Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Lynch was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and burglary for a 2001 killing. The state sought the death penalty. Before Lynch’s penalty phase trial began, Arizona successfully moved to prevent his counsel from informing the jury that the only alternative sentence to death was life without the possibility of parole. The jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. A second jury was convened and sentenced Lynch to death. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the sentence because the jury instructions improperly described Arizona law, but did not address Lynch’s argument that the trial court violated the 1994 Supreme Court holding, Simmons v. South Carolina, “where a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole,” the Due Process Clause “entitles the defendant ‘to inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility.’” .On remand, a third penalty phase jury sentenced Lynch to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Lynch’s Simmons claim, while acknowledging that the state suggested that Lynch could be dangerous. The Supreme Court, per curiam, reversed. Under state law, the only kind of release for which Lynch would be eligible is executive clemency. Simmons expressly rejected the argument that the possibility of clemency diminishes a capital defendant’s right to inform a jury of his parole ineligibility. The Court rejected Arizona’s argument that “nothing prevents the legislature from creating a parole system in the future" for which Lynch would be eligible. View "Lynch v. Arizona" on Justia Law

Lee and her boyfriend stabbed two women to death and were convicted of first-degree murder. Lee received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In 1999, Lee unsuccessfully raised four claims on appeal. After California appellate courts affirmed, Lee filed a federal habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2254(a), raising mostly claims not raised on direct appeal. The court stayed federal proceedings to allow Lee to pursue her new claims in a state habeas petition. The California Supreme Court denied Lee’s petition, citing California’s “Dixon bar,” under which a defendant procedurally defaults a claim raised for the first time on state collateral review if he could have raised it earlier on direct appeal. The federal court then dismissed her new claims as procedurally defaulted. For the first time, Lee challenged the Dixon bar, citing the California Supreme Court’s state habeas denials on a single day. Lee claimed that out of the 210 summary denials on December 21, 1999, the court failed to cite Dixon in nine cases where it should have been applied. The court denied those nine petitions without any citation. Without evaluating that evidence, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded “to permit the Warden to submit evidence.” On remand, the warden submitted a study analyzing about 4,700 summary habeas denials during a two-year period around the same date: the California Supreme Court cited Dixon in approximately 12% of all denials—more than 500 times. The district court held that the Dixon bar is adequate. The Ninth Circuit again reversed. The Supreme Court, per curiam, reversed, stating that the decision “profoundly misapprehends” what makes a state procedural bar “adequate.” California’s procedural bar is longstanding, oft-cited, and shared by habeas courts across the country. View "Johnson v. Lee" on Justia Law

During jury selection at Foster’s trial, the state (Georgia) used peremptory challenges to strike all four qualified black prospective jurors. Foster was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The trial court rejected an argument that the strikes were racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky. While his state habeas petition was pending, Foster obtained copies of the prosecution’s trial file, including the jury venire list with the names of each black prospective juror highlighted; an investigator's statement comparing black prospective jurors and concluding, “If it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, [this one] might be okay”; notes with “N” (for “no”) appearing next to the names of all black prospective jurors; a document with notes about a church, annotated "No. Black Church”; and questionnaires, on which each juror’s response indicating race was circled. The state court denied relief. The Georgia Supreme Court denied a certificate of appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, first holding that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of a Certificate of Probable Cause; there was no indication that denial rested on state law “independent of the merits” of Foster’s Batson claim. The lower court’s application of res judicata depended on a federal constitutional ruling; its decision that Foster failed to show purposeful discrimination was clearly erroneous. Though the trial court accepted the prosecution’s justifications for the strikes, "the record belies much of the prosecution’s reasoning." That a prosecutor’s reasons for striking a black prospective juror apply equally to an otherwise-similar nonblack prospective juror, who is allowed to serve, suggests purposeful discrimination. The Court noted “the prosecution’s shifting explanations, misrepresentations of the record, and persistent focus on race.” Because Batson was decided only months before Foster’s trial, the state argued that the prosecution’s file was an effort to maintain a detailed account should the prosecution need a defense against any suggestion that its reasons were pretextual. That argument, having never before been raised in the 30 years since Foster’s trial, “reeks of afterthought.” View "Foster v. Chatman" on Justia Law

Green complained to his employer, the U.S. Postal Service, that he was denied a promotion because he was black. His supervisors then accused him of the crime of intentionally delaying the mail. In a 2009 agreement, USPS agreed not to pursue criminal charges. Green agreed either to retire or to accept another position in a remote location. Green chose to retire. In 2010, 41 days after resigning and 96 days after signing the agreement, Green reported an unlawful constructive discharge to the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act., 42 U.S.C. 2000e Green eventually filed suit, which was dismissed as untimely because he had not contacted EEOC within 45 days of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory.” The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated. Because part of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory” in a constructive-discharge claim is an employee’s resignation, the 45-day limitations period begins running after an employee resigns. Resignation is part of the “complete and present cause of action” in a constructive-discharge claim, which requires: discriminatory conduct such that a reasonable employee would have felt compelled to resign and actual resignation. Nothing in Title VII or the regulation suggests an exception to the rule. Starting the clock before a plaintiff can file suit would not further the limitations period’s goals and would negate Title VII’s remedial structure. View "Green v. Brennan" on Justia Law

CRST trucking company requires its drivers to graduate from its training program before becoming certified drivers. In 2005, new driver Starke filed an EEOC charge, alleging that she was sexually harassed by male trainers during her training (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(b)).The Commission ultimately informed CRST that it had found reasonable cause to believe that CRST subjected Starke and “a class of employees and prospective employees to sexual harassment.” In 2007, having determined that conciliation had failed, the Commission filed suit. During discovery, the Commission identified over 250 allegedly aggrieved women. The district court dismissed, held that CRST was a prevailing party, and awarded the company over $4 million in fees. The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of two claims and vacated the award. On remand, the Commission settled Starke’s claim and withdrew the other. The district court again awarded more than $4 million, finding that CRST had prevailed on more than 150 claims because of the Commission’s failure to satisfy pre-suit requirements. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that dismissal was not a ruling on the merits. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated. A favorable ruling on the merits is not a necessary predicate to find that a defendant is a prevailing party. A plaintiff seeks a material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties; a defendant seeks to prevent that alteration, and that objective is fulfilled whenever the plaintiff ’s challenge is rebuffed, irrespective of the precise reason for the decision. Title VII’s fee-shifting statute allows prevailing defendants to recover whenever the plaintiff ’s “claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” Congress must have intended that a defendant could recover fees expended in such litigation when the case is resolved in the defendant’s favor, whether on the merits or not. View "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n" on Justia Law

Betterman pleaded guilty to bail jumping after failing to appear on domestic assault charges. He was then jailed for over 14 months awaiting sentence, in large part due to institutional delay. He was eventually sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, with four of the years suspended. The Montana Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause does not apply to post-conviction, presentencing delay. The Speedy Trial Clause right attaches upon a defendant’s arrest or formal accusation, but detaches upon conviction. Before conviction, the accused is shielded by the presumption of innocence, which the Speedy Trial Clause implements by minimizing the likelihood of lengthy incarceration before trial, lessening the anxiety and concern associated with a public accusation, and limiting the effects of long delay on the accused’s ability to mount a defense. The sole remedy for a violation of the speedy trial right— dismissal of the charges—fits the preconviction focus of the Clause; it would be an unjustified windfall to remedy sentencing delay by vacating validly obtained convictions. View "Betterman v. Montana" on Justia Law

Hinojosa was serving a sentence for armed robbery when, in 2009, prison officials “validated” him as a prison-gang associate and placed him in secured housing (Cal. Penal Code 2933.6). In 2010, the state amended the law so that secured housing prison-gang associates placed could no longer earn future good-time credits. Hinojosa filed a state habeas petition, arguing violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. The Orange County Superior Court denied the claim on venue grounds. Challenges to conditions of confinement should be filed in the superior court of county of confinement. Rather than file a new petition, Hinojosa turned to the appellate court, which summarily denied his petition. Hinojosa then sought an original writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of California, which summarily denied relief. The federal district court denied Hinojosa’s ex post facto claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to exhaust state remedies, 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A). If the state courts adjudicate a federal claim “on the merits,” AEDPA mandates deferential, rather than de novo, review, unless the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,”, or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” The Ninth Circuit decided that the Supreme Court of California’s summary denial was not “on the merits.” The Supreme Court reversed. While, generally, “silence implies consent," strong evidence can refute that presumption. Improper venue could not possibly have been a ground for the high court’s summary denial of Hinojosa’s claim. There is only one Supreme Court of California, so its denial “obviously rested upon some different ground” and was on the merits. View "Kernan v. Hinojas" on Justia Law

The Paterson, New Jersey, chief of police and Officer Heffernan’s supervisor were appointed by Paterson’s incumbent mayor, who was running for re-election against Heffernan's friend, Spagnola. Heffernan was not involved in Spagnola’s campaign. As a favor to his bed-ridden mother, Heffernan delivered her Spagnola campaign yard sign. Other officers reported seeing Heffernan at a Spagnola distribution point while holding that sign. The next day, Heffernan’s supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer as punishment for “overt involvement” in Spagnola’s campaign. Heffernan filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Affirming the district court, the Third Circuit concluded that Heffernan’s claim was actionable under Section 1983 only if his employer’s action was prompted by Heffernan’s actual, rather than his perceived, exercise of free-speech rights. The Supreme Court reversed. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and Section 1983 even if the employer’s actions are based on a factual mistake. An employer’s motive, and the facts as the employer reasonably understood them, matter in determining violation of the First Amendment. The harm— discouraging employees from engaging in protected speech or association—is the same, regardless of factual mistake. The lower courts should decide whether the employer may have acted under a neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign and whether such a policy would comply with constitutional standards. View "Heffernan v. City of Paterson" on Justia Law

Michigan law enforcement received an anonymous tip that two white males were traveling on I–96 in a white Audi, possibly carrying cocaine. Officers spotted a vehicle matching that description and pulled it over for speeding. Etherton was driving; Pollie was a passenger. A search uncovered 125.2 grams of cocaine in the driver side door. Pollie testified, with a plea agreement, that he had accompanied Etherton, not knowing that Etherton intended to obtain cocaine; that, in Detroit, Etherton left him alone at a restaurant for 45 minutes; and that, while returning to Grand Rapids, Etherton revealed he had obtained the drugs. Officers described the content of the tip; on the third recounting, Etherton’s counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The prosecutor agreed to move on, but, at closing, again described the tip. The court instructed the jury that “the tip was not evidence,” but was admitted “only to show why the police did what they did.” Etherton’s conviction was affirmed. State courts denied post-conviction relief, rejecting arguments that admission of the tip violated the Confrontation Clause; that counsel was ineffective for failing to object; and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Confrontation Clause and ineffective assistance claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed denial of federal habeas relief. The Supreme Court reversed, citing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) standard of review. A “fairminded jurist” could conclude that repetition of the tip did not establish that the uncontested facts it conveyed were submitted for their truth and that Etherton was not prejudiced when the tip and Pollie’s testimony corresponded on uncontested facts. It would not be objectively unreasonable for a fair-minded judge to conclude that failure to raise a challenge was because the facts in the tip were uncontested and consistent with Etherton’s defense. View "Woods v. Etherton" on Justia Law

Walber was murdered in 1998. Two years later, Scott, then incarcerated, contacted authorities and initially reported that Wearry and others had confessed to shooting and driving over Walber, leaving his body on Blahut Road. Walber had not been shot; his body was found on Crisp Road. Scott changed his story in material ways four times. Another witness, Brown, recanted a prior inconsistent statement and agreed to testify. The prosecution stated that Brown “is doing 15 years on a drug charge… hasn’t asked for a thing” and “has no deal on the table.” Although the state presented no physical evidence, it offered additional circumstantial, but somewhat inconsistent, evidence linking Wearry to Walber. Three women testified that Wearry had been at a wedding reception 40 miles away. The bride testified that the reception had ended around 9:00, potentially leaving time for Wearry to have committed the crime. Jail employees testified that they had overheard Wearry say that he was present at the crime. The jury convicted Wearry of capital murder and sentenced him to death. After unsuccessful direct appeal, it emerged that the prosecution had withheld police records showed that two inmates had made statements that cast doubt on Scott’s credibility and that, contrary to the prosecution’s assertions, Brown wanted a deal for testifying. Police had told Brown that they would “‘talk to the D. A..’” Wearry’s trial attorney admitted at the state collateral-review hearing that he had conducted no investigation. Collateral-review counsel found many witnesses lacking any personal relationship with Wearry to corroborate his alibi until 11 pm. The lower courts and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied relief. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed on the Brady claim, finding that the state withheld material evidence, and did not reach the ineffective assistance claim. View "Wearry v. Cain" on Justia Law