Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 1999, Melvin Holmes was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. In 2002, a second jury convicted Holmes of the same offenses, and in 2004 the Court affirmed the convictions. In 2007, Holmes filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel during his 2004 appeal. Specifically, Holmes contended appellate counsel failed to (1) raise the issue of ineffective trial counsel, (2) include a videotape and accompanying transcript used by the jury in the appellate record, and (3) file a reply brief or motion for reconsideration. The district court's denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Holmes appealed. After dismissing Holmes' first and third arguments, The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the videotape and transcript issue. The Court directed the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to inquire about appellate counsel's strategy in not providing the items in the record on appeal, and if the court found appellate counsel's performance was deficient, to inquire whether Holmes was prejudiced to the extent that, but for counsel's failure, Holmes' appeal would have been successful.

Appellant Robert Campbell was an at-will employee of Appellee Husky Hogs, LLC, for about one year when he brought a complaint with the state Department of Labor. In his complaint, Appellee alleged Husky Hogs was not paying him as required by the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA). Appellant was subsequently fired one day after the Department of Labor acknowledged receipt of his claim. The issue for review by the Supreme Court was whether a common-law retaliatory discharge may be brought against an employer when an employee claims he was fired for filing a wage claim act under the KWPA. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Appellant did not make a valid common law retaliation claim but that there were remedies under the KWPA itself. The Supreme Court found that Appellant stated a valid claim for retaliatory discharge, and that the statutory remedies under the KWPA were an insufficient substitute for the common-law remedies. The Court reversed the decision of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.