Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 1997, Louisville police discovered the bodies of a male victim with nine stab wounds and a pregnant female victim, dead as a result of manual strangulation and stabbed after her death. Wheeler, ultimately convicted of the murders and sentenced to death, changed his story several times. The Sixth Circuit held that a writ of habeas corpus must issue as to the death sentence because the trial court erroneously struck from the jury Kovatch, an eligible juror who may have been in favor of sparing Wheeler’s life. The court, after examination of Kovatch, found him not to be “problematic” as a juror but one who “could consider the entire range” of penalties. The next day the court excused him because the judge mistakenly remembered him saying he would not consider the death penalty. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Sixth Circuit reinstated the death penalty, rejecting claims: that admission of evidence as to the availability of prison furloughs in the future; concerning penalty-phase jury instructions that, allegedly, improperly instructed jurors that they were required to be unanimous regarding the presence of mitigating factors; concerning prosecutorial misstatements: and that Kentucky’s proportionality review violates the Eighth Amendment View "Wheeler v. Simpson" on Justia Law

In 2009, Mosley's Wickliffe, Ohio Motel needed a tenant for its lounge. Miller's nightclub in neighboring Willoughby had drawn the ire of law enforcement. The two executed a lease; Miller applied for permits. Miller claims that the city was initially receptive, but, after informing it of his plan to host a “Hip Hop night, [catering] to African American[s],” the city allegedly changed its position. Miller’s occupancy permit application was denied pending revised parking plans. Miller needed a liquor license from the state. The city did not oppose Miller’s application, but religious organizations did. The city passed a resolution, supporting that opposition. The state denied Miller’s application, citing the objections of the religious organizations and “the peace and good order of the neighborhood.” Miller did not appeal. The city passed Ordinance 2009-49, requiring “nightclubs” to obtain a permit and delineating the health ad safety responsibilities; it restricted nightclub locations to buffer schools, churches, libraries, parks, taverns, bars, other nightclubs, and residential districts. Miller and Mosley never applied for nightclub permits. Miller became involved with Cirino in a proposed billiards hall, the temporary-occupancy permit for which was then revoked. The three sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 2000A (racial discrimination) with state law and takings claims. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that Wickliffe had reached a final decision under the ordinance, or that they faced a credible threat of prosecution, and cannot show a particularized and concrete injury sufficient to confer jurisdiction. View "Mosley v. City of Wickliffe" on Justia Law

Mattox, a Michigan inmate, repeatedly complained of pain in his chest, neck, shoulders, and arms, and shortness of breath and dizziness. After visits to an emergency room, outside cardiologists recommended that Mattox undergo cardiac catheterization to determine whether he needed a stent or surgery to prevent a future heart attack. Doctors employed by the Department of Corrections health care contractor denied approval for the procedure. After three grievances were denied, Mattox’s chest pains returned. An outside cardiologist recommended the heart drug Ranexa. Ranexa was not on the prison’s formulary; prison doctors denied permission for Ranexa, and ordered Mattox to remain on medication that made him dizzy. Mattox’s chest pains continued intermittently for two and a half years, requiring multiple hospitalizations. Mattox eventually received cardiac catheterization, which ruled out heart disease, and suggested that he be treated with medication. Prison doctors denied another request for Ranexa; a fourth grievance was denied until, following another hospitalization, Mattox was given a six-month prescription for Ranexa. Mattox did not experience any cardiac symptoms during those six months. After the Ranexa prescription ran out, Mattox’s chest pains returned. Renewal was denied; a fifth grievance was denied. Mattox's suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Eighth Amendment was dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed as to a physicians' assistant, but reversed as to the three physicians. View "Mattox v. Edelman" on Justia Law

Two victims were killed in 1999. Phillips was arrested. The primary witness was Phillips’ stepdaughter, a neighbor of the victim. She testified that she heard the confrontation, followed by shooting, and that Phillips was “intoxicated” that night. A jury convicted Phillips of both counts of first-degree murder. Judge Maricle asked whether the parties were prepared to proceed with sentencing. Phillips’s attorney, Charles, replied, “No,” but neglected to request a continuance, stating, "I don’t know anything about death penalty litigation.” Charles did not object to the prosecution's jury instructions, consulted with Phillips for less than an hour, and offered no opening statement nor evidence. The Commonwealth suggested that the aggravating factor prevented the jury from considering sentences with possible parol. Rather than clarifying the sentencing options or advocating for a particular sentence, Charles remarked: I don’t intend to take anymore of your time. The jury recommended life with no possibility of parole for 25 years. The court entered that sentence with minimal explanation. The state supreme court affirmed. Although Phillips's post-conviction attorney dropped a claim of ineffective assistance at sentencing, Maricle felt “compelled” to authorize relief on that basis. Phillips complied with Maricle's request and submitted information about evidence relevant sentencing, but Maricle was indicted and no state judge decided Phillips’s claims, which were pending for over six years. The district court dismissed his federal habeas petition, finding that Phillips had not shown prejudice. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the deferential standard is inapplicable because no Kentucky court ever decided Phillips's claims, that Phillips’s counsel was ineffective, that prejudice is presumed, and counsel’s performance actually prejudiced Phillips under Strickland. View "Phillips v. White" on Justia Law

In 1997, a Memphis armored truck driver was shot while working; he died two years later, as a result. The shooter took the cash and left in a getaway car. Authorities identified Thomas as the shooter and Bond as the getaway driver. In a federal trial before Day’s death, Thomas was convicted of interfering with interstate commerce, carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to life in prison. After Day died, Thomas was convicted of felony murder in state court, was sentenced to death, and exhausted state post-conviction remedies. Jackson, Thomas’s girlfriend, was the pivotal witness in both trials, placing Thomas at the scene of the shooting. After the federal trial, but before the state prosecution, the FBI paid Jackson $750 on behalf of the Task Force. Jackson testified that she did not receive any “reward” money and that she testified because it was the “right thing to do.” Thomas was never notified of this payment and discovered it during his federal habeas hearing. State prosecutors were provided with evidence of the payment, but later argued that they lacked “actual” knowledge. The Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief in the death penalty case, finding that the prosecutor had a duty to disclose the payment, but affirmed the denial of relief in the federal case. The state court Brady violation, failure to disclose that Jackson had received compensation after her federal testimony, occurred after Thomas’s federal trial. View "Thomas v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1997, Day, a Memphis armored truck driver, was shot on the job. The shooter took the cash and left in a getaway car. Day died two years later, of complications from his injuries. Authorities identified Thomas as the shooter and Bond as the getaway car driver. In a federal trial before Day’s death, Thomas was convicted of interfering with interstate commerce, carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to life in prison. After Day died, Thomas was convicted of felony murder in state court and was sentenced to death. Thomas exhausted his Tennessee post-conviction remedies. Jackson, Thomas’s girlfriend, was the pivotal witness in both trials, placing Thomas at the scene of the shooting. After the federal trial, but before the state prosecution, the FBI paid Jackson $750 on behalf of the Safe Streets Task Force. Jackson testified that she did not receive any “reward” money and that she testified because it was the “right thing to do.” Thomas was never notified of this payment and discovered it years later during his federal habeas hearing. State prosecutors were provided with evidence of the payment, but later argued that they lacked “actual” knowledge. The district court denied Thomas habeas relief in the death penalty case, reasoning that the payment was not sufficiently “material.” The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the prosecutor had a duty to disclose the payment rather than allow Jackson to commit perjury. View "Thomas v. Westbrooks" on Justia Law

Witzke is currently serving four sentences in the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) for using forged financial instruments. In May 2013, the Parole Board released Witzke on parole for a 15-month term. A year later, authorities arrested him for eight alleged parole violations, including a new criminal conviction for using a fake check. An MDOC agent found probable cause for all eight counts. Witzke pled guilty to two counts. At a second hearing, another MDOC officer dismissed all remaining counts except the fraudulent check violation. Finding Witzke guilty of that violation, the officer recommended revocation of Witzke’s parole. The Parole Board adopted the recommendation. Without seeking relief in Michigan courts, Witzke filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, alleging violation of his due process rights and requesting a new hearing before the Parole Board. The district court summarily dismissed his petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. While his appeal was pending, the Parole Board re-released Witzke on parole. He will finish serving his sentence for his underlying criminal conviction in May 2017. The Sixth Circuit dismissed his appeal as moot, stating that there was nothing to remedy. View "Witzke v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Before his jury trial on charges of murder, Watkins submitted four times to psychiatric evaluation. Though the first evaluator found him incompetent, subsequent evaluators found him competent and criminally responsible for his actions. Despite his bizarre behavior during trial, including exhibiting paranoid beliefs and urinating on a television screen, defense counsel did not request a fifth psychiatric evaluation. A jury found Watkins guilty. Nearly four years after filing a timely habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for “failure to investigate and raise a defense,” Watkins filed an amended petition arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request another psychiatric evaluation after Watkins’ conduct during trial. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief. Watkins cannot establish that his amended petition relates back to his original petition or that he is entitled to equitable tolling; the petition was, therefore, untimely. View "Watkins v. DeAngelo-Kipp" on Justia Law

The Jackson County Michigan Board of Commissioners begins its monthly meetings with a Christian prayer. Bormuth, a non-Christian county resident, attended meetings because he was concerned about environmental issues. During the prayer, Bormuth was the only one in attendance who did not rise and bow his head. Bormuth felt isolated, and worried that the Commissioners would hold against him his decision to stay seated. He later raised the First Amendment issue during a public comment period. The Commissioners reacted with “disgust.” Bormuth filed suit asserting that this prayer practice violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In the meantime, the Commissioners declined Bormuth’s application to serve on an environmental committee. The district court granted the County summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The prayer practice coerced residents to support and participate in the exercise of religion and was well outside the tradition of historically tolerated prayer. View "Bormuth v. County of Jackson" on Justia Law

Moore was convicted in 1994 of kidnapping, robbery, and murder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed denial of post-conviction relief. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review. Moore applied to reopen his appeal, claiming ineffective assistance by counsel in his first appeal. The Ohio Court of Appeals denied the application as untimely and based on res judicata. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The district court granted federal habeas relief on claims that Moore had received ineffective assistance at sentencing and alleging improper jury instructions in the penalty phase. The Sixth Circuit remanded in part, holding that a 2011 Supreme Court decision precluded the district court from considering additional evidence that Moore had introduced in support of his ineffective assistance claim and rejecting Moore’s argument that the Supreme Court’s 2012 Martinez decision required remand for factual development of the claim. Moore moved to set aside the judgment, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2013 Trevino decision permitted him to use newly-developed evidence of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel to establish cause for his failure to present evidence to support his post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Trevino expanded Martinez only to cases in which an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim could not have been made meaningfully on direct appeal. Moore made that claim on direct appeal; the Ohio Supreme Court adjudicated it on the merits. View "Moore v. Mitchell" on Justia Law