Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in several respects and that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding, as to three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they were without merit because Defendant failed to allege how he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the court of appeals applied the wrong reasoning in finding that three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims lacked merit for failure to allege prejudice, as resolution of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims requires specific allegations of the deficient conduct, but allegations of prejudice are not necessary on direct appeal; and (2) in these three instances, the record was not sufficient to review Defendant’s claim. View "State v. Filholm" on Justia Law

Appellant was a temporary employee at the University of Nebraska. After the University considering terminating Appellant’s employment, human resources completed a “threat assessment” in relation to the termination, which noted Appellant’s criminal record and history of becoming upset over discussion of work performance. When the University decided to terminate Appellant, an e-mail was circulated warning coworkers to alert campus police and lock their doors if they saw Appellant. Appellant filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the University Board of Regents and two of its managers, making a “stigma plus” claim that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his good name without due process of law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact that Appellant had not sufficiently suffered a constitutional violation; (2) the Board of Regents was shielded by sovereign immunity; and (3) the individual defendants were protected by qualified sovereign immunity because the alleged violation was not clearly established. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment. View "Potter v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, making numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it concluded that Appellant’s claims were without merit and denied his motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The lead investigator for a law enforcement agency applied for and received a search warrant to search three computers Defendant owned for child pornography. Defendant admitted to the investigator to downloading and viewing child pornography and subsequently deleting the child pornography computer files. However, a forensic examination revealed remnants on Defendant’s hard drive. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of knowingly possessing child pornography. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the earlier search and seizure. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the investigator’s failure to explain in his affidavit that dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) addresses can change did not affect the probable cause determination; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. View "State v. Schuller" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellant pled guilty to second degree murder. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment of fifty years to life. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his sentence was excessive and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his sentencing. The district court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief did not allege facts which constituted a denial of his constitutional rights, and that as to certain matters, the record refuted Appellant’s claims. View "State v. Dragon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree sexual assault and second degree false imprisonment. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court dismissed all but one of Appellant’s claims without an evidentiary hearing. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s remaining claim regarding trial counsel’s failure to disclose an alleged plea offer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate to the defendant all formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the defendant; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the State made a formal offer, and therefore, trial counsel could not have been deficient in failing to disclose it to Appellant. View "State v. Alfredson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the offenses. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his sentence of life imprisonment was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which was decided while Defendant’s appeal was pending. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated Defendant’s sentence for first degree murder, holding that the sentence of life imprisonment was unconstitutional under Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a nurse formerly employed by the Department of Health and Human Services, filed an action against Defendant, a supervisor who terminated her employment, alleging violations of her due process, free speech, and equal protection rights, among other claims. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that, as a state employee, she was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff did not allege a viable violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights, and Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on that claim; and (2) because Plaintiff’s alleged First Amendment claim necessitated resolving a fact-related dispute, Defendant’s appeal on this issue was not immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, and the appeal must be dismissed at to this issue. View "Carney v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other offenses arising from three shootings that occurred at three separate locations. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, vacated all of the sentences, and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for mistrial and for new trial; (2) the two life imprisonment sentences without the possibility of parole imposed for the first degree murder convictions were unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama; and (3) the district court committed plain error in regard to the sentences imposed for the convictions of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, attempted second degree murder, attempted robbery, and criminal conspiracy. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder he committed when he was sixteen years old. More than fifteen years later, Defendant filed an amended postconviction motion challenging his life imprisonment sentence. The district court denied the motion. After Defendant appealed, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a state sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender convicted of homicide. The Supreme Court reversed in this case, holding (1) the rule announced in Miller applied retroactively to Defendant; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was unconstitutional under Miller, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to be resentenced. Remanded. View "State v. Mantich" on Justia Law