Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and one count of robbery. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to sever the three murder counts; (2) Defendant’s claims of error regarding jury issues were unavailing; (3) no prejudicial error occurred during the guilt phase of trial; (4) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase of trial; (5) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial; and (6) any actual or assumed errors did not, considered altogether, deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "People v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the multiple murders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury’s verdict finding Defendant competent to stand trial was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the trial court’s failure to conduct additional competency hearings at various points during the proceedings did not constitute a violation of Defendant’s federal constitutional right to due process of law; (3) assuming the trial court erred in permitting evidentiary portions of the trial to proceed in his absence, the error was harmless; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument at the guilt phase of trial; (5) Defendant’s constitutional challenges to his sentence on the basis of evidence that he was mentally ill at the time of the offenses and at trial were unavailing; and (6) Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of the death qualification process in jury selection and to California’s death penalty scheme failed. View "People v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no prejudicial error committed during the guilt phase or the penalty phase of trial; (2) Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the decision of the Commission on Judicial Performance removing Judge Platt from judicial office two years after the completion of Defendant’s trial, as well as Judge Platt’s temporary suspension from the practice of law for the same underlying incidents, is denied, as Judge Platt’s removal from the bench and subsequent suspension are irrelevant to the proceedings against Defendant; (3) the prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct in either phase of the trial; and (4) California’s death penalty statute is not unconstitutional. View "People v. Peoples" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and attempted premeditated murder, among other crimes. After a penalty phase, the jury returned a death verdict. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as to issues arising during the guilt phase, (i) there was sufficient evidence to support the first degree murder conviction and the lying-in-wait special circumstance, (ii) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, and (iii) the instructions to the jury were proper; (2) as to issues arising during the penalty phase, (i) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, but the error was harmless, (ii) the admission of evidence of Defendant’s juvenile misconduct in aggravation was not error, (iii) the imposition of the death penalty based on a sole lying-in-wait special circumstance renders a defendant eligible for the death penalty, and (iv) California’s death penalty law is not unconstitutional. View "People v. Casares" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and as an accessory after the fact. After a penalty phase trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the first degree murder verdict based on the theory of lying in wait; (2) the lying-in-wait special circumstances satisfies the requirements of the Eighth Amendment; (3) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury; (4) the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecutor to present victim impact evidence relating to noncapital crimes; (5) Defendant forfeited his claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing remarks at the penalty phase by addressing his argument to jurors individually; and (6) Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of California’s death penalty law were without merit. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the two murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, holding (1) during the guilt phase, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s past crimes and bad acts against his family; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the first-degree murder convictions; (3) the jury instructions during both the guilt phase and the penalty phase were constitutional; (4) the trial court did not err in admitting purported victim impact testimony during either the guilt phase or the penalty phase; (5) the trial court did not err in admitting crime scene and autopsy photographs during the guilt phase; (6) Defendant’s death sentence was not grossly disproportionate to Defendant’s personal culpability; and (7) Defendant’s challenges to California’s death penalty scheme failed. View "People v. Cage" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the delay in bringing charges against Defendant did not violate his due process rights; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings during the guilt phase of trial; (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during the guilt phase closing argument; (4) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings during the penalty phase of trial; (5) the trial court properly instructed the jury during the penalty phase; and (6) the remainder of Defendant’s claims have already been rejected by the Court. View "People v. Cordova" on Justia Law