Smith v. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 21-1576

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Smith was indicted in the Northern District of Florida for theft of trade secrets from StrikeLines’ website. Smith moved to dismiss the indictment, citing the Constitution’s Venue Clause and the Vicinage Clause. Smith argued that he had accessed the website from his Alabama home and that the servers storing StrikeLines’ data were in Orlando, Florida. The Eleventh Circuit determined that venue was improper and vacated Smith’s conviction, but held that a trial in an improper venue did not bar reprosecution.

The Supreme Court affirmed. The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Except as prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause, when a defendant obtains a reversal of a prior, unsatisfied conviction, he may be retried. Nothing in the Venue Clause suggests that a new trial in the proper venue is not an adequate remedy for its violation. The Vicinage Clause—which guarantees the right to “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” concerns jury composition, not the place where a trial may be held, and concerns the district where the crime was committed, rather than the state. The vicinage right is one aspect of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial rights and retrials are the appropriate remedy for violations of other jury-trial rights.

The Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated by retrial in a proper venue. A judicial decision on venue is fundamentally different from a jury’s verdict of acquittal. Culpability is the touchstone; when a trial terminates with a finding that the defendant’s criminal culpability had not been established, retrial is prohibited. Retrial is permissible when a trial terminates on a basis unrelated to factual guilt. The reversal of a conviction based on a violation of the Venue or Vicinage Clauses, even when called a “judgment of acquittal,” does not resolve the question of criminal culpability.

United States v. Fagan

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 21-1758

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: William Joseph Kayatta, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence showing that Defendant was carrying heroin with the intent to distribute it, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found during the underlying traffic stop.

Defendant was stopped for unsafe operation of a vehicle. The stop resulted in more than an hour of questioning and in Defendant relinquishing thirty-seven grams of heroin that he was carrying on his person. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the traffic stop was illegal and that the ensuing questioning violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant pleaded guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress.

United States v. Lauria (Molina)

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Docket: 21-2598

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: REENA RAGGI

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction on multiple counts of substantive and conspiratorial Hobbs Act robbery and of the brandishing of a firearm during two crimes of violence (i.e., the charged robberies). Defendant argued that the district court erred (1) in relying on the inevitable discovery doctrine to deny his motion to suppress evidence obtained through warrants supported by concededly defective affidavits and (2) in charging the jury that a gun constitutes a firearm and refusing to give his requested jury instruction.
 
The Second Circuit vacated Defendant’s firearms convictions. The court agreed with Defendant that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply in the circumstances of this case, and because the conceded misstatements in the affidavits were material to the issuing magistrate judges’ probable cause determinations, remand is required for the district court to conduct a hearing to determine if the challenged evidence was admissible under the standard identified in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). As to the jury charge, the district court erred in instructing the jury that a gun is a firearm. The court wrote that it cannot conclude that this error was harmless as a matter of law.

Q. T. v. Pottsgrove School District

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 22-1648

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

Student H.P.-B. resides with her adult cousin Q.T. within the geographical boundaries of Pottsgrove. H.P.-B. enrolled in Pottsgrove during the 2014–2015 school year. Q.T. does not have legal custody of H.P.-B—an August 2008 order grants primary physical and legal custody to H.P.-B.’s grandmother, E.E. Q.T. filed an IDEA due process complaint on H.P.-B’s behalf. The district court held that a straightforward application of C.F.R. 34 Section 300.30 (b)(2) “dictates that Q.T. does not qualify as H.P.-B.’s 'parent’ for purposes of the IDEA.” Q.T., E.E., and F.P. appealed the district court’s order. Appellants argued that the district court erred by holding that Q.T. does not qualify as H.P.-B.’s parent for purposes of the IDEA and, thus that Q.T. is unable to file a due process complaint on H.P.-B.’s behalf.
 
The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained the district court erred in finding that Q.T. did not qualify as H.P.-B.’s parent and thus lacked standing to file a due process complaint on H.P.-B.’s behalf. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to vacate the hearing officer’s order dismissing Q.T.’s due process complaint. The court explained there is ample evidence in the record that Q.T. was acting in the place of H.P.-B.’s natural parent, satisfying the third definition of “parent.” The record shows Q.T. affirmed that she was supporting H.P.- B. assumed all personal obligations related to school requirements for H.P.-B. and intended to keep and support H.P.-B. continuously, and not merely through the school year.

USA v. Abid Stevens

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 21-2044

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: KRAUSE

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant and co-defendants were tried in connection with the armed robbery of a Philadelphia convenience store. The district court instructed the jury that each defendant could be convicted of Hobbs Act robbery under three alternative theories of liability: direct, aiding and abetting, or for participation in a Pinkerton conspiracy. The district court further instructed that defendants could be convicted under Section 924(c) based on either a direct or an aiding and abetting theory. The jury found all parties guilty on all counts in a general verdict, and the district court denied their motions for judgment of acquittal. Appellant argued that his conviction for Hobbs Act robbery must be vacated because the district court failed to charge the jury on those elements, and the Government failed to prove them.
 
The Third Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court correctly charged the jury on the elements of Hobbs Act Robbery. The court explained the district court did not err in giving this jury instruction, and Appellant concedes that a reasonable jury, following this instruction, could have concluded that he aided and abetted co-defendant’s completed Hobbs Act robbery by intending to “facilitate the taking of the gun from the clerk.” Further, the court held that Appellant committed a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The court wrote that Appellant indisputably brandished his firearm during co-defendant’s completed Hobbs Act robbery, and while the jury’s general verdict obscures whether Appellant’s Hobbs Act robbery conviction was based on an aiding and abetting or a Pinkerton theory of guilt, under either theory he is liable for committing a crime of violence.

Calvin Currica v. Richard Miller

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 19-7638

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: DIAZ

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. He claimed that his guilty plea wasn’t voluntary because he didn’t know that Maryland’s sentencing guidelines were merely advisory. But a Maryland court denied his request for postconviction relief, finding that he understood the terms of his plea agreement, including his maximum sentencing exposure. The district court held that the Maryland court’s decision denying Defendant postconviction relief was reasonable.
 
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that AEDPA forecloses habeas relief unless the PCR court’s decision was “based on” an erroneous finding, 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d)(2), and Defendant doesn’t make that showing. Further subsection (d)(1) corrects only the most “extreme malfunctions.” Here, the PCR court’s decision wasn’t “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” Supreme Court precedent because it didn’t “arrive at a result different from” a Supreme Court case with “materially indistinguishable” facts. Nor was the PCR court’s decision an “unreasonable application” of principles announced by the Supreme Court. Here, the PCR court concluded that Defendant couldn’t reasonably believe that the guidelines were mandatory or that he was entitled to a sentence between 30 and 51 years. That’s because the plea court correctly advised him that each of his charges carried a possible sentence of 30 years. So this isn’t a case in which Defendant was clueless about the endpoints of his sentencing exposure.

Clayton Hulbert v. Brian Pope

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-1608

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: WILKINSON

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

Appellant, a Maryland Capitol Police officer, appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on several First and Fourth Amendment claims brought by picketers whom he arrested on the sidewalk outside the Maryland State House. Appellant arrested the picketers after they disobeyed his orders to back up off the sidewalk and protest instead from an adjoining square.
 
The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held a reasonable officer in Appellant’s position could have believed that the orders constituted lawful time, place, or manner restrictions on the picketers’ First Amendment rights. Therefore, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained no law, clearly established or otherwise, required Appellant to wait for an imminent traffic accident. Preventive measures to promote public safety are a basic contribution of government. Appellant’s assessment of safety risks and attempts to mitigate them were informed by common sense and the facts on the ground, not animus or conjecture. It was at least reasonable for him to believe that his orders promoted a substantial governmental interest.

Kenneth Robinson v. Priority Automotive Huntersville, Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-1855

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: RICHARDSON

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Not long after getting a new boss at the Priority Automotive Honda dealership, Plaintiffs effectively resigned from their jobs. They then sued, alleging racial discrimination—claiming that the new boss and the company fostered a hostile work environment and demoted them because they are Black—along with various state torts. Plaintiffs lost at summary judgment and appealed.
 
The Fourth Circuit largely affirmed but remand their state-law conversion claims for further proceedings. First, the court explained that a reasonable person might conclude that the employee’s alleged “white side” was race-based harassment. But the statement, on its own, does not create a severe or pervasive hostile work environment. Next, the court held that, since Plaintiff failed to support a reasonable inference of unlawful intentional discrimination, the magistrate judge rightfully rejected his disparate-treatment claim. Further, the court held that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ alleged conduct “rises to the level of 'outrageous and extreme’ as the term has been interpreted and applied” in North Carolina. The court reasoned that courts do not weigh the evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. So when both parties raise facts sufficient for a reasonable jury to find for them at trial, the claim must survive. But discrimination claims need more than neutral facts, an adverse action, and speculation about discriminatory motives to make it past this stage. As such, on the current record, a reasonable juror could find for Plaintiffs on their conversion claim.

Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 20-1509

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: RUSHING

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Communications Law, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiff, a tenured psychology professor at George Mason University (GMU), appealed the district court’s dismissal of his Title IX, procedural due process, and First Amendment claims against GMU and other defendants sued after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment that amounted to sexual harassment.
 
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s erroneous-outcome claim. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that (1) he was subjected to a procedurally flawed or otherwise flawed proceeding; (2) which led to an adverse and erroneous outcome; and (3) involved particular circumstances that suggest 'gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding. Here, Plaintiff does not connect these generalized pressures to his case in a way that creates a reasonable inference that anti-male bias-motivated GMU’s finding that he sexually harassed his students. Thus, as the district court explained, Plaintiff “has provided no basis from which to infer the existence of bias in his specific proceeding.” Further, Plaintiff’s “allegations of selective enforcement are not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of his legal conclusions.” Finally, the court explained that while Plaintiff’s research, publishing, and teaching about sex may qualify as matters of public concern, his contested speech veered well outside his teaching and scholarship into areas of private, personal interest.

US v. Bruce Sturtz

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-4322

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: NIEMEYER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), the district court sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. That range was determined, in part, by the district court’s conclusion that Defendant was subject to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months imprisonment that is required by Section 2252A(b)(2) when a defendant has a prior conviction for a qualifying sex offense. The district court found that Defendant’s prior conviction under Maryland law for a sexual offense in the third degree qualified as a predicate for the Section 2252A(b)(2) enhancement. Defendant then sought a review of the district court’s ruling that his prior Maryland conviction qualified as a predicate conviction under Section 2252A(b)(2), which triggered the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence.
 
The Fourth Circuit dismissed Defendant’s appeal. The court agreed with the government that Defendant waived his right to appeal that issue in his plea agreement. The court explained the indictment’s allegation that a 120-month minimum sentence applied because of Defendant’s prior Maryland conviction and the limitations that Defendant’s plea agreement placed on his right to challenge that allegation, as well as Defendant’s broad waiver of his right to appeal any determination that the district court made on that issue, preclude the present appeal. And this is confirmed by Defendant’s express waiver of the district court’s determination of the applicable sentencing guidelines range.

US v. Francisco Villa

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 20-4297

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: RUSHING

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after an aggravated felony conviction. He challenged his conviction on numerous fronts, claiming vindictive prosecution and violations of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial, due process, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the presumption of vindictiveness applies. The presumption of regularity that attends a prosecutor’s pretrial charging decision, therefore, remains in place. Further, the court wrote that Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial on the aggravated reentry charge attached when the government obtained the indictment charging him with that offense, the second indictment in this case. Because Defendant does not argue that the time between the second indictment and his trial—just short of 6 months—is presumptively prejudicial, he has not met the threshold requirement for evaluating the remaining Barker factors. Finally, the court held that Defendant has not shown that officers arrested and fingerprinted him for an investigative purpose; therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of his second suppression motion.

Abbott v. Biden

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-40399

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Andrew S. Oldham

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Governor Abbott filed suit on January 4, 2022. He alleged that the military vaccine mandate is arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). He also alleged that all but one of the Government’s planned enforcement measures violates the Constitution. For relief, Governor Abbott sought an order declaring the vaccination requirement and the challenged enforcement measures unlawful, Guardsmen. He also requested costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems proper. Governor Abbott then moved for an order preliminarily enjoining the defendants from enforcing the vaccine mandate against members of the Texas militia not in federal service. The district court denied the motion. The Governor appealed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1).
 
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying Governor Abbott’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the Government conceded that its erstwhile vaccine mandate is unnecessary to military readiness by repealing it. The question, therefore, is whether the President can punish non-federalized Guardsmen in Texas who refused to get COVID injections before the President and Congress deemed such injections unnecessary. The court held that the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition foreclose the President’s efforts to impose such punishments.

Alexandre-Matias v. Garland

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 21-60798

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Cory T. Wilson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Immigration Law

In 2005, Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, was ordered removed in absentia. In 2018, he moved to reopen and rescind the removal order, and an immigration judge (IJ) denied his request. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA dismissed his appeal. He petitioned for a review of that dismissal. He contends that the BIA and the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the record does not show that his notice to appear (NTA) was ever filed with the immigration court, as required by 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.14(a).
 
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court reasoned that it has previously explained that Section 1003.14 “is not jurisdictional” but is “a claim-processing rule.” Thus, Petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge fails. Further, Petitioner argued that the BIA erred by relying on a reconstructed record that did not contain his NTA. The court explained that it discerned nothing in the record to suggest that Petitioner’s Form I-213 “is incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress,” the BIA could thus properly rely on it as “inherently trustworthy and admissible as evidence” that Petitioner received notice of his removal hearing. Though Petitioner presented his own sworn declarations challenging his understanding of the translator’s statements, documents he may have signed, and his need to attend a removal hearing, he failed to present such compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen.

Edwards v. Balch Springs, Texas

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-10269

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The City of Balch Springs Police Department hired an officer who a jury later convicted of murdering a teenage boy while on duty. Plaintiff (the boy’s father) sued the City under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the department’s use-of-force policy was constitutional and also that Plaintiff’s training, supervisory, and disciplinary theories of liability lacked factual support.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ultimate judgment. Plaintiff argued that the City’s policy is facially unconstitutional because it contains “no immediacy requirement necessary to justify an officer’s use of deadly force” and because it calls “for an officer to use the officer’s own subjective beliefs in determining whether deadly force was justified.” The court explained that a local government’s official, written policy is itself unconstitutional only if it affirmatively allows or compels unconstitutional conduct. The City’s policy passes muster under that standard. It does not affirmatively allow officers to use deadly force absent an immediate threat, and it does not affirmatively allow officers to rely on subjective factors when evaluating whether to use deadly force. Likewise, the prior constitutional violations that Plaintiff relies on are too dissimilar and generalized to establish a pattern. For that reason, Plaintiff cannot show that the City’s training, supervisory, and disciplinary failures (if any) arose from deliberate indifference. In turn, he cannot satisfy Monell’s third element.

Louisiana State v. NOAA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-30799

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Cory T. Wilson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The National Marine Fisheries Service promulgated a rule requiring shrimp trawlers 25 feet or longer operating in offshore waters from North Carolina to Texas to install turtle excluder devices (TEDs), subject to a few preconditions. In 2012, NMFS proposed a more restrictive rule requiring TEDs for skimmer trawlers. The Final Rule required TEDs on all skimmer trawlers over 40 feet, including those that operate inshore. Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) sued NMFS under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the Final Rule as arbitrary and capricious. Louisiana moved for summary judgment, focusing on the merits of its claims. NMFS opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The district court granted NMFS’s motion, holding that Louisiana had not carried its summary judgment burden to establish standing.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that based on the record and procedural history of the case, the district court did not err in concluding that Louisiana failed to establish that it has standing to challenge the NMFS’s, Final Rule. The court reasoned that while the Final Rule’s EIS noted that the rule would adversely affect the shrimping industry across the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana failed to provide evidence, particularly substantiating the rule’s impact on its shrimping industry or, ergo, “a sufficiently substantial segment of its population.” Nor does Louisiana’s invocation of the “special solicitude” afforded States in the standing analysis rescue this argument, or for that matter, the State’s other arguments.

USA v. Hoffman

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 20-30323

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant, his wife, and another were indicted for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The parties jointly owned Seven Arts Pictures Louisiana, LLC (Seven Arts), through which they purchased a dilapidated mansion at 807 Esplanade Avenue in New Orleans with the goal of converting it into a film postproduction facility. To offset the costs of the project, Seven Arts applied for film infrastructure tax credits offered by the State of Louisiana. The Government alleged that the parties “submitted fraudulent claims for tax credits, mostly by (1) submitting false invoices for construction work and film equipment or (2) using “circular transactions” that made transfers of money between bank accounts look like expenditures related to movie production.” The jury convicted Defendant on all charged counts. Defendant moved for a new trial as well as for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial but partially granted his motion for acquittal. Specifically, the court entered judgments of acquittal for Hoffman on five counts of wire fraud.
 
The Fifth Circuit held that the panel does not agree with the judgment that should be rendered in this case. Judge Jolly would affirm the district court’s judgment in its entirety. Chief Judge Richman would dismiss the appeal, concluding the notice of appeal was not timely. Judge Dennis would remand for an evidentiary hearing and resentencing. The net effect is that the sentence imposed by the district court stands, and the case is not remanded to the district court. The district court’s judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.

USA v. Lopez

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-40121

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Cory T. Wilson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. He challenged his sentence on several grounds, particularly the district court’s imposition of a four-level enhancement for use or possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The linchpin of this case is whether Defendant’s repeated instances of being a felon in possession of a firearm were relevant conduct justifying the enhancement.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court thoroughly analyzed the factors for relevant conduct— similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity—and concluded the evidence weighed in favor of the Government. Here, Defendant was sentenced to 70 months—well below the 10-year statutory maximum. The district court committed no error, clear or otherwise, in its analysis. Further, the court explained that the Sentencing Guidelines do not generally prohibit double counting. The Guidelines permit the district court to consider a defendant’s prior felony convictions in calculating both his offense level under Section 2K2.1(a) and his criminal history category. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in calculating Defendant’s sentence on this basis.

USA v. Scott

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 21-30501

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A federal jury convicted a former law enforcement officer (Defendant) of multiple counts of falsifying government documents, obstruction of justice, perjury, and property conversion. Defendant was sentenced to 160 months in prison. He appealed his convictions and sentence.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained Defendant’s two document-falsification counts were supported by sufficient evidence. First, Defendant argued that his misrepresentations on the forms were immaterial to the DEA’s administration. The court disagreed, citing the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1519, which contains no “materiality” element. Moreover, the prosecution produced evidence that Defendant knowingly gave the DEA false information, concealing that he seized the informant’s truck outside of his jurisdiction and that he instructed the informant to purchase the truck. An expert testified at trial that, had it known these details, the DEA would not have approved the seizure. Additionally, the court explained that the record is replete with evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Defendant used the confiscated property for his own use. Defendant also contested both enhancements by pointing to Section 1B1.5(c). Even if the district court erred in applying these two enhancements, the error was harmless. The district court carefully explained that it would have imposed the same 160-month sentence for the same reasons even if it erred in calculating Defendant’s offense level.

Welsh v. Lubbock County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-11049

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff, a convicted sexually violent predator, was held in the Lubbock County Detention Center as a pre-trial detainee for approximately one month from December 2017 to January 2018. Soon after his arrival, he was placed in administrative segregation away from the facility’s general population, where he was held for most of the remainder of his time there. He subsequently brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Lubbock County and several law enforcement officials, asserting a series of claims regarding his alleged mistreatment there. The district court entered an order dismissing the claims against the county and all but one of the officials, which he now appeals in the first of the consolidated cases. Plaintiff challenged the process by which he was placed and remained in administrative segregation. After the district court subsequently dismissed the remaining named official, Plaintiff moved to reconsider that dismissal and the dismissal of several of his other claims. The district court rejected both motions for lack of new evidence, which Plaintiff appealed in the second of the consolidated cases. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible errors.

Curt Russell Cannamela

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-5035

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, pro se federal prisoner, moves for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. He also moved for default judgment against the government for its alleged untimeliness in responding to his motion.


The Sixth Circuit denied both motions. The court explained that the district court did not run afoul of Castro when it construed Petitioner’s original filings as Section 2255 motions. The court’s order provided Petitioner notice of the recharacterization and gave him an opportunity to amend his filing. The court, it is true, did not expressly warn Petitioner of the consequences of recharacterization. The court instead appointed counsel. No longer pro se, Petitioner moved beyond Castro’s ambit. Further, the court found that even if the transcripts from Petitioner’s sentencing qualify as newly discovered evidence, they do not show his innocence or show that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty.

United States v. Richard Austin Williams

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-5002

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: SUTTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant violated the conditions of release that a district court imposed after it found him not guilty of an alleged crime by reason of insanity. Placing the burden on Defendant, the court found that Williams posed “a substantial risk” of harm to the public and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General. At issue is whether Section 4243(g) places the burden of proof on Defendant to show that his continued release would not “create a substantial risk” to the public.
 
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court explained just as the individual has the burden at every turn up to that point to show he is not a risk to the public (for the affirmative defense, for initial release, for release after a period of commitment, for modification of conditions of release, and for ultimate release), so the individual also has the burden when the same issue returns after a violation of the conditions of release. Moreover, the court permissibly found that Defendant presented a substantial risk to the community, as his behavior and mental condition show.

Michelle Giese v. City of Kankakee

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-2022

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: ST. EVE

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiff, a lieutenant in the Kankakee Fire Department (“KFD”)—was attacked by another firefighter while responding to a fire at a senior living facility. The City suspended the other firefighter for twenty-four hours without pay, ordered him to complete an anger management course, and directed him to avoid working on the same shift as Plaintiff for three months. Plaintiff experienced ongoing physical and mental injuries from the incident, causing her to take leave from work and apply for workers’ compensation. She returned to work six months later but permanently left her position shortly after. She then filed a lawsuit, alleging that Defendants, among other things, retaliated against her for certain protected activities under Title VII and condoned aggressive and inappropriate behaviors as part of a “code of silence” that resulted in her attack. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and this appeal followed.
 
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that on the merits, Plaintiff’s claim fails because none of her evidence, separately or taken together, creates a genuine dispute regarding whether Defendants had a practice of condoning aggressive behavior, resulting in a constitutional injury. Further the court wrote that the record does not support Plaintiff’s contention that there was such a high risk of constitutional injury from the other firefighter that the “single incident” theory of municipal liability applies here. The court held Plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment regarding her Fourth Amendment Monell claim and her Title VII retaliation claim. The district court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment to Defendants.

USA v. Elvin Saldana-Gonzalez

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-1289

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the parties and the district court agreed that the appropriate guideline range based on Defendant's prior criminal history was 37 to 46 months.

Citing the fact that he accepted responsibility for the crime and his traumatic upbringing, Defendant sought a 37-month sentence. Defendant also claimed he carried the weapon for protection, given his gang history. The government, citing Defendant's lengthy criminal history and multiple firearms convictions, sought a high-end 46-month sentence. The court sentenced Defendant to 78 months in prison. Defendant appealed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

In front of the Seventh Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court improperly relied on its own personal fears in fashioning an above-the-guidelines sentence. While "[t]he district court trod on dangerous ground" in personally expressing its own fears, its remarks did not rise to the level of “extraneous and inflammatory.” The Seventh Circuit also rejected Defendant's challenge that the district court disregarded the applicable guideline range.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit rejected Defendant's claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable as it "failed to address his offense conduct, juvenile history, and the general lack of evidence surrounding deterrence." The court noted that the district court adequately considered Defendant's upbringing within the context of the offense, and that Section 3553(a)(2)(B) specifically permits judges to consider general deterrence when sentencing.

USA v. James Snyder

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-2986

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: HAMILTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant, a former mayor of Portage, Indiana, arranged a public bidding process to determine where the city was going to purchase new garbage trucks. Defendant put his long-time friend in charge of the bidding process. Ultimately, the company that won the bid ended up paying Defendant $13,000 less than three weeks after receiving the contract.

In November 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Snyder for federal funds bribery and obstructing the IRS. He went to trial in January and February 2019. The jury convicted on one count of federal funds bribery and one count of obstructing the IRS. Defendant appealed, challenging decisions on motions to dismiss, jury instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence. The court rejected all of Defendant's claims on appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence

United States v. Deshonte Dickson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2002

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: LOKEN

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

At sentencing, the district court, varying upward from the advisory guidelines sentencing range, imposed a sentence of 120 months imprisonment plus four years of supervised release upon Defendant. Defendant appealed. He argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and remanded for resentencing. The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court agreed with Defendant that the district court committed procedural sentencing error when it adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) and, without adequate notice varied upward for reasons that contradicted the PSR’s factual findings. However, the court found that the jury was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Thus, the court did not disturb the jury’s credibility findings on appeal. Similarly, the court concluded that there is sufficient evidence to uphold Defendant’s conspiracy conviction. Finally, the court wrote that it cannot conclude that the inconsistencies between the PSR findings and the findings on which the district court based its upward variance, combined with the lack of prior notice, resulted in procedural sentencing error that was harmless.

United States v. Elizabeth Pounds

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2112

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: COLLOTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute it. In the district court, Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop of a vehicle that she was driving. The district court denied the motion, and Defendant reserved the right to appeal that ruling.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that there was no error in denying the motion to suppress. The court explained that the seizing officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant as she drove away from the residence on August 24. Officers had abundant reason to believe, based on informant reports and surveillance, that the owners were distributing methamphetamine from their residence. Police seized drugs from four short-term visitors who were stopped shortly after leaving the residence in June. As of August 24, investigators had reliable information that the owners were distributing a shipment of methamphetamine that arrived two days earlier, including a quantity that was seized from a downstream customer that very morning. A detective saw Defendant enter the residence at 10:00 p.m. and depart six minutes later. Although Defendant was previously unknown to investigators, her short-term visit to the suspected drug house conformed to the pattern of the drug trade and gave police reasonable suspicion to believe that she was carrying drugs as she departed. Accordingly, the police had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity as she departed the residence, so the traffic stop was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. George Gordon

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2605

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: COLLOTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant appealed a sentence of ninety-six months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court after Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant argued that the district court committed procedural error by miscalculating his base offense level under the sentencing guidelines.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it has held that second-degree robbery under this Missouri statute is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act because the offense requires “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Because Defendant’s prior conviction for second-degree robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under USSG Section 4B1.2(a)(1), the district court did not err in determining a base offense level of 20 under USSG Section 2K2.1(a)(4). Accordingly, the court held that there was no procedural error.

United States v. Gregory McCoy

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2412

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: BENTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The district court sentenced him to 262 months in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging: (1) the admission of evidence (field tests and a photograph); (2) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (3) the sentence (an adjustment and an enhancement).
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the evidence was not inadmissible simply because it was prejudicial. Further, the court explained that the jury saw the pistol and photographs of it. An ATF agent, testifying as an expert, testified that it met the federal definition of a firearm. The pistol and the testimony are sufficient to prove that the pistol was a firearm. Accordingly, the court held that the evidence sufficiently proved that Defendant’s .45-caliber pistol was a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Sections 921(a)(3) and 922(g). Finally, the district court found that Defendant was a drug dealer—not merely a drug user—due to the packaging of the drugs, the evidence found in the search and police investigations, and his own testimony that he intended to distribute drugs. As such, the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement.

United States v. Isaac May

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 21-3344

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: SMITH

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

I.M. and J.R. (collectively, “Appellants”) were convicted by a jury of charges alleged in a ten-count superseding indictment for offenses committed as part of a large drug conspiracy. The district court sentenced them to 360 and 336 months in prison, respectively. On appeal, I.M. challenged both the denial of his motion for severance and his sentence; J.R. challenged the denial of his motion for recusal, the denial of his motions to suppress wiretap and video surveillance recordings and his convictions.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first explained I.M. has given the court no reason to conclude that this was not an adequate safeguard in his case or that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to sever. Thus, the denial of I.M.’s severance motion was not an abuse of discretion. Further, the district court’s statement that I.M.’s “criminal history consists of violent acts and possession of firearms” did not mischaracterize his criminal history. Thus, the district court did not commit procedural error.
 
Moreover, the court held J.R. has failed to point to any facts establishing that the district judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The district judge’s issuance of some of the warrants, in this case, does not, of itself, require recusal. Any other challenges to the wiretap recordings are also waived because J.R. has failed to meaningfully explain why his motion to suppress should have been granted.

United States v. Kieffer Simmons

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2179

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: KOBES

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A jury convicted co-defendants K.S and T.H of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Both challenged several district court rulings, and T.H. appealed his conviction.


The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that K.S. argued that, instead of co-Defendant’s testimony, the court should have admitted co-Defendant’s letter under the residual hearsay exception. The court explained the residual exception is to “be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” To fall within the exception, the statement must be “supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.” The district court concluded that the letter was not trustworthy. Although the court did not explain how it reached its conclusion, its “discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial.”
 
T.H. argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The evidence established that the middleman bought methamphetamine from K.H. and sold it to the CI. The CI testified to arranging the buy, and the middleman’s phone records showed calls with T.H. on the day of the purchase. After the middleman bought methamphetamine from someone in the white S.U.V., officers identified T.H. as the driver. The plastic bag the middleman later sold the CI had fingerprints from all three men. Additionally, the jury heard testimony from K.T. and D.S. that T.H. sold drugs in the same car and the same location as the controlled buy. This evidence was sufficient to sustain his conspiracy conviction.

United States v. Patrick Webb, Jr.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 21-3830

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: SMITH

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A jury convicted Defendant of distributing a controlled substance near a protected location, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to 380 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury and challenges the reasonableness of his sentence.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant specifically requested separating the protected location element—Proposed Instruction No. 15—from the remainder of the elements of Count 1—Proposed Instruction No. 12. Defendant then filed objections to certain instructions but failed to object to either Instruction No. 12 or 15 prior to trial. He further failed to do so at trial or in his post-trial motion. Defendant “cannot complain that the district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked.” Further, the court wrote that Evans controls here. Henderson’s interpretation of the career offender enhancement was “neither unexpected nor indefensible” and “had a rational basis.” The district court did not err in applying this enhancement. The court also explained that “when a district court varies downward and sentences below a presumptively reasonable Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.” Here, Defendant offered no convincing reasoning to rebut this presumption.

United States v. Robert Harrison

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-1537

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: SMITH

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to 84 months imprisonment. Harrison appealed, challenging the admission of evidence of his prior firearm conviction.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained Defendant’s knowledge is at issue here because he did not plead guilty. Thus, Defendant’s prior conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm was relevant to prove knowledge. Further, Defendant’s conviction was not too remote in time. Although it occurred 8 years before his arrest in this case, he was incarcerated for more than 3 of those years. Therefore, based on its compliance with the requirements of Oaks, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior firearm conviction.

United States v. Sylvester Cunningham

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-1080

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: COLLOTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. He argued that evidence should have been excluded from trial due to an unlawful search and seizure, that he had a constitutional right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm as a convicted felon, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
 
The Eighth Circuit concluded that none of the contentions has merit and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court found that the officer’s action was permissible under the Fourth Amendment on at least two bases: as an investigative search based on reasonable suspicion of crime and danger and as a search for evidence-based on probable cause under exigent circumstances. Further, the court held that the longstanding prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons is constitutional, and the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss. Moreover, the court wrote that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that Defendant knowingly possessed the firearm. Finally, the court explained that a rational jury could have found that the firearm was placed strategically in a location where it was hidden from view but readily accessible to one who was seated in a wheelchair and carrying drugs in his undergarment.

United States v. Tracy Jones

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2776

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: BENTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A grand jury indicted Defendant for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). Arrested on November 17, she was detained for 37 days before appearing before a magistrate judge on December 23. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment and suppress her statements from a post-arrest interview. The district court denied both motions.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained the 37-day delay between Jones’s arrest and her initial appearance before a magistrate judge violated Rule 5(a). However, to determine whether a delay in presentment violates substantive due process, this court determines whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the government’s conduct “offends the standards of substantive due process” and “shocks the conscience.” Defendant asserted that law enforcement officers in South Dakota have a “pattern” of delaying defendants’ initial appearances, citing two cases where defendants moved to dismiss indictments based on delays in their initial appearance. However, the court held two mistakes do not establish a pattern of outrageousness sufficient to show deliberate indifference and support a due process violation.
 
Further, Defendant argued that her Miranda waiver was involuntary because the agent’s pre-warning statements were an unlawful two-step interrogation under Missouri v. Seibert and that her confession was involuntary under United States v. Aguilar. The court held the district court properly concluded that these brief, narrow-scope pre-warning statements were not a two-step interrogation in violation of Seibert and that Defendant’s statements were voluntary.

AARGON AGENCY, INC., ET AL V. SANDY O'LAUGHLIN

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-15352

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: W. Fletcher

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Consumer Law

Nevada enacted Senate Bill 248 (“S.B. 248”), Act of June 2, 2021, ch. 291, 2021 Nev. Stat. 1668, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. S.B. 248 requires debt collectors to provide written notification to debtors 60 days before taking any action to collect a medical debt. Plaintiffs are entities engaged in consumer debt collection. They filed suit in district court against Defendant, Commissioner of the Financial Institutions Division of Nevada’s Department of Business and Industry, bringing a facial challenge to the law. They moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, contending that S.B. 248 is unconstitutionally vague, violates the First Amendment and is preempted by both the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs timely appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The panel first rejected Plaintiffs’ claim that the term “action to collect a medical debt” in S.B. 248 was unconstitutionally vague, noting that the implementing regulations set forth examples of actions that do, and do not, constitute actions to collect a medical debt. The panel held that: S.B. 248 regulates commercial speech and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny; communications to collect a medical debt “concerned lawful activity” and were not “inherently misleading.” The panel next rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the FCRA expressly preempts S.B. 248 under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681t(b)(1)(F).

MICHAEL GRABOWSKI V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-15714

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Graber

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

Plaintiff alleged that when he was a first-year student-athlete at the University of Arizona, his teammates subjected him to frequent “sexual and homophobic bullying” because they perceived him to be gay. He claims that the Arizona Board of Regents and the University of Arizona (“University Defendants”) were deliberately indifferent to his claims of sexual harassment and that they retaliated against him in violation of Title IX. He also brings claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against two of his coaches (collectively, “Defendant Coaches”). Finally, he sought punitive damages against the Defendant Coaches. The district court dismissed the action.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action. The panel held that Title IX bars sexual harassment on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. The panel held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex-based discrimination under Title IX. The panel held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged the first, third, and fourth elements of his Title IX harassment claim, but the operative complaint failed to allege a deprivation of educational opportunity. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the harassment claim, vacated the portion of the district court’s order denying leave to amend, and remanded for the district court to consider Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint again, should he renew that request before the district court. The panel held that the operative complaint sufficiently alleged that Plaintiff suffered harassment on the basis of perceived sexual orientation and that Defendants retaliated against him when they failed to investigate his accusations adequately.

ROBERT YBARRA, JR. V. WILLIAM GITTERE

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 20-99012

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Tallman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The State of Nevada sentenced Petitioner to die for brutally raping and murdering a 16-year-old in 1979. Petitioner pled not guilty by reason of insanity but was convicted by the jury after a trial in the District Court for White Pine County in Ely, Nevada. Petitioner argued that he is intellectually disabled and, therefore cannot constitutionally be executed under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). The Nevada trial court found he was not intellectually disabled, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which is subject to the restrictions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Petitioner argued that the Nevada Supreme Court’s determination that he is not intellectually disabled is unreasonable under Section 2254(d)(2).
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argued that the Nevada Supreme Court unreasonably found that a 1981 IQ test was of “little value”. The panel wrote that first, the Nevada Supreme Court explicitly rejected Petitioner’s argument that the trial court had erred in crediting the 1981 IQ test over another expert’s testing. The second reason was that the record as a whole portrays Petitioner as a person who does not have significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.” Finally, the Nevada Supreme Court said that it “need not decide the relevance, if any, of” the Flynn Effect, which causes average IQ test scores to inflate over time, “and the necessity of adjusting the 1981 IQ score” because that test occurred well after Petitioner turned 18.

USA V. FRANCISCO LUCAS, JR.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-50064

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: Wallace

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed the district court’s sentencing order, which imposed a heightened base offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B).
 
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s sentencing order and remanded for resentencing on an open record. The court explained Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) applies if the offense involved a “semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine.” Application Note 2 to Section 2K2.1 defines such a firearm as one: that has the ability to fire many rounds without reloading because, at the time of the offense (A), the firearm had attached to it a magazine or similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition; or (B) a magazine or similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition was in close proximity to the firearm. Because the parties assumed that Application Note 2 applies, the panel deemed waived any arguments concerning whether Application Note 2 is inconsistent with the Guideline or whether Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) is ambiguous so as to defeat resort to Application Note 2. Because these issues were waived, the panel applied Application Note 2 for the purposes of this appeal.
 
The panel held that the district court clearly erred in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant’s magazine could accept more than 15 rounds, where the government did not physically produce or inspect the firearm or the magazine, and, without physical evidence, the government largely relied on its expert agent, who was, at most, equivocal.

USA V. MIGUEL ALANIZ

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-30141

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Gutierrez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After a grand jury indicted Defendant, he pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to three counts of cocaine distribution and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). At sentencing, the district court concluded that the two-level Section 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement applied but found—albeit deeming it a “close call”—that Defendant was entitled to safety valve relief under Section 2D1.1(b)(18). It also found that Section 2D1.1(b)(1) was well-supported by a historical tradition of Second Amendment regulation and rejected Defendant’s constitutional objection. Calculating a total offense level of 15, the court sentenced Defendant to a below-Guidelines term of 15 months in prison. On appeal, Defendant challenged only the constitutionality of U.S.S.G. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) under Bruen.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Applying the two-part test adopted by Bruen, the panel assumed, without deciding, that step one is met—when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. At step two, however, the panel found Section 2D1.1(b)(1) constitutional because it clearly comports with a history and tradition of regulating the possession of firearms during the commission of felonies involving a risk of violence.

United States v. Freeman

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-2039

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Mary Beck Briscoe

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Zechariah Freeman was convicted by jury of one count of sexual abuse. Appealing, Freeman argued: (1) the evidence presented at trial to sustain his conviction; (2) the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on an essential element of the offense; and (3) the district court erred by denying his request to use his peremptory challenges allotted by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(b)(2) to strike prospective alternate jurors. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

United States v. Spaeth

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-3096

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Gregory Alan Phillips

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Matthew Spaeth sought to have his conviction and term of imprisonment vacated, or to have the sentence for his admitted participation in an extensive conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine reduced. He argued the government obtained and allegedly listened to recordings of telephone calls that he made from a pretrial-detention facility to his counsel. The Tenth Circuit found the record reflected that Spaeth’s guilty conduct was firmly established long before his arrest and that he received a very favorable sentence under a binding plea agreement. Even so, and despite his unconditional guilty plea, the Court found the law allowed Spaeth to challenge his conviction and sentence if his counsel’s deficient performance led to an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea when he otherwise would have chosen a trial. Though the Court condemned the conduct of the Kansas U.S. Attorney’s Office, Spaeth still needed to prove his claim for post-conviction relief, which the Tenth Circuit concluded he had not. Accordingly, the Court affirmed denial of relief.

Alexander Bastani v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 20-7032

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: ROGERS

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Three former officers of a local affiliate of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (“AFGE”) filed a lawsuit alleging that AFGE unlawfully retaliated against them for speech protected under Section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”). Specifically, the former officers challenge AFGE’s imposition of a trusteeship on the local union and their removal from office. The district court granted summary judgment to AFGE as to two officers and, after a jury trial, entered judgment on the merits for AFGE as to the third officer.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that to establish a prima facie free speech claim under Section 101(a)(2), then, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in speech protected by LMRDA; (2) she was subject to an adverse action; and (3) that action is causally linked to the protected speech. If the non-movant, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, “fails to make a sufficient showing to establish an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,” a court must enter summary judgment against it. Here, the court wrote that Appellants failed to make the requisite showing, and consequently summary judgment was appropriate on their free speech claims.

Gene Schaerr v. DOJ

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 21-5165

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: RAO

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Plaintiff filed Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests with six intelligence agencies for any records about the unmasking of members of President Trump’s campaign and transition team. Plaintiff sought to uncover what he alleges was inappropriate intelligence surveillance for political purposes. Declining to produce any records, the Agencies issued so-called Glomar responses, explaining that even the existence or nonexistence of such records was exempted from FOIA. The district court granted summary judgment for the Agencies, concluding that FOIA exempted the information Plaintiff requested and that the Agencies had no obligation to search for responsive records before invoking Glomar.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that an agency properly issues a Glomar response when its affidavits plausibly describe the justifications for issuing such a response, and these justifications are not substantially called into question by contrary record evidence. Because the Glomar procedure protects information about even the existence of certain records, an agency need not search for responsive records before invoking it. Here, the Agencies have properly invoked Glomar on the grounds that the information Plaintiff seeks is protected by FOIA Exemptions One and Three, and nothing in the record suggests the Agencies acted in bad faith in issuing their responses.

Shanique Perez v. Kipp DC Supporting Corporation

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 22-7021

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: RANDOLPH

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Appellant complaint, filed in 2021, repeated the claims she had made against the defendants in her 2018 complaint. The district court dismissed her 2018 complaint because the D.C. statutory limitations period had run. In both of her complaints Appellant alleged that in 2004, when she was 14 years old and a student at a KIPP charter school in the District of Columbia, one of her teachers began having sexual relations with her. She further alleged that this man continued to abuse her after she enrolled in another school and that they began living together in Maryland. She claimed that she ended her relationship with him in 2009. At issue is whether, as the district court ruled, res judicata barred Appellant’s second action.
 
The DC Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that the District of Columbia’s Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations Amendment Act went into effect on May 3, 2019. The new and expanded limitations period extends to “the date the victim attains the age of 40 years, or 5 years from when the victim knew, or reasonably should have known, of any act constituting sexual abuse, whichever is later.” Here, the court held that the district court did not decide whether the old or the new D.C. statute of limitations applied to several of Appellant’s claims. The court wrote that the district court also concluded that its interpretation of the new Act depended on constitutional avoidance, which the DC Circuit determined to be inapplicable.

Ark. Dep't of Education v. Jackson

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 Ark. 105

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Education Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of Plaintiffs in their lawsuit challenging the validity of the emergency clause in Act 237 of 2023 (the LEARNS Act), holding that the circuit court erred in granting Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.

After the LEARNS Act was signed into law Plaintiffs sought a TRO, asserting that they would suffer irreparable harm if Defendants continued to implement the Act despite an invalid emergency clause relating to the creation of transformation contracts. The circuit court granted the TRO until a scheduled hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the TRO, holding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of providing irreparable harm.

California v. Farias

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C094195(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Harry E. Hull, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant inmates Jesse Farias and Fernando Miranda were found guilty of various charges stemming from their attack on a fellow inmate. Defendants, their counsel, and the State then agreed to allow the trial court to determine the truth of allegations that they had previously been convicted of crimes that constituted both serious felonies under Penal Code section 667(a), and strikes under Penal Code sections 667(e)(2) and 1170.12(c)(2), without their appearances. The trial court expressly found the prior convictions were for serious felonies under section 667 (a), but made no mention of the allegations under sections 667(e)(2) and 1170.12(c)(2). However, at the sentencing hearing, the court imposed sentences on the defendants as if it had found the strike allegations to be true. Had all parties attended the hearing on the priors, the Court of Appeal surmised someone in the group would have requested the court clearly make an oral record of its findings. Instead, the record was silent "with little way to know if the error was purely clerical in nature or if the trial court, in fact, failed to consider the strike allegations at all." On appeal, both defendants argued the court could not impose a strike sentence here, because it made no strike finding. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed a strike sentence was not appropriate, and vacated the sentence without prejudice for the trial court to correct the record. In addition to joining Farias’s challenge to the strike sentence, Miranda also challenged the trial court’s finding that two of his prior convictions were for serious felonies on grounds that those findings are not supported by substantial evidence. While the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding on one of the two subject prior convictions, the Court agreed with Miranda that, considering changes to the law governing gang offenses, the trial court lacked substantial evidence to support its finding that his prior conviction under section 186.22(a), was for a serious felony as contemplated by section 667(a). Both Defendants argued that amendments to Penal Code section 654 made after the trial court entered its sentence applied here; to this the Court remanded the case to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under the amended law.

California v. Ocegueda

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: G061077(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: Kathleen E. O'Leary

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Darrick Ocegueda was convicted by jury for first degree murder. He contended on appeal that the trial court misinstructed the jury on the theory of provocation as it related to the premeditation and deliberation elements of the offense and, relatedly, that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a clarifying pinpoint instruction. Ocegueda argued the combination of some of the standard instructions given (CALCRIM Nos. 521, 522 & 570) might have misled the jury to believe that provocation could negate the elements of first degree murder only if it satisfied an objective, “person of average disposition” standard. Additionally, Ocegueda claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the elements of premeditation and deliberation. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Campana v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A163054M(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Whitman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Utilities Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court entered in favor of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) on Plaintiffs' purported class action complaint, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs' claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs brought this complaint alleging that a tiered-rate water structure employed by EMBUD to determine the cost of residential and commercial water service in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties violated Cal. Const. art. XIII D, 6(b). The trial court sustained EBMUD's demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the applicable statute of limitations had run, and therefore, the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer.

Lucas v. City of Pomona

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B310777(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: STRATTON

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The City of Pomona (the City) decided to allow commercial cannabis activities in specific locales within its boundaries. In doing so, the City determined it was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines adopted to implement CEQA (Cal. Code Regs.) (Guidelines). Thus, when the City chose areas to locate commercial cannabis activities, it did not conduct additional environmental review under CEQA. Appellant wanted his storefront property included among the locales where commercial cannabis activity would be allowed. The City, however, excluded Appellant’s property. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of mandate to overturn the City’s designation of areas for permissible commercial cannabis activities. He contended the City made the decision improperly by foregoing further environmental review. The superior court denied the petition and entered judgment in favor of the City.
 
The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the City properly determined that the Project is Exempt per Guidelines Section 15183 and requires no additional environmental review. The court explained that substantial evidence shows the Project’s proposed commercial cannabis activities were similar to or “consistent” with existing land uses or development density established by the 2014 EIR and General Plan Update and thus meet the statutory exemption per Guidelines section 15183. Further, the court found that substantial evidence—the General Plan Update, the 2014 EIR, the Project, the DOS, and Findings of Consistency—shows the Project “has no project-specific effects” that are “peculiar” to it.

Chirinos-Raudales v. Colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 CO 33

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Brian D. Boatright

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The State of Colorado charged Dennis Chirinos-Raudales with, among other crimes, sexual assault on a child (“SAOC”) by one in a position of trust, which prohibits sexual contact with persons under eighteen, but whose penalty escalates from a class 4 felony to a class 3 felony if the victim is under fifteen. The question presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was whether the “subject of the action” was the subsection that applied when the child is under eighteen or the subsection that applies when the child is under fifteen. To this, the Court held that the “subject of the action” for SAOC by one in a position of trust was the substantive offense rather than the sentence enhancer. Therefore, because the substantive offense applies when the child is under eighteen and the victim was under eighteen at the time she made the statements in question, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly admitted them under the child hearsay statute.

Colorado v. Smiley

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 CO 36

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: William W. Hood, III

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A man was found dead in Thornton, Colorado, and police suspected homicide. Thornton detectives identified defendant Thorvyn Bullcalf Evan Smiley as the sole suspect and, after tracking him down in New Mexico, brought him to a police station there to collect certain samples from him pursuant to a court order. Seeing Smiley’s obvious concern, they repeatedly reassured him that he wasn’t in trouble and that he’d be leaving the police station that day. The detectives then advised Smiley of his Miranda rights. Smiley signed a waiver and agreed to speak with the detectives. During the subsequent interrogation, Smiley confessed to killing the alleged victim. One of the questions before the trial court was whether the prosecution had proved that Smiley voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court concluded the answer was no, and it suppressed the statement. The Colorado Supreme Court found no reversible error in that judgment and affirmed.

Orellana-Leon v. Colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 CO 34

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Brian D. Boatright

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jose Leonel Orellana-Leon sexually abused his girlfriend’s daughter, L.V., from the time she was seven or eight years old until she was fifteen. When L.V. was fifteen years old, she told her father and stepmother about the abuse; as a result, a forensic interview was conducted. The State subsequently charged Orellana-Leon with sexual assault on a child (“SAOC”) by one in a position of trust. Before trial, the State gave notice it intended to admit statements L.V. made to her father, stepmother, and the forensic interviewer under the child hearsay statute. Over the defense’s objection, the trial court granted the State's request. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on what happens when a defendant is charged under a statute that references two different ages. In the companion case, Chirinos-Raudales v. Colorado, 2023 CO 33, ¶ 21, __ P.3d __, the Court concluded that the “subject of the action” for SAOC by one in a position of trust was the substantive offense, which applied when the child was under eighteen, rather than the sentence enhancer, which applied when the child is under fifteen. Applying that holding to this case, the Court concluded that because the victim was under eighteen at the time she made the statements in question, the trial court properly admitted them under the child hearsay statute.

Pellegrin v. Colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 CO 37

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Gabriel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Trevor Pellegrin and the victim began dating, moved in together shortly thereafter, and later became engaged. During the parties’ relationship, Pellegrin took private, intimate photos of the victim in various stages of undress. The relationship subsequently ended, but several months after it did, Pellegrin and the victim spent three or four days together. At about that time, Pellegrin learned that the victim had started seeing someone else. This information upset Pellegrin, and over the next few days, he repeatedly called and texted the victim. In the course of these communications, Pellegrin called the victim names, sent nude photos of her that he had taken during their relationship, and threatened to post the nude photos online and send them to her younger brother. The victim received over one hundred text messages and photos from strangers, including messages with photos of naked men, messages saying that unknown people were driving by her home, and messages soliciting sex. At some point, the victim learned that these text messages were in response to two Craigslist advertisements that Pellegrin had placed. Upon becoming aware of these advertisements, the victim contacted the police, who arrested Pellegrin at his home. The State subsequently charged Pellegrin with, as pertinent here, one count of stalking, two counts of posting a private image for harassment (one count for the Facebook posting and one for the Craigslist posting), and one count of harassment. The case ultimately proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted Pellegrin on all counts. He was sentenced to jail time, probation and participation in a domestic violence evaluation, and compliance with that evaluation's recommendations. Pellegrin appealed, arguing that harassment was a lesser included offense of stalking, so the two crimes should have merged. Pellegrin further argued that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not the trial judge, to determine whether the crimes for which he was convicted included an act of domestic violence. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected Pellegrin's arguments on appeal and affirmed his sentence.

Rios-Vargas v. Colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 CO 35

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Monica M. Márquez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

There was no reason to believe defendant Nora Hilda Rios-Vargas did not commit the burglary with which she was charged: at trial, she argued the crime was committed by a nonparty alternate suspect, Sylvia Villalobos, who knew when the owner would be away, knew the location of the items that were stolen, had unique reasons for wanting those items, and had a motive for framing Rios-Vargas. Even the victim suspected Villalobos. Despite the strength of the connection between Villalobos and the burglary, and even though Rios-Vargas’s defense hinged on this connection, the jury was not allowed to see or hear from Villalobos. The trial court accepted Villalobos’s blanket invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and ruled that Rios-Vargas could not call her to the stand. It further prohibited defense counsel from informing the jury why Villalobos did not testify. As a result, the prosecution was able to tell two conflicting narratives. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari review to decide whether a defendant could call to the witness stand a nonparty alternate suspect who intended to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and if not, what the jury may be told about the alternate suspect’s failure to appear. The Court held that a defendant is entitled to question a nonparty alternate suspect in the jury’s presence under the circumstances and procedures set forth in this opinion. Because the trial court erred in accepting Villalobos’s blanket Fifth Amendment invocation without holding a hearing outside the presence of the jury, and because that error was not harmless, the Supreme Court reversed Rios-Vargas’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.

Wood v. ITD

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 49298

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Brody

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Petitioner Todd Wood appealed after his driving privileges were suspended following breath alcohol testing (BAC) by the Idaho State Policy. After a lawful traffic stop, Wood submitted to BAC testing. His results were 0.178 and 0.175, both in excess of Idaho’s legal limit of 0.08. However, during the fifteen-minute pretest observation period, the deputy sheriff admittedly did not observe Wood for roughly three minutes to ensure mouth alcohol was not present by way of burp, external contaminant, or otherwise prior to evidentiary testing. Wood challenged his suspension and argued that his BAC results were inadmissible because they had not been obtained in compliance with the required fifteen-minute pretest observation procedure. The ALS hearing officer disagreed, reasoning that ISP had promulgated rules making the pretest observation period only discretionary; thus, Wood’s BAC test results were not based on unlawful procedure. Wood petitioned for judicial review and argued the BAC rules allowing for a discretionary observation period are violative of “due process” and “fundamental fairness.” Wood further argued that the automatic admission of BAC results in his ALS hearing, pursuant to section 18-8004(4), unconstitutionally usurped the judicial branch’s power over the admission of evidence. The district court rejected Wood’s arguments and upheld his administrative license suspension. Wood appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court on the same grounds, which likewise upheld the suspension.

People v. Sneed

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Citation: 2023 IL 127968

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Overstreet

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the decision of the circuit court finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevented the State from compelling Defendant to provide the passcode for his cell phone, holding that the foregone conclusion doctrine applied as an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege in this case.

Defendant was charged with two counts of forgery stemming from the discovery of two false paychecks made payable to him. The police applied for and obtained a warrant to search Defendant's cell phone but could not execute the warrant because the phone was passcode protected. The State then filed a motion to compel production of the passcode. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that compelling Defendant to provide the passcode would constitute compelling incriminating testimonial communication and that the foregone conclusion did not apply as an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the foregone conclusion applied in this case.

Livingood v. City of Des Moines

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 22-0536

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: McDonald

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Transportation Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying three plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in this suit brought to challenge the City of Des Moines' use of the state's income offset program to collect automated traffic citation penalties and granting summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to a preemption claim and a claim for unjust enrichment.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' claims that, among other things, the City's use of the income offset program amounted to an unconstitutional taking and that their right to procedural due process was violated. As to Plaintiffs' contention that the City's use of the program was preempted by state law, however, the district court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in dismissing one plaintiff's preemption claim with respect to his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and in dismissing two plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment. The Court remanded this case for further proceedings.

Gasaway v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2021-SC-0457-DG

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Nickell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for possession of heroin, holding that the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's admission of certain evidence and by affirming the trial court's decision allowing a certain witness to testify.

Here, the Supreme Court adopted the reasonable test for determining whether the warrantless search of a parolee's vehicle is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, as announced in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), and overruled its decision in Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 424 S.W.3d 411 (Ky. 2014) to the extent it held that the conditions of parole imposed by state law are immaterial to the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Court also held that the court of appeals (1) did not err in affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his truck; (2) erred by affirming the trial court's admission of evidence of methamphetamine for which Defendant had been acquitted and evidence of marijuana for which he had been found guilty; and (3) erred in affirming the trial court's decision to allow a witness to testify regarding events he did not perceive in real-time.

Payne v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-SC-0120-MR

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Nickell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of twelve counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor and other sex-related offenses and his total sentence of seventy years in prison, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the seizure of his cellphone and password because Defendant voluntary consented to the search; and (2) the trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury as to the effect of Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.110(1)(d) on the jury's discretion to recommend consecutive and concurrent sentences.

Spalding v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2021-SC-0503-MR

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Conley

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, second or greater offense and its sentence of twenty-seven years in prison, holding that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him by permitting three witnesses to testify via Zoom and erred by permitting the Commonwealth to join three indictments for trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it joined the three indictments for trial; and (2) erred when it permitted three witnesses to testify remotely, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Delossantos

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13351

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Cypher

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of carrying a firearm without a license and his sentence of eighteen months in a house of correction, holding that the Commonwealth did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and Defendant did not waive this issue.

In a pretrial motion, Defendant filed a motion to suppress based on the alleged inadequacy of the Miranda warnings provided to him in Spanish. The motion judge denied the motion after finding that Defendant was given "the full complement of Miranda warnings" in English and in Spanish. After he was convicted and the convictions were affirmed on appeal Defendant filed a postconviction motion for a new trial, which the motion judge denied following a hearing. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the conviction, holding (1) Defendant did not waive the issue of whether Miranda warnings were properly given to him in Spanish; and (2) the admission of Defendant's post arrest statements was error.

Chisholm v. Mississippi

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2021-KA-01254-SCT

Opinion Date: June 8, 2023

Judge: Maxwell

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

William Chisholm killed his former girlfriend, Dr. Shauna Witt, by shooting her to death. Dr. Witt had broken up with Chisholm and recently obtained a restraining order against him. She was examining a patient at her optometry office in Starkville, Mississippi when Chisholm barged in. He opened the office’s front door, walked through the hall to an interior exam room, and overpowered Dr. Witt, forcing his way into the exam room. He then pulled out a pistol. Dr. Witt was able to squirm past Chisholm and out of the examination room into the hall. But as she ran for her life, Chisholm opened fire—shooting her in the back and in the back of her head. Eyewitnesses saw the shooting. And surveillance video footage captured the audio of shots being fired. It also showed Chisholm pacing between the optometry office and Wal-Mart Vision Center—with pistol still in hand—immediately after he killed Dr. Witt. A jury convicted Chisholm of capital murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Chisholm appealed his conviction, but finding no reversible error in the trial court proceedings, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Chisholm's conviction and sentence.

Clanton v. Mississippi

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2021-KA-01159-SCT

Opinion Date: June 8, 2023

Judge: Ishee

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2017, Officer Latayvin Taylor stopped defendant Dekara Clanton for not having his license plate illuminated. During a subsequent search of Clanton’s vehicle, Officer Taylor found a bag of multicolored pills behind the radio. Clanton was indicted for the intentional possession of a quantity of twenty dosage units but no more than forty dosage units of methamphetamine. Clanton was tried and convicted in late 2019. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with the potential to be released after eight years and placed on five years of post-release supervision. Clanton appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by allowing photographs and testimony about money taken from Clanton’s person; (2) the trial court erred by allowing photographs and testimony about marijuana; (3) the trial court erred by allowing Officer Taylor to testify that he thought he found ecstasy in Clanton’s vehicle; (4) the trial court erred by overruling Clanton’s objection to the State’s alleged misstatement of evidence in its closing argument; and (5) the verdict was not supported by the evidence and was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Upon review of the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Clanton’s conviction.

Harvey v. Mississippi

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2022-KA-00660-SCT

Opinion Date: June 8, 2023

Judge: Beam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Edward Harvey was indicted for aggravated domestic violence and kidnapping. Following a jury trial, Harvey was convicted of aggravated domestic violence and acquitted of kidnapping. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Harvey appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred by: (1) prohibiting him from presenting relevant defense evidence; and by (2) allowing an improper jury instruction regarding prior-bad- act evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Mississippi Supreme Court found no merit to either issue and affirmed Harvey’s aggravated domestic violence conviction.

Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Hickingbottom

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2023-EC-00611-SCT

Opinion Date: June 8, 2023

Judge: Chamberlin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

Petitioner Bob Hickingbottom filed a Qualifying Statement of Intent, declaring his candidacy to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for governor. On February 10, 2023, Jim Newman sent a letter to the Democratic Party Executive Committee (DEC) to challenge Hickingbottom’s qualifications as a candidate. Specifically, Newman’s letter claimed that when running on the Constitution Party ticket in the 2019 gubernatorial election, Hickingbottom failed to file a statement of organization in violation of Mississippi Code Section 23-15-803 (Rev. 2018) and a statement of economic interest in violation of Mississippi Code Section 25-4-25 (Rev. 2018). On February 13, 2023, Tyree Irving, the chairman of the DEC, emailed Hickingbottom to notify him of Newman’s letter and to inform him that a hearing via Zoom would be conducted on February 14, 2023, to address Newman’s challenges. Then on February 14, 2023, the hearing was rescheduled to February 16, 2023, “to consider the challenges to the qualifications of several of the candidates running.” Hickingbottom was present and was given an opportunity to be heard by the DEC and to rebut Newman’s challenges to his qualifications. On February 17, 2023, Andre Wagner, the executive director of the DEC, emailed Hickingbottom to notify him that the DEC had voted and decided not to certify Hickingbottom because “[s]adly, [he] did not meet the statutory requirements[.]” Counsel for Hickingbottom sent a letter to the DEC seeking reconsideration of its decision, or in the alternative, a hearing on the disqualification. Hickingbottom ultimately filed suit in court seeking to overturn the disqualification. The court ultimately ruled in Hickingbottom's favor, ordering he be placed on the ballot. The DEC appealed. The issue before the Mississippi Supreme Court in this case was whether Hickingbottom's petition for judicial review was time barred. The Court found that because the petition for review was filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 23-15-961 (Rev. 2018)—which provided the exclusive procedure for such an appeal—Hickingbottom’s petition for judicial review was untimely filed and, therefore, his petition for judicial review was time barred.

Black River Motel, LLC v. Patriots Bank

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC99567

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Banking, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court overruling Appellants' motion to vacate the court's order appointing a receiver for Appellants, holding that the petition filed by Patriots Bank seeking the appointment of a receiver pursuant to the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (MCRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 515.500-515.665, did not violate due process.

Bank entered into lending relationships with Appellants, all of which defaulted. Bank filed a petition seeking the appointment of a receiver for Appellants. The circuit court entered the receiver order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Bank complied with the plain language of the MCRA's notice requirement; (2) the application of the MCRA to Appellants' case did not violate the due process protections under either the state or federal constitutions; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellants' motion to vacate the receiver order; and (4) the receiver order did not violate the MCRA.

Conservation Comm'n v. Bailey

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC99092

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the Missouri Constitution does not permit the General Assembly to limit the Conservation Commission's authority to expend and use conservation funds for constitutionally-enumerated purposes.

The General Assembly enacted House Bill No. 2019 in 2020, appropriating $21 million to the Conservation Commission. The General Assembly, however, removed language from HB 2019 regarding use of the Commission's funds, including for land acquisition and payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). Later, the Commission attempted to withdraw funds to pay for a land acquisition and for PILT, but the Office of Administration denied the requests. The Commission and the Missouri Department of Conservation brought this action against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the Office of Administration seeking declaratory relief to require certification of PILT payments. The circuit court ordered the Commissioner to certify the land purchase and PILT payments as requested. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in passing HB 2019, the General Assembly invaded the Commission's constitutional authority by attempting to limit the constitutionally-enumerated purposes for which the Commission could use its funds.

State ex rel. Johnson v. Vandergriff

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100077

Opinion Date: June 8, 2023

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition seeking a writ prohibiting his execution and to appoint a special master to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his incompetency claim, holding that Petitioner did not demonstrate the required "substantial threshold showing of insanity" and that his mental illness claims were procedurally barred.

On April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a warrant for Petitioner's execution. One month later, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that his execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because he was incompetent to be executed under the standard set forth in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), and Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), and because he was severely mentally ill. Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ prohibiting his execution and to appoint a special master to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his incompetency claim and filed a motion for a stay of execution while his incompetency claim was adjudicated. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's habeas petition and overruled as moot his accompanying motion for a stay of execution, holding that Petitioner did not demonstrate the substantial threshold showing of insanity required by Panetti and Ford.

State v. Hamby

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC99554

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Powell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree statutory sodomy, incest, first-degree child molestation, and one count of first-degree attempted rape, holding that the circuit court's jury instructions did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial included multiple allegations of abuse related to each count of sexual misconduct and that five separate verdict directors violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions violated Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict.

State v. Onyejiaka

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC99871

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: Ransom

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of possessing a controlled substance, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 579.015.1, and unlawfully using a weapon while in possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.030.1, holding that Defendant's convictions did not infringe upon his right to be free from double jeopardy.

On appeal, Defendant argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections because they arose from the same conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no double jeopardy violation existed because the plain language of the states combined with fundamental principles of statutory interpretation clearly demonstrated the legislature's intent to authorize multiple punishments under sections 579.015 and 571.030.1(11).

Broadwater Co. v. Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 MT 112

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court requiring Broadwater County to provide to Helena Independent Record (IR) or other interested persons redacted videographer and documentation records pertaining to Jason Ellsworth's May 2021 stop by and encounter with a Montana Highway Patrol officer, holding that there was no error.

Ellsworth pleaded guilty to an obstructing a peace officer. Thereafter, a reporter with the IR requested from Broadwater County a copy of Ellsworth's investigative file. Petitioner, a county attorney, determined that the file contained confidential criminal justice information and filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling to clarify and enforce the rights of recovery to redacted confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) contained in the file. Petitioner also filed a separate motion for leave to deposit the investigative file under seal. The district court (1) concluded that Ellsworth's criminal case had been completed and that the declaratory action was ripe for decision; and (2) held that Ellsworth's privacy rights outweighed the public's right to know regarding certain information irrelevant to the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ellsworth was given a proper opportunity to participate, and his due process right was not infringed regarding the release of the CCJI.

State v. Ammons

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 314 Neb. 433

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Papik

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the court of appeals erred by granting relief on a claim that Appellant did not present to the district court.

Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting that his failure timely to appeal his convictions was due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that Appellant did not direct counsel to file an appeal but that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult with Appellant as to whether he wished to appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege in his postconviction motion that trial counsel failed to consult with him about whether he wanted an appeal; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred by reversing the district court's decision on that basis.

People ex rel. Rivera v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 03299

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Singas

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division reversing Supreme Court's conclusion that the application of the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) to Petitioner violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal Constitution when applied to offenders whose crimes predated the 2005 amendments to the Act, holding that the effect of SARA's school grounds condition, as codified in N.Y. Exec. Law 259-c(14), was not punitive.

In 1986, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree and other crimes. Petitioner was unable to locate SARA-compliant housing before his open release date and therefore remained in custody until he could locate suitable housing under SARA's school grounds condition prohibiting him from living within 1,000 feet of a school. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that SARA's residency restriction violated ex post facto principles. Supreme Court granted Petitioner's application and ordered his release. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the condition does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

People v. Worley

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 03300

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Jenny Rivera

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the conclusion of the appellate division that the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) court acted within its discretion by upwardly departing to level three in determining Defendant's risk level classification, holding that the SORA court deprived Defendant of basic due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Defendant's convictions required him to register under SORA. At the SORA hearing, the court noted that Defendant would normally be required to register as a level two sex offender but upwardly departed to level three due to Defendant's "extensive prior disciplinary history." The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the proceeding failed to comport with due process because Defendant was provided no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard in response to the District Attorney's request for an upward departure.

State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-1928

Opinion Date: June 12, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus challenging the decision of the Ohio General Assembly placing a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election to be held on August 8, 2023, holding that a writ was warranted in part.

In May 2023, the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint resolution to place to placed a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election. Relators filed this original action against Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board arguing that the ballot language and title of the proposed amendment were incomplete and misleading. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding that LaRose's use of the word "any" in reference to "constitutional amendment" in the ballot title was likely to mislead voters, and the ballot board shall reconvene to adopt lawful ballot language that accurately characterizes and explains the definition of "electors" in reference to the petition signature requirements in the proposed amendment.

Berkson v. Oklahoma ex rel. Administrative Director of the Courts

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 OK 70

Opinion Date: June 13, 2023

Judge: James E. Edmondson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

Howard Berkson, Esq. ("Lawyer") filed an action to challenge a ten-dollar fee collected for the Lengthy Trial Fund ("LTF") when a new case is filed. State defendants the administrative director of Oklahoma Courts and other district court clerks, all moved to dismiss. The Tulsa County District Court granted the two motions to dismiss and Lawyer appealed. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded Berkson's petition failed to state a claim that 28 O.S. § 86 was an unconstitutional special law and the trial court properly granted the two motions to dismiss filed by the two defendants.

Oregon v. Turay

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S068894

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Flynn

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Ahmed Turay, Jr. was convicted of compelling prostitution, based in part on incriminating images and text messages that law enforcement found pursuant to a warrant to search his cell phone for nine categories of information (search categories). Defendant challenged the warrant, and his challenge presented an opportunity for the Oregon Supreme Court to consider the constitutional requirement that search warrants “particularly describe” the place to be searched or thing to be seized in the context of warrants that authorize law enforcement to search for digital data. It was undisputed the warrant in this case contained some search categories that failed to particularly describe the evidence sought; the Supreme Court also considered whether and to what extent those unlawful search categories require suppression of evidence obtained through the search of defendant’s phone. The Court concluded here that five of the nine search categories set out in the warrant to search defendant’s cell phone failed to satisfy the constitutional particularity requirement and, thus, those categories failed to authorize a lawful search. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the inclusion of those unlawful search categories in the warrant did not necessarily require suppression of all evidence found on defendant’s phone: (1) defendant has established a minimal factual nexus between a constitutional violation and the challenged evidence; and (2) that minimal factual nexus undermined the presumption of validity that ordinarily attends warrant-based searches and therefore required suppression unless the State could establish the challenged evidence was not tainted by the constitutional violation. The Court remanded the case for the trial court to develop a factual record and for the trial court to make the required factual findings under the correct legal standard.

Lewis v. South Carolina

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 28159

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: James

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Justin Lewis represented himself at trial and was convicted of distribution of heroin. Lewis timely filed an application for post- conviction relief (PCR), alleging pretrial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The PCR court summarily dismissed Lewis' application, and the South Carolina Supreme Court granted his petition for certiorari review of the PCR court's order. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the PCR court's order in part and remanded for a hearing on Lewis's claims that pretrial counsel failed to adequately investigate the criminal charge, failed to communicate with material witnesses whose testimony would have allegedly been favorable to the defense, failed to advise him of the right to appeal, failed to provide the necessary information for filing a notice of appeal, and failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf.

In re Texas, ex rel. Wice

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Docket: WR-93,089-01

Opinion Date: June 14, 2023

Judge: Richardson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Judge George Gallagher, elected judge for the 396th District Court in the Eighth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas, was specifically assigned by Presiding Judge Mary Murphy of the First Administrative Judicial Region to preside over Texas v. Paxton in the 416th District Court in the First Administrative Judicial Region in July 2015. The issue before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on mandamus, was whether Judge Gallagher had the constitutional and statutory authority to preside over Texas v. Paxton when he granted a change of venue to Harris County in April of 2017. To this, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that he did, regardless of any other assignment orders that were issued by Presiding Judge David Evans. The Court, therefore, conditionally granted the State’s petition for writ of mandamus.

A.B. v. S.U. et al.

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 VT 32

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Paul L. Reiber

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

Plaintiff sued defendants alleging childhood sexual abuse, and defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute, which eliminated the prior limitations period, was unconstitutional. The civil division denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the limitations period was a procedural bar and defendants had no vested right in the expiration of the prior statute of limitations. Defendants brought an interlocutory appeal to determine whether 12 V.S.A. § 522 violated Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution by reviving an otherwise time-barred claim of childhood sexual abuse. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded there was no constitutional violation and affirmed.

Portugal v. Franklin County

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 100,999-2

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Yu

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, three Latino voters from Franklin County, Washington alleged that the county’s system for electing its board of commissioners violated the Washington voting rights act of 2018 (WVRA) by “dilut[ing] the votes of Latino/a voters.” The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) ultimately settled with defendants Franklin County and the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. The issues on appeal were raised by James Gimenez, a Franklin County voter who was allowed to intervene by the trial court. Immediately after his motion to intervene was granted, Gimenez moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing and that the WVRA was facially invalid. The trial court denied Gimenez’s motion to dismiss, and he was not an active participant in the case thereafter. After the trial court entered a final order approving the parties’ settlement, Gimenez appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that in his view, the WVRA protected some Washington voters but excluded others. Based on this interpretation, Gimenez argued that plaintiffs did not have standing because the WVRA did not protect Latinx voters from Franklin County as a matter of law. Gimenez also argued that the WVRA was repealed by implication and was facially unconstitutional because it required local governments to implement electoral systems that favored protected voters and disfavored others on the basis of race. The Supreme Court disagreed with Gimenez's interpretation of the WVRA, and found plaintiffs had stnging and the WVRA was valid and constitutional on its face.

Frazier v. Briscoe

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Dockets: 21-0991, 21-0990

Opinion Date: June 15, 2023

Judge: Hutchison

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Transportation Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that Defendant had not been lawfully arrested without a warrant and thus reversing the decisions of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to revoke Defendant's driver's license, holding that the circuit court did not err.

A law enforcement officer arrested Defendant in his home without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed elsewhere. Rhe officer articulated no urgent need to arrest Defendant and admitted that he could have obtained a warrant from an impartial magistrate. The DMV applied evidence suggesting that Defendant might have driven while intoxicated from the scene of the misdemeanor to his home in three separate decisions revoking Defendant's driver's license. The circuit court reversed the revocation decisions, concluding that they were clearly wrong in light of the now-repealed W. Va. Code 17C-5A-2(f)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that the DMV's suspension orders were founded upon an unlawful arrest.

State v. Ward

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 21-0806

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Armstead

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's conviction of attempted murder in the second degree and other crimes, holding that the principles of double jeopardy were violated by Defendant's convictions for brandishing a deadly weapon and wanton endangerment involving Deputy Coty Pierson.

Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of wanton endangerment, one involving Deputy Pierson and the other involving Jeffrey Barnhouse, and brandishing a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) the jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer should not be set aside; (2) it was plain error for Defendant to have been convicted and sentenced for brandishing and wanton endangerment of Deputy Pierson because those crimes were lesser included offenses of the offense of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer; and (3) the trial court did not favor the State during Defendant's trial.

State v. Ward

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 WY 60

Opinion Date: June 9, 2023

Judge: Kate M. Fox

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that the prosecutor did not commit prosecutorial misconduct in the underlying proceedings.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the way he referred to and used the testimony of a forensic interviewer in his opening statement and closing argument. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor's statement violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (2) there was no plain error in the State's closing argument.

5 Effective Strategies to Reduce Your Marketing Budget Without Losing Results

Marina Wilson

Law firms should always continue marketing, even when the economy is down or business gets tough. Check out this post to explore marketing budget optimization strategies to ensure your law firm remains visible and continues reaching more clients, even during tough times.

Read More