A)) and would pay Doe restitution. The district court nonetheless concluded that it lacked statutory authority to order Defendant to pay restitution to Doe.   The panel filed (1) an order amending its opinion, denying a petition for panel rehearing, and denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc; and (2) an amended opinion granting Jane Doe’s petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(d)(3), a provision of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The panel published the opinion to reiterate what this court held in two cases decided three decades ago: 18 U.S.C. Section 3663(a)(3) grants statutory authority to district courts to award restitution whenever a defendant agrees in a plea agreement to pay restitution.   The panel held that the district court’s holding that it lacked statutory authority to order restitution was legal error. The panel granted the mandamus petition and instructed the district court to address, in the first instance, Defendant’s evidentiary challenges and other arguments concerning the appropriate amount of restitution. View "JANE DOE V. USDC-NVL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Dunn County on Plaintiff's claim filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that Plaintiff's section 1983 claim against Dunn County failed.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that she presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Dunn County violated her rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when a correctional officer sexually assaulted her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Dunn County was the causal, moving force behind the sexual assault; and (2) there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that Dunn County acted with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious consequence that the correctional officer would sexually assault Plaintiff. View "Slabey v. Dunn County" on Justia Law

In 2006, Watkins confessed to killing Varner. In jail, he refused to eat and urinated on himself. After four pretrial psychological evaluations, Watkins’s problematic behavior continued at trial; the judge removed him to a secured room. Watkins was convicted. In 2008, Watkins filed a pro se habeas petition but did not pay the filing fee or seek to proceed in forma pauperis. His petition was dismissed. In 2010, Watkins filed a “motion for equitable tolling,” alleging sentencing errors, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct. The court stayed the federal case, pending exhaustion of his claims in state court.In 2014, after state courts rejected his claims, Watkins filed a “supplemental” federal petition, with additional claims. The district court construed Watkins’s petition as a motion to amend his 2010 petition and awarded habeas relief based on counsel’s failure to request another competency evaluation after his trial outbursts. The court reasoned that the claim related back to Watkins’s 2010 petition under Federal Rule 15 because both petitions raised ineffective-assistance claims and equitably tolled the limitations period due to Watkins’s mental-health struggles. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the ineffective-assistance claim in the amended petition did not “relate back” to the generic 2010 ineffective-assistance claim and that Watkins was not entitled to equitable tolling.On remand, Watkins argued, for the first time, that his amended petition related back to the 2008 petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Under Rule 15(c)(1)(B), an amended petition will “relate[] back to the date” of the original petition if the new claims arose from the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” as the old ones. A subsequent new suit does not “relate back to the date” of the petition in a dismissed suit. View "Watkins v. Stephenson" on Justia Law

Jail personnel search inmate mail for contraband. To preserve confidentiality, mail from an inmate to an attorney is opened in front of the inmate; the contents are visually inspected but not read. An officer noticed an envelope from Cortez addressed to his attorney; with a “bulk in the center.” It smelled of feces. Suspecting the envelope contained contraband, he opened it but not in front of Cortez. The envelope contained another envelope fashioned from the lined yellow paper, marked “do not read.” The officer opened it and found multiple "kites," each made from different colored paper and with different writing. Kites are clandestine notes, written by inmates on small pieces of paper in very small print, then rolled up to minimize their size and facilitate concealment. The officer informed his supervisor.A magistrate conducted an in-camera examination and concluded: The messages have “the teeny tiny writing ... indicative of a gang-related kite…. I did not read the substance … none of them were addressed to [Cortez’s attorney]. None of them ... appeared to even be written by Cortez…. I do not find the attorney-client privilege applies.” The court of appeal agreed. The magistrate’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Even if the jail violated the regulation requiring legal mail to be opened in the inmate’s presence, the remedy would not automatically render everything inside the envelope—including communications intended for people other than an attorney—subject to attorney-client privilege. View "People v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the final judgment and order of the district court in Husband's divorce from Wife and imposed sanctions, holding that Husband's appeal was frivolous and contumacious within the meaning of M. R. App. P. 13(f).On appeal, Husband contended that the trial court both violated his rights to due process by failing to hold a trial and made impermissible changes to the parties' mediation agreement. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no violation of Defendant's due process rights; (2) the final divorce judgment accurately incorporated the terms of the parties' agreement; and (3) Husband should be sanctioned for this frivolous and contumacious appeal. View "Aubuchon v. Blaisdell" on Justia Law

Behning, an Illinois prisoner, claims that prison guards violated his constitutional rights while responding to his altercation with a prison guard. After the incident Behning was taken to the emergency room, was charged with assaulting an officer, and was put in solitary confinement at another institution. While he was in solitary confinement, Behning allegedly timely mailed a grievance over the altercation, inadequate medical care, and procedural defects in his disciplinary hearing to the Illinois Department of Corrections Administrative Review Board. He sent a copy to his attorney, who also forwarded it to the Board. The Board returned it, asserting that only offenders themselves could submit grievances. Behning mailed another grievance, which the prison rejected as untimely.Behning filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983.The district court granted summary judgment based on Behning’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. 1997e. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part. Behning, through his attorney, submitted most of his grievances to the appropriate administrative office, on time. Nothing in the regulation prohibits an offender from submitting a grievance through an attorney. Regardless of how Behning’s grievance arrived, it apprised the Board of the nature of his complaints. View "Behning v.Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's nineteen convictions for first degree sexual assault, incest, and intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to raise his arguments that the district court violated his constitutional due process and double jeopardy protections in the district court and thus waived the issues for appeal; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for first degree sexual assault; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult. View "State v. Bershon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree child sexual assault and denying his motion for postconviction relief, holding that the circuit court did not err.On appeal from the denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, the court of appeals concluded that the State suppressed evidence favorable to Defendant's defense, in violation of his right to due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the State did not violate Defendant's due process rights by filing to disclose a certain report; (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed; and (3) there were no errors at trial that prevented the real controversy from being tried. View "State v. Hineman" on Justia Law