Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession and admitting it into evidence at trial because his confession was the product of threats, coercion, and inducements of leniency made by police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) police officers misrepresented to Defendant that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder, but the misinformation did not overcome Defendant’s will and cause him to confess; and (2) therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted at trial. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and with failing to yield the right-of-way. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result an alleged seizure that he asserted was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The county court overruled the motion, concluding that there was no seizure in this case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the district court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the county court’s order overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. View "State v. Avey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fourth-offense driving under the influence (DUI) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to three years. In addition, Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for fifteen years. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to arrest because his vehicle was on public property not open to public access at all relevant times. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer was justified in approaching the vehicle after observing the driver exit the vehicle and urinate on a tree, which was an unlawful act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in ruling that two prior convictions could be used for sentence enhancement; (4) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Matit" on Justia Law

Through its power of eminent domain, the State of Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) took real property owned by Leo and Joanna Hike for a highway project. The parties were unable to agree on compensation, and the case proceeded to trial for a determination of damages. The principal issue disputed at trial was the fair market value of the Hikes’ property immediately prior to the taking, which depended on whether the property’s highest and best use at the time was residential or commercial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Hikes for $53,209, which suggested that the jury agreed with NDOR that the property must be valued as residential property. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict, holding (1) the district court did not commit prejudicial error with respect to the evidentiary issues raised by the Hikes; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument, but the comment did not prevent a fair verdict. View "Hike v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants, the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and several members of the UNMC’s staff, in their official and individual capacities, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him while he was a medical student at UNMC because of his chronic and recurrent depressive disorder disability. The district court dismissed the individual defendants in their individual capacities and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims; (2) denying portions of Plaintiff’s motions to compel; and (3) failing to sua sponte schedule a hearing relating to Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with motions to compel that were granted. View "Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb." on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed two postconviction motions, both of which were denied. Appellant also filed for federal habeas relief, which the federal courts denied. This appeal concerned Appellant’s latest motion for postconviction relief, which contained five claims dealing with the method of inflicting the death penalty and the State’s authority to put Appellant to death at all, no matter the method. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s motion failed to state a claim for postconviction relief, either because his claims were without legal basis or because they were not cognizable in postconviction. View "State v. Ryan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony stemming from Defendant’s involvement in a fatal shooting that occurred during a home invasion robbery. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it restricted his cross-examination of three key prosecution witnesses and otherwise violated his constitutional rights of confrontation and due process by impeding his efforts to impeach the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the cross examination of the witnesses; (2) Defendant’s argument that the State violated his rights by failing to disclose tacit plea agreements between the State and the witnesses was without merit; and (3) evidence of prior home invasion robberies committed by two of the witnesses was not admissible in this case because it was not relevant for any legitimate purpose, including impeachment. View "State v. Patton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for the death of her husband. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain statements Defendant made while in police custody as volunteered statements. Specifically, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the statements because Defendant had invoked her constitutional right to end the interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) statements Defendant made from 3:43 to 4 a.m. should have been suppressed because Defendant had invoked her right to remain silent, but the district court’s error was harmless; and (2) statements Defendant made after 4:18 a.m. were not required to be suppressed as involuntary due to Defendant’s earlier invocation of her right to end questioning, as the statements Defendant made after 4:18 a.m. were initiated by Defendant and were not the product of interrogation. View "State v. DeJong" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to police during the murder investigation. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, and, at a bench trial, the State received evidence of the statements challenged in Defendant’s motion to suppress. The district court found Defendant guilty of both charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s confession during a pre-Miranda interrogation, but this evidence was cumulative to other admissible evidence, and its admission was harmless error; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Juranek" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowing or intentional child abuse resulting in death and was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging errors on the part of the trial court and errors relating to the ineffectiveness of trial counsel and appellate counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law