Counterman v. Colorado

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-138

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Elena Kagan

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

From 2014-2016, Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to C.W., a local musician. Each time C.W. tried to block him, Counterman created a new Facebook account and resumed contacting C.W. Several of his messages envisaged violent harm. C.W. stopped walking alone, declined social engagements, canceled performances, and eventually contacted the authorities. Counterman was charged under a Colorado statute making it unlawful to repeatedly make any form of communication with another person in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress, that does cause that person to suffer serious emotional distress. Colorado courts rejected Counterman’s First Amendment argument.

The Supreme Court vacated. In true-threat cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature.

The First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of speech in a few areas, including true threats--serious expressions conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence. The existence of a threat depends on what the statement conveys to the person receiving it but the First Amendment may demand a subjective mental-state requirement shielding some true threats because bans on speech have the potential to deter speech outside their boundaries. In this context, a recklessness standard, a showing that a person consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another, is the appropriate mental state. Requiring purpose or knowledge would make it harder for states to counter true threats, with diminished returns for protected expression.

Groff v. DeJoy

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-174

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

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

Groff, an Evangelical Christian who believes that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest, took a mail delivery job with the Postal Service (USPS). USPS subsequently began facilitating Amazon’s Sunday deliveries. To avoid working Sundays on a rotating basis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station. After Amazon deliveries began at that station, Groff received progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays. He eventually resigned. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, asserting that USPS could accommodate his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship" to its business, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of USPS, reasoning that under Supreme Court precedent, “requiring an employer 'to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.”

The Supreme Court vacated. Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. After tracing Establishment Clause and Title VII jurisprudence, the Court concluded that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of the business–a fact-specific inquiry. Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the accommodations at issue and their practical impact, given the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer. Impacts on coworkers are relevant only to the extent those impacts affect the conduct of the business. Title VII requires that an employer “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s practice of religion, not merely assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation. An employer must do more than conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship; other options must be considered.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 21-1168

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Neil M. Gorsuch

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

Mallory worked as a Norfolk mechanic for 20 years in Ohio and Virginia. After leaving the company, Mallory moved to Pennsylvania, then returned to Virginia. He attributed his cancer diagnosis to his work and sued Norfolk under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, in Pennsylvania state court. Norfolk, incorporated and headquartered in Virginia, challenged the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. Mallory noted that Norfolk manages over 2,000 miles of track, operates 11 rail yards, runs locomotive repair shops in Pennsylvania, and has registered to do business in Pennsylvania in light of its "regular, systematic, extensive” operations there. Pennsylvania requires out-of-state companies that register to do business to agree to appear in its courts on “any cause of action” against them. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5301(a)(2)(i), (b). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania law violated the Due Process Clause.

The Supreme Court vacated. Pennsylvania law is explicit that qualification as a foreign corporation shall permit state courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a registered foreign corporation. Norfolk has complied with this law since 1998 when it registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Norfolk's “Certificate of Authority” from the Commonwealth conferred both the benefits and burdens shared by domestic corporations, including amenability to suit in state court on any claim. For more than two decades, Norfolk has agreed to be found in Pennsylvania and answer any suit there. Suits premised on these grounds do not deny a defendant due process of law. Regardless of whether any other statutory scheme and set of facts would establish consent to suit, this state law and these facts fall within Supreme Court precedent.

Moore v. Harper

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 21-1271

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: John G. Roberts, Jr.

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

The U.S. Constitution's Election Clause requires the legislature of each state to prescribe rules governing federal elections. Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina’s General Assembly drafted a new federal congressional map. The map was challenged under the North Carolina Constitution as impermissible partisan gerrymandering. The North Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that gerrymandering claims are outside the reach of federal courts but held that such questions were not beyond the reach of North Carolina courts. The court enjoined the use of the maps but subsequently addressed a remedial map adopted by the trial court, repudiated its holding that gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution, and dismissed the suits without reinstating the 2021 maps.

The Supreme Court first held that it had jurisdiction to review the Elections Clause holding. The court’s decision to withdraw its second decision and overrule the first did not moot the case; it did not amend the judgment concerning the 2021 maps nor alter the first decision’s analysis of the federal issue.

The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. In prescribing such rules, they remain subject to state judicial review and to state constitutional constraints. When legislatures make laws, they are bound by the documents that give them life. When a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution and as the entity assigned particular authority by the U.S. Constitution. Both constitutions restrain that exercise of power. Federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. The Court declined to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause.

Samia v. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-196

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Clarence Thomas

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

Samia, Hunter, and Stillwell were tried jointly for the murder-for-hire of Lee, a real estate broker. The prosecution argued that Hunter had hired Samia and Stillwell to pose as buyers and visit properties with Lee. The court admitted Stillwell’s confession that he was in the van in which Lee was killed, but he claimed that Samia had shot Lee. Since Stillwell would not be testifying and the full confession implicated Samia, the prosecution introduced the testimony of a DEA agent, who described Stillwell’s confession in a way that eliminated Samia’s name while avoiding obvious indications of redaction. Before that testimony and again before deliberations, the court instructed the jury that the testimony about Stillwell’s confession was admissible only as to Stillwell and should not be considered as to Samia or Hunter. All three were convicted. The Second Circuit held that the admission of Stillwell’s confession did not violate Samia’s Confrontation Clause rights.

The Supreme Court affirmed. The Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause forbids the introduction of out-of-court “testimonial” statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had the chance to cross-examine the witness previously but applies only to witnesses “against the accused.” Ordinarily, a witness at a joint trial is not considered a witness 'against’ a defendant if the jury is instructed to consider that testimony only against a codefendant. This rule is consistent with the Clause’s text, historical practice, and the law’s reliance on limiting instructions in other contexts. To mandate severance whenever the prosecution wishes to introduce the confession of a non-testifying codefendant in a joint trial would be “too high” a price to pay.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 20-1199

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: John G. Roberts, Jr.

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

In the Harvard College admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” University of North Carolina (UNC) also considers the applicant’s race. SFFA challenged both systems.

The Supreme Court held that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first held that SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs as a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.

Tracing the history of Fourteenth Amendment precedent, the Court acknowledged its "role in that ignoble history,” and subsequent efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. The core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to eliminate all governmentally-imposed discrimination based on race. Any exceptions must survive strict scrutiny. which asks whether the racial classification is used to advance compelling governmental interests and whether the use of race is narrowly tailored--necessary to achieve that interest. Previous holdings permitted race-based college admissions only in compliance with strict scrutiny and acknowledged that, eventually, they must end.

The admissions programs at issue are not sufficiently measurable to permit strict scrutiny. The identified "compelling" interests include training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. The question of whether a particular mix of minority students produces those results is standardless. The systems fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and those goals; they use racial categories that are overbroad, arbitrary or undefined, or underinclusive.

The systems also use race as a “negative” and employ stereotypes. College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants is necessarily at the expense of others. The systems employ “the offensive and demeaning assumption" that students of a particular race think alike. The systems lack a “logical endpoint.

United States v. Hansen

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-179

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Amy Coney Barrett

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Immigration Law, White Collar Crime

Hansen promised hundreds of noncitizens a path to U.S. citizenship through “adult adoption,” earning nearly $2 million from his fraudulent scheme. The government charged Hansen under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which forbids “encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such [activity] is or will be in violation of law.” The Ninth Circuit found Clause (iv) unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court reversed. Because 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. A statute is facially invalid under the overbreadth doctrine if it “prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its “plainly legitimate sweep.” Here, Congress used “encourage” and “induce” as terms of art referring to criminal solicitation and facilitation (capturing only a narrow band of speech) not as those terms are used in ordinary conversation. Criminal solicitation is the intentional encouragement of an unlawful act, and facilitation—i.e., aiding and abetting—is the provision of assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further an offense’s commission. Neither requires lending physical aid; both require an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act. The context of these words and statutory history indicate that Congress intended to refer to their well-established legal meanings. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) reaches no further than the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and does not “prohibi[t] a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its “plainly legitimate sweep.”

United States v. Monson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 21-1612

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Jeffrey R. Howard

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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of fifteen counts of an indictment charging sexual exploitation of children and distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography and his sentence of 480 months' incarceration, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.

Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions on each of the child exploitation counts; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement on the grounds that Defendant was not in custody at the time of his interrogation; and (3) Defendant's challenges to the district court's calculation of his Guidelines sentencing range were without merit.

Melodie Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 20-6778

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: GREGORY

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

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a civil rights action against two Orangeburg County, South Carolina sheriff’s deputies (collectively, the “Defendants”). As a pro se plaintiff, Plaintiff received repeated notice of the requirement to inform the court of any change in her address immediately. After Plaintiff failed to provide an updated address, she did not receive the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation filed in her case. Accordingly, she missed deadlines to file objections to the Report and Recommendation and to note an appeal of the district court’s summary judgment order. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the time to note an appeal, giving her fourteen days to do so. Yet, by the time Plaintiff re-filed her notice of appeal as permitted by the district court below, her appeal was already pending in the Fourth Circuit. At issue in this appeal is what it means to “receive notice” for purposes of a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time to note an appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
 
The Fourth Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the circumstances warrant the exercise of discretion to reopen the time for Plaintiff’s appeal. The court found that because Plaintiff did not receive actual notice of the entry of judgment in her case, the first of Rule 4(a)(6)’s three statutory requirements for reopening the time for appeal has been met. Further, the court found that the remaining requirements 4 of Rule 4(a)(6) have been satisfied as well.

US v. Alexander Treisman

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-4687

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: QUATTLEBAUM

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Before his trial on child-pornography charges, Defendant moved to suppress evidence related to the search of his van. Defendant argued that the officers did not have an objectively reasonable belief that an emergency existed that required them to immediately enter the van without a warrant to see if anyone was in medical distress inside. He also argued that the officers did not have legal authority to tow the van. Last, he argued that the inventory search was a pretext for a warrantless criminal investigation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police discovered while searching his van without a warrant.
 
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that warrantless searches of vehicles carried out as part of law enforcement’s community caretaking functions do not violate the Fourth Amendment if reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the court found no error in the district court’s determination that the officers searched Defendant’s van in exercising those community caretaking functions and not as a pretext for a criminal investigatory search. The court likewise concluded that the district court did not err in holding the search was reasonable.

Heston v. Austin Indep

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-50295

Opinion Date: June 22, 2023

Judge: Patrick E. Higginbotham

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

Plaintiff sued the Austin Independent School District (“AISD”) on behalf of her minor son, A.H., alleging that AISD violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983by employing an individual assigned to help A.H. accommodate his disabilities, but who instead verbally harassed him and threw a trash can at him, hitting him and causing injury. After the incident, the parties settled all of A.H.’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) claims outside of court but agreed that Plaintiff still had the right to file a separate action containing A.H.’s claims arising under Section 504, the ADA, and Section 1983. Heston then brought these claims in a suit filed in 2018. The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) administrative remedies.
 
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded it to the district court for further consideration in light of Luna Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Schs., 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023). Since Plaintiff appealed and the Parties’ briefed the case, the Supreme Court decided Luna Perez, concluding that the IDEA does not require administrative exhaustion “where a plaintiff brings a suit under another federal law for compensatory damages.” This constitutes a “modification in controlling legal principles . . . rendering a previous determination inconsistent with the prevailing doctrine.”

Martinez v. Nueces County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-40663

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff sued Nueces County and Wellpath for “County/Municipal Liability” under Section 1983. Specifically, he alleged that the county was liable because it “sanctioned the custom, practice, and/or policy or procedure of failing to protect and/or ignoring the serious medical needs of those entrusted to [its] care.” The original claim was not specific about how Wellpath was supposedly liable. The county and Wellpath moved to dismiss. The district court granted both motions but permitted Martinez to file a “Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint.” Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claim against Nueces County and the denial of leave to amend as to Wellpath.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that because Plaintiff had not properly alleged a custom or policy that was the moving force of his injuries, the district court was correct to dismiss his claims against Nueces County. Further, the court found that from the face of Plaintiff’s pleadings, there is no reason to conclude that Wellpath, at an organization-wide level, had a policy of deliberate indifference that was the moving force of Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional violation at the Nueces County Jail. This is doubly so because of Plaintiff’s failure to allege, with sufficient detail, what happened to him at the jail.

Ostrewich v. Nelson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 21-20577

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Cory T. Wilson

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

At issue in this case are three such Texas laws: Texas Election Code sections 61.003, 61.010, and 85.036 (collectively, the “electioneering laws”). Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that she was unconstitutionally censored under the electioneering laws when she voted in 2018 and that the statutes unconstitutionally “chilled” her right to free speech by criminalizing political expression within polling places. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, upheld section 61.010 as constitutional, but concluded that sections 61.003 and 85.036 are facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Both sides appealed, contesting jurisdictional issues as well as the merits.
 
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s holding denying Texas’s Secretary of State and Attorney General sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed those defendants for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed that Plaintiff has standing to bring her claims against the remaining two Defendants. The court also affirmed the district court’s holding that section 61.010 is constitutional. However, the court reversed and rendered the district court’s holding that sections 61.003 and 85.036 are unconstitutional and instead uphold all three electioneering laws. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of nominal damages.

USA v. Crandell

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-60350

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Edith H. Jones

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Tax Law

Defendant is a medical doctor. He contracted with two hospitals, one in Mississippi and one in Alabama. He usually made $30,000 to $40,000 per month. Because he was a contractor, the hospitals did not withhold any wages for tax purposes— Defendant was solely responsible for satisfying his federal tax obligations. From 2006 through 2012, Defendant did not pay any income taxes or file any timely tax returns. A jury found him guilty of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7201. Defendant raised two claims on appeal: first, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction for tax evasion under Section 7201; and second, that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that even if it was legitimate for Defendant to deduct IRS garnishments from his income, that does not explain why Defendant neglected to mention key assets on the form—such as the $50,000 gun collection and the corporate bank accounts that he used to pay personal expenses. Moreover, the prosecution presented evidence suggesting that he manipulated his wages to artificially depress his income at the time he submitted Form 433-A.
 
Further, even assuming that the district court was right to sustain the defense’s objection, Defendant offered no reason to believe that the questions incurably prejudiced the jury. Given the weight of evidence presented to the jury in this case, there is no “significant possibility” that these two questions had a substantial impact on the verdict.

USA v. Moore

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-10412

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant has two state convictions for indecent exposure to children. The government contends that those convictions “clearly” relate United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit “to the sexual exploitation of children,” so Defendant should be subject to the enhancement. Defendant countered that “sexual exploitation of children,” in this context, applies only to offenses relating to child pornography, so his sentence is not subject to the enhancement.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(e)’s use of the phrase “relating to the sexual exploitation of children” refers to any criminal sexual conduct involving children. Defendant’s convictions for indecent exposure to a child neatly fall within that broad category.

USA v. Urquidi

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-50164

Opinion Date: June 22, 2023

Judge: King

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendants were among 24 individuals indicted on various charges in connection with their involvement in the Sinaloa Cartel. Defendants were jointly tried during a 10-day jury trial. One defendant was convicted on five counts, while another was convicted on 12 counts. Each received concurrent life sentences for all counts on which they were convicted. Defendants raised various challenges to their respective convictions and sentences on appeal.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentences that exceed their respective statutory maxima and remanded the case for resentencing on those counts only. The court explained that the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for either Count IV—Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments or Count V— Conspiracy to Possess Firearms in Furtherance of any Crime of Violence or Drug Trafficking Crime is 20 years. 18 U.S.C. Sections1956(a)(2), 924o. The maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for Counts VI, VIII, or X—all VICAR convictions—is 10 years. Nevertheless, both Defendants were sentenced to concurrent life terms of imprisonment on Counts IV and V, and one defendant also received concurrent life sentences for Counts VI, VIII, and X. These sentences all exceed their respective statutory maxima. Therefore, the life sentences imposed for Counts IV, V, VI, VIII, and X are vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing on those counts only.

Amaya v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 21-1781

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Larsen

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

Amaya was convicted of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce with intent to commit murder, 18 U.S.C. 1958; using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence causing death, sections 924(c), (j); and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846. The district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, and ordered Amaya to pay a statutorily required “special assessment” of $100 per count of conviction, section 3013(a)(2). The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Years later, Amaya filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence on count two, arguing that after the Supreme Court’s 2019 “Davis” holding, his murder conspiracy charge was no longer a valid predicate crime of violence for his 924(c) conviction. The district court invoked the “concurrent sentence doctrine” and denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; 28 U.S.C. 2255 limits its reach to “prisoner[s] in custody ... claiming the right to be released.” Only prisoners who claim a right to be released from custody may challenge their sentences. Even if his motion were successful, Amaya would still be in custody on the two unchallenged life sentences and the $100 special assessment attached to Amaya’s challenged conviction did not warrant section 2255 review.

Corridore v. Washington

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-1301

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Nalbandian

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

In 2017, Corridore was convicted of sexually abusing his granddaughter. He was sentenced to 19 months to 15 years in prison and became subject to mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM) via a permanent ankle bracelet and sex offender registration under Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA). By the time he filed a habeas petition in federal district court, he had been released from prison and discharged from parole. The district court dismissed the petition, explaining that Corridore was no longer in custody and therefore could not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2254.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Corridore’s arguments that he is subject to lifetime sex-offender registration and electronic monitoring—requirements that he says satisfy the custody requirement. The collateral consequences of a conviction are not sufficient to render an individual “in custody” for the purposes of a habeas attack. The issue is whether a petitioner’s movement is limited because of direct government control and therefore amounts to a severe restraint on liberty. The LEM and SORA requirements, even combined, do not qualify.

Fox v. Washington

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 21-1694

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Richard Allen Griffin

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Christian Identity, a religion that is “explicitly racist,” believes that Caucasians are “God’s chosen people.” After the Michigan Department of Corrections refused to recognize Christian Identity as a religion for purposes of its prison system, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc (RLUIPA). The district court affirmed the denial. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs satisfied the first two parts of the three-part RLUIPA test, but remanded for the Department to sustain its “heavy burden” under a strict scrutiny analysis to show that its refusal to recognize Christian Identity as a religion furthered a compelling governmental interest, and that its denial was the least restrictive means of furthering such a compelling interest. On remand, the district court concluded that the Department met its burden.

The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Department failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its denial of recognition was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Alternatives, other than simply accepting or rejecting recognition, were available and included in the Department’s policies, but were never considered. Christian Identity was not designated as a security threat group and there was testimony that Christian Identity advocated for nonviolence and would permit non-Caucasians to attend its services. The Department presented evidence regarding Christian Identity as a whole, but not concerning the plaintiffs. Without an individualized inquiry, the decision-making process was deficient.

McCormick v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-5587

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Thapar

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

McCormick pled guilty without a plea agreement to offenses involving drugs or guns. He received a below-Guidelines sentence and did not appeal. Ten months later, he moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that his attorney performed ineffectively by failing to file a notice of appeal.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Review of an attorney's conduct is “highly deferential.” The district court’s finding that McCormick did not instruct counsel to file an appeal is “plausible on the record as a whole.” McCormick acknowledged telling his counsel that he wanted to appeal only if he lost at trial, or if he “didn’t feel like [he] was treated fairly” at sentencing. Neither condition was met. Counsel testified that McCormick expressed frustration with his sentence but never told him to file an appeal. The district court had to decide between two plausible stories, so its choice could not have been clearly erroneous. The court rejected McCormick’s claim that counsel was ineffective for consulting him before sentencing rather than after and was required to repeat his advice after sentencing. The Constitution does not impose any such obligation. The court’s colloquy ensured that the defendant understood his rights. McCormick may have expected an appeal, but the government did not promise that and did not breach its agreement.

Mercer v. Athens County, Ohio

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-3904

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Mathis

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

Ohlinger, booked into the jail (SEORJ) as a pretrial detainee for burglary, reported a history of bipolar disorder and depression and that she used intravenous heroin daily. She indicated no history of seizures and reported no signs of physical trauma or illness. In the following days, Ohlinger did not report any medical problems. On June 25, at 6:57 a.m., Ohlinger, walking in the common area, appeared to become disoriented and fell off a bench. Officers Lowery and Jarvis responded. Nurse Gray found no evidence to support inmates’ statements that Ohlinger had a seizure and hit her head. She was returned to her cell. At 7:07 a.m., Lowery and Jarvis responded to a call and, seeing Ohlinger had urinated on herself, escorted Ohlinger to the medical unit. Gray again examined Ohlinger. Lowery and Jarvis returned Ohlinger to her cell to await a blood test. At 9:12 a.m., an inmate discovered Ohlinger, unresponsive. Gray used a portable defibrillator and began CPR. At 9:28 a.m., paramedics transported Ohlinger to the hospital, where she died. An autopsy identified the cause of death as seizure activity due to a subarachnoid hemorrhage and subdural hematoma of undetermined etiology. There was no evidence of skull fracture or contusions.

In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted summary judgment to Gray, Lowery, and Jarvis. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to Gray and otherwise affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that Gray acted recklessly, not negligently, in the face of unjustifiably high risk to Ohlinger’s health. Gray’s observations of Ohlinger, information provided by other jail officials and inmates, and SEORJ’s policies should have led Gray to seek care from a doctor or hospital.

Nugent v. Spectrum Juvenile Justice Services

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-1487

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: John K. Bush

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

Spectrum contracts with Michigan to house children who are ordered to be detained in facilities “similar to a prison setting.” The children are completely restricted in their movements. The state requires Spectrum to monitor them on a 24/7 basis. A court ordered the detention of 15-year-old Quintana at Spectrum’s facility on August 24, 2018. Quintana struggled with depression, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping, among other things. On September 11, 2018, Quintana took his life while alone in his bedroom. No one checked his room in the 45 minutes between the last time he was seen alive and when his body was found, violating a contractual requirement that Spectrum conduct “eye-on checks” every 15 minutes when the children are “outside of the direct supervision of staff.” Spectrum had a policy or custom of skipping many eye-on checks and falsifying supervision logs to reflect that the checks had been performed.

Quintana’s estate sued Spectrum under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Spectrum functioned as a state actor and violated Quintana’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissed the dismissal of the suit. The complaint contains adequate facts to establish that Spectrum is a state actor. Spectrum was allegedly engaged in a public function similar to a correctional institution, a traditionally exclusive state function.

United States v. Morgan

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-1445

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Jeffrey S. Sutton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Officer Zolnai, responding to a call, passed a parked, running Chevy Malibu. The driver, Morgan, “appeared to be passed out.” After assisting the caller, Zolnai drove back and again noticed the seemingly passed-out occupant in the Malibu. Suspecting an overdose or intoxication, Zolnai parked and turned on his body camera. He did not turn on the squad’s flashing lights. Zolnai noticed a civilian, potentially in the path of the vehicle. In his experience, intoxicated individuals might “hit the gas” if startled. Without first trying to arouse Morgan, Zolnai opened the car door and asked if Morgan was okay. Morgan's response was “groggy.” Zolnai asked Morgan for “ID.” Morgan moved his hand between the seat and the console. Worried that Morgan might be reaching for a firearm, Zolnai asked him to step out. Morgan refused. A struggle followed. Morgan reached for a cardboard box in the passenger seat. Other officers arrived. They eventually handcuffed Morgan. In searching Morgan, they found plastic bags containing fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine, and a semi-automatic pistol in the cardboard box.

The district court denied Morgan’s motion to suppress, citing the community-caretaking doctrine. Morgan conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute, and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Zolnai violated the Fourth Amendment when he seized and eventually searched Morgan by unreasonably opening his car door without warning in the absence of any exigency.

Deeren v. Anderson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-3394

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Kirsch

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

Deputy Deeren announced his candidacy for Sheriff of Trempealeau County in 2017. In early 2018, officials within the Sheriff’s Department discovered that Deeren had failed to disclose information about his arrest record when he applied to become a deputy. Deeren had been asked in a 2015 job interview whether he had any prior contact with law enforcement; he failed to disclose that he had been arrested and charged with criminal sexual assault in 2007. After the Department learned of the arrest in 2018, Deeren was again asked about his prior contacts with law enforcement. Deeren again omitted his 2007 arrest and, when confronted, refused to answer questions about it. Then-Sheriff Anderson and Chief Deputy Reinders sought to terminate Deeren for dishonesty and insubordination. Deeren ultimately resigned from the Department and lost the sheriff’s race to Semingson, another deputy in the Department.

Deeren filed suit, alleging that Anderson, Reinders, and Semingson engaged in several retaliatory actions against him in response to his candidacy and in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Deeren failed to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that any defendant engaged in a single act of unconstitutional retaliation.

Emad v. Dodge County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-1876

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Scudder

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Emad, an active member of Milwaukee’s Islamic community for 25 years, practices Salah by praying five times each day in a state of physical purity. Emad also participated every Friday afternoon in congregational prayer known as Jumu’ah. Although most often led by an imam at a mosque, Jumu’ah can be held in other locations but must occur in a group setting. From March 2018 to May 2019, Emad was an immigration detainee. He was one of 175 Muslim detainees. The jail had a written policy that “[p]ersonal worship may be done in your cell.” It was not permitted in the dayroom areas. The cell contained a toilet, leaving Emad unable to pray in a clean environment in accordance with Salah. The jail also prohibited all “[g]roup activities led by inmates,” which kept Emad from participating in Jumu’ah. Emad asserts that the jail has long permitted Christian inmates to pray freely within the facility and to gather in the dayroom and library for Bible studies and group prayer.

Emad sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, characterizing Emad’s allegations as “unsettling” but stating that it is essential to know precisely how Emad may have experienced discrimination and what role each named defendant played in favoring Christian prayer over Muslim prayer. The court remanded for development of the factual record.

Mestek v. Lac Courte Oreilles Community Health Center

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-2077

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Scudder

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Government Contracts, Labor & Employment Law, Native American Law

The Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized tribe in northwestern Wisconsin. In 2013 the Tribe’s Community Health Center hired Mestek as the Director of Health Information. In 2017 the Health Center implemented a new electronic health records system. Mestek soon raised questions about how the new system operated, expressing concern to management that the Center was improperly billing Medicare and Medicaid. An eventual external audit of the Center’s billing practices uncovered several problems. After receiving the audit results in 2018, Bae, the head of the Health Center, called Mestek into her office to ask if she was “loyal.” Mestek answered yes, but persisted in her efforts to uncover billing irregularities. A month later, Mestek learned that she was being fired in a meeting with the Medical Director and the HR Director. Mestek sued the Health Center and six individuals (in both their personal and official capacities) under the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h). The district court dismissed.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity precluded Mestek from proceeding; the Health Center is an arm of the Tribe. The individual employee defendants also properly invoked the Tribe’s immunity because Mestek sued them in their official capacities.

Snowden v. Henning

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-1463

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Diane S. Sykes

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

Snowden, staying at a hotel, received a call asking him to visit the lobby to pay for the room. When Snowden arrived, DEA Agent Henning pushed him into a door and onto the ground. Snowden did not resist. Henning punched him several times. Snowden suffered two black eyes and a fractured left eye socket.

Snowden sued Henning, alleging a Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. The court construed the complaint to allege a “Bivens” claim (an implied damages remedy against federal officers for certain constitutional violations), then dismissed that claim, noting factual distinctions between Snowden’s case and Bivens–the location of the arrest, the presence of a warrant, and the number of officers involved. Bivens involved allegations concerning the rights of privacy implicated in an unlawful warrantless home entry, arrest, and search, the court reasoned, while Snowden alleged excessive force incident to a lawful arrest, and special factors weighed against recognizing a new Bivens context, including the availability of an alternative remedy.

The Seventh Circuit reversed. While the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Bivens remedy beyond specific Fifth and Eighth Amendment contexts, Snowden’s claim does not present a new context. Agent Henning operated under the same legal mandate as the Bivens officers and is the same kind of line-level federal narcotics officer. Like Bivens, Snowden seeks damages for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The legal landscape of excessive-force claims is well-settled. Nor does allowing a Bivens claim here risk a “disruptive intrusion” into the “functioning of other branches.”

Keith Kiefer v. Isanti County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-1499

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: ERICKSON

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

Plaintiff brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Isanti County, Minnesota (the “County”) violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it unlawfully prosecuted him under the County’s solid waste ordinance (the “Solid Waste Ordinance”). Plaintiff also asserted Minnesota state law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings as to the federal claims in favor of the County and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that while Plaintiff’s opening brief lists 21 cases, which Plaintiff contends constitute proof the County used the Solid Waste Ordinance to wrongly prosecute property owners, none of these cases are properly before the court as they were not included in the complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient factual allegations to sustain a municipal liability claim. Accordingly, the court held that without a constitutional violation, there can be no Section 1983 liability.

Rosaura Brizuela v. Merrick Garland

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-1738

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: SHEPHERD

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Immigration Law

Petitioner and her children, natives and citizens of Honduras, petitioned the Eighth Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision ordering them removed and denying their claims for relief. In her petition for review, Petitioner claimed that the BIA erred (1) by finding that her due process rights were not violated when the IJ continued her case instead of terminating it and (2) by denying her application for asylum and statutory withholding of removal.
 
The Eighth Circuit denied their petition. The court explained that while Petitioner contends that by continuing the proceedings, the IJ “was engineering a preferred outcome,” the record demonstrates that the IJ “had not researched the issue before” and simply wanted “to give [DHS] a chance to address the issue.” Second, the court agreed with the BIA that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced. By continuing the removal proceedings, the IJ provided Petitioner with exactly what she was promised: presence in the United States until November 10, 2018.
 
Further, the court concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the gangsters’ threats did not rise to the level of past persecution. Here, the threats were telephonic, sporadic, and over a period of four years. Given that the record does not indicate that the gangsters ever acted, or attempted to act, upon these threats during this long period, the threats lack immediacy and appear exaggerated.

United States v. Anthony Jones, Jr.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2158

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: LOKEN

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of a six-count federal indictment -- carjacking resulting in death (Count 1); discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(j) (Count 2); and two counts of witness tampering (Counts 5 and 6). The government agreed to drop Counts 3 and 4. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a sentence of 360 months imprisonment. Defendant timely objected to a statement in his presentence investigation report (PSR) that the sentence imposed for Count 2 must be consecutive to the other counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Defendant argued that violations of Section 924(c) and § 924(j) are separate offenses and that Section 924(j) does not require consecutive sentencing. The district court overruled the objection, accepted the guilty plea but not the 360-month recommendation, and imposed a within-range sentence of 540 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing the court procedurally erred in imposing a mandatory consecutive sentence for Count 2 and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Defendant’s disagreement with how the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors does not justify reversal. Accordingly, the court held that, in light of the seriousness of Defendant’s crimes and lengthy criminal history, the district court was well within its substantial discretion in sentencing Defendant to a within-guidelines-range term of imprisonment.

United States v. Deonte Ellison

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2631

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: COLLOTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition as a felon. The district court sentenced him to 296 months and one day of imprisonment.  Defendant argued that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury forbids the district court to determine whether he committed three prior felonies on different occasion
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory factors and made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. In varying upward, the district court considered Defendant’s extensive criminal history and concluded that his criminal history category understated the likelihood of recidivism and the seriousness of his criminal history. Defendant’s criminal history scored 24 points under the guidelines, well above the 13 points required for placement in the highest criminal history category. Giving deference to the district court as required by Gall, the court concluded that the one-level variance and the overall sentence is not unreasonable in light of Section 3553(a).

United States v. Gerald Cardwell, Jr.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-1561

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: SMITH

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of distributing a controlled substance, resulting in the death of R.L. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) the district court erred in allowing the government to introduce evidence of Defendant’s prior drug arrests and convictions pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and (3) the district court’s use of Defendant’s prior drug possession conviction to enhance his sentence is unconstitutional because it punishes Defendant more harshly than a drug distributor.


The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and drawing all reasonable inference in its favor, it held that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Defendant distributed the drugs to R.L. Further, the court concluded that the record includes sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that fentanyl was the but-for cause of R.L.’s death. Finally, the court held that the First Step Act did modify Section 841(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B). But it did not alter the language of Section 841(b)(1)(C), the crime under which Defendant was convicted.

United States v. Jeffery Moore

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2733

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: SHEPHERD

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was indicted on four drug-related charges stemming from his involvement in a narcotics-distribution ring in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which culminated in the overdose deaths of two individuals. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin and two counts of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute heroin and 420 months imprisonment on each count of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, with all terms to run concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) that the district court erroneously admitted text messages between one of the victims and himself and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to convict him on any of the three counts of conviction.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the night before her overdose, the victim texted Defendant—her primary if not only supplier of narcotics—at 6:58 p.m. “presumably to make arrangements to purchase heroin.” Per their typical arrangement, the victim then withdrew the necessary funds from an ATM and drove to Defendant’s house, texting him at 7:48 p.m. that she was in his backyard. Her subsequent text messages to family members reveal that she then went home. The victim’s body was found the next day. Under these facts, a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant distributed the fentanyl that resulted in the victim’s death.

United States v. Joshua Powell

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2867

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: GRASZ

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pled guilty to receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). The district court sentenced Defendant to 142 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. As two of the conditions of supervised release, the district court prohibited Defendant from possessing or using a “computer,” as the term is defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(e)(1), and from possessing or viewing visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. On appeal, Defendant challenged both special conditions.
 
The Eighth Circuit vacated the special condition on computers and affirmed in all other respects. The court explained that the district court discussed how, in its experience, people who have Defendant’s addiction initially search for adult pornography, which eventually “leads back to” searching for child pornography. Defendant’s internet search history; and the connection between using the Internet and accessing pornography. In addition, the presentence report detailed how some videos tied to Defendant depicted adult pornography. Under these circumstances, we conclude the district court did not plainly err. However, the court concluded that the district court’s findings do not adequately tie the special condition on computers to statutory purposes. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion, and therefore the court vacated the special condition discussing computers.

United States v. Luis Hernandez-Barajas

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 21-3763

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: STRAS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

While in prison for dealing drugs, Defendant continued to run his operation from behind bars. At one point, he arranged for a shipment of marijuana to a relative. But when black-tar heroin arrived instead, a co-conspirator, C.H. sold it on his behalf. To protect his family, Defendant pointed the finger at C.H. and passed along his address to their suppliers. C.H. continued to sell drugs, including what he received through Defendant. He eventually sold those drugs in controlled buys, which led to federal drug charges. Defendant, for his part, pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. At sentencing, the district court gave him a two-level enhancement for “making a credible threat to use violence or directing the use of violence.” Defendant challenged the enhancement on appeal. At issue on appeal is whether providing a co-conspirator’s address to dangerous people “directs the use of violence” or itself conveys “a credible threat to use violence.”

The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that once danger came knocking on his family’s door, Defendant redirected the suppliers’ anger toward the person who refused to pay. It was “reasonably foreseeable” that this simple act, given how dangerous they were, could have led to the use of violence against C.H. Accordingly, the court held that the record supports a two-level enhancement for “directing the use of violence.”

DAVID HARPER V. MICHAEL NEDD, ET AL

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-35036

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: R. Nelson

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

Plaintiff, a former Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Law Enforcement Ranger in Idaho, challenged adverse employment actions taken against him by the Department of the Interior and BLM officials. He sued Defendants, alleging a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
 
In an interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss an action alleging due process violations and seeking damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The panel held that Plaintiff had no claim for money damages under Bivens. Here, Plaintiff’s claims arose in a different context than what the Court has recognized. Congress has also already provided a remedy in this context under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Because this case involves an alternative remedial structure, this case exists in a novel context outside the preexisting Bivens framework. Extending Bivens here would risk impermissible intrusion into the functioning of both the Legislative and Executive Branches.

SEAPLANE ADVENTURES, LLC V. COUNTY OF MARIN

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 21-17105

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Gould

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

The County of Marin (“the County”), at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, took action to limit the spread of COVID-19 and protect its vulnerable citizens by issuing a public health order that placed certain restrictions on allowable activities. The County continually modified its original health order based on data and increased knowledge of how the virus spreads. During the time that a modified version of the health order was in effect, the County learned of aviation activities by Seaplane Adventures, LLC (“Seaplane”) that violated the applicable health order and began a dialogue with Seaplane regarding its failure to comply with the County’s health order. Seaplane ultimately ceased its operations that were in violation of the County’s health order and filed the suit before us today. Seaplane appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The panel held that regardless of what the relevant comparison category was for comparing whether the County’s actions were rooted in a rational basis, given that a deadly virus was tearing into the most vulnerable throughout the County, country, and world, the actions of the County met the rational basis standard as it took actions to mitigate the damage of the COVID-19 virus. To the extent that Seaplane was alleging differential treatment between Seaplane and other air carriers providing recreational flights in violation of the health order, the rational basis for the County’s action was also abundantly clear: it simply did not know of the other violators.

USA V. BENITO CASTRO

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-30050

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Nguyen

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The district court increased Defendant’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on a finding that Defendant’s prior Montana conviction for partner or family member assault (“PFMA”) under Mont. Code Ann. Section 45-5- 206(1)(a) is a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
 
The Ninth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. Applying the categorical approach, the panel held that PFMA is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines because the definition of “bodily injury” incorporated into PFMA includes more conduct than the “use of physical force” required by U.S.S.G. Section 4B1.2(a)(1). Under Montana’s unusual definition, bodily injury “includes mental illness or impairment,” and Montana courts have concluded that one can cause “bodily injury” solely through the infliction of mental anguish unaccompanied by any actual or threatened physical violence. Because the court must determine whether PFMA categorically requires violent force—not whether Defendant actually used it in his prior offense—the panel held that PFMA is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Hooper v. The City of Tulsa

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-5034

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Carolyn Baldwin McHugh

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Native American Law

Plaintiff-appellant Justin Hooper and the City of Tulsa disputed whether the Curtis Act, 30 Stat. 495 (1898), granted Tulsa jurisdiction over municipal violations committed by all Tulsa’s inhabitants, including Indians, in Indian country. Tulsa issued a traffic citation to Hooper, an Indian and member of the Choctaw Nation, and he paid a $150 fine for the ticket in Tulsa’s Municipal Criminal Court. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, Hooper filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over his offense because it was a crime committed by an Indian in Indian country. Tulsa countered that it had jurisdiction over municipal violations committed by its Indian inhabitants stemming from Section 14 of the Curtis Act. The municipal court agreed with Tulsa and denied Hooper’s application. Hooper then sought relief in federal court—filing a complaint: (1) appealing the denial of his application for post-conviction relief; and (2) seeking a declaratory judgment that Section 14 was inapplicable to Tulsa today. Tulsa moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion to dismiss Hooper’s declaratory judgment claim, agreeing with Tulsa that Congress granted the city jurisdiction over municipal violations by all its inhabitants, including Indians, through Section 14. Based on this determination, the district court dismissed Hooper’s appeal of the municipal court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as moot. Hooper appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the federal district court erred in dismissing Hooper's declaratory judgment claim because even if the Curtis Act was never repealed, it was no longer applicable to Tulsa. The Court also agreed with Hooper that the district court erred in dismissing his appeal of the municipal court decision as moot based on its analysis of Section 14, but the Court determined the district court lacked jurisdiction over Hooper’s appeal from the municipal court.

Rogers v. Riggs, et al.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-2106

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Robert Edwin Bacharach

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

Plaintiff Alessandra Rogers worked for Chaves County in its jail. Several years into her employment, Rogers drafted a petition that criticized treatment of employees in the jail. The petition was signed by 45 current and former jail employees and was submitted to the county commissioners. Roughly a month after the petition was submitted, county employees searched the jail. During the search, employees found illegal drugs and weapons in a bag under Rogers’ desk. Rogers admitted that the bag was hers and that it contained the drugs and weapons. The county put Rogers on paid administrative leave. When the period of administrative leave ended, the county denied Rogers’
request for a promotion and imposed an unpaid five-day suspension. Rogers later quit. Rogers attributed the search to retaliation for her role in drafting the petition, claiming that the retaliation violated the First Amendment. But the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that even if the defendants had retaliated for Rogers’ role in drafting the petition, liability wouldn’t exist because the petition hadn’t involved a public concern. The Tenth Circuit concurred with the district court and affirmed.

United States v. Gallimore

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-6081

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Carson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Defendant Paul Gallimore pleaded guilty to committing three robberies on three consecutive days in different locations at age 16. These convictions pushed his criminal history category to VI under USSG § 4B1.4(c)(2) which, in turn, set his guideline imprisonment range at 188 to 235 months. The statutory range, because of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) enhancement, was fifteen years to life. The ACCA sentencing enhancement applied to defendants with three prior convictions for committing violent felonies on separate occasions. Defendant appealed the calculation of the sentence he received (200 months imprisonment), arguing he committed these robberies on one occasion (which would have reduced the range of his sentence). The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that the time between each robbery and their different locations both decisively differentiated "occasions" here.

United States v. Geddes

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-4053

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

Defendant-Appellant Derald Geddes was convicted by a jury of tax obstruction, tax evasion, and three counts of
willfully filing false tax returns in the years 2011, 2012, and 2013. He was sentenced to five years in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay about $1.8 million in restitution. On appeal, he argued: (1) restitution was impermissibly ordered to begin during his imprisonment; (2) 16 conditions of supervised release not pronounced orally at sentencing improperly appeared in the written judgment; and (3) one of those 16 conditions, the risk notification to third parties condition, was invalid under United States v. Cabral, 926 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2019). After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s imposition of restitution to the extent it was ordered to be paid outside the term of supervised release and remanded for the court to modify the written judgment. The Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of the mandatory conditions of supervised release in the written judgment and reversed the imposition of the discretionary standard conditions of supervised release. The case was remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to what was orally pronounced in a manner consistent with the Tenth Circuit's opinion.

United States v. Jones

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-5079

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: David M. Ebel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Jeffrey Jones was convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughters, K.B. and C.B., which resulted in three concurrent life sentences. On appeal, he challenged the testimony of two witnesses: (1) Crystal Jones, the mother of K.B. and C.B., who repeatedly testified as to her belief in the truthfulness of her daughters’ accusations about Jones’s actions, which she herself did not directly observe; and (2) government witness Janetta Michaels, an FBI forensic interviewer, who testified that C.B. was “forthcoming” in her forensic interview and “appropriate with her knowledge.” On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Jones argued the district court plainly erred by allowing both witnesses’ testimony about the credibility of K.B. and C.B. The Tenth Circuit rejected Jones’s contention that the district court plainly erred by admitting Ms. Michaels’s challenged testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, but agreed that the district court plainly erred in admitting Crystal’s challenged testimony under Rule 608. The convictions and sentences were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

United States v. Lee

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-6167

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Carson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The district court sentenced Defendant Kenneth Lee, but failed to apply U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(1), which applied to Defendant and provided a downward sentencing adjustment if a defendant already served time for another offense that was relevant conduct to the offense at issue. The Tenth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. "We cannot say that the error here did not affect Defendant’s sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the district court said that although it was not inclined to vary downward fifteen months, it had no objection to the BOP giving Defendant credit—hardly a firm declaration that the district court would have imposed the same sentence either way. Because we do not know whether the district court would have imposed a different sentence had it applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(1), we must vacate Defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing."

United States v. Maloid

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-1422

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Gregory Alan Phillips

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Quindell Maloid pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Years earlier, he pleaded guilty in Colorado state court to conspiring to commit felony menacing with a firearm. Under commentary in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, conspiracies to commit crimes of violence count as crimes of violence and markedly increase a defendant’s advisory guideline range. After counting Maloid’s prior conspiracy conviction as a crime of violence, the district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment, the low end of the range. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was the weight to be given to this commentary from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. To this, the Court held that in the Tenth Circuit, the commentary in the Guidelines Manual governs unless it runs afoul of the Constitution or a federal statute or is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the guideline provision it addresses. The Court elected not to extend Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), to the Commission’s commentary absent clear direction from the U.S. Supreme Court.

United States v. Phillips

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-5053

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Stephanie Kulp Seymour

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Michael Phillips was stopped by police officers who observed him driving recklessly without a seat belt and suspected he lacked a valid driver’s license. The officers searched his vehicle and recovered cocaine base. Following a failed motion to suppress, Phillips was ultimately convicted on one count of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Phillips challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the arresting officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless search of his vehicle. He also contended he was entitled to a mistrial based on the officer’s trial testimony. After review, the Tenth Circuit held the district court correctly found that the officers reasonably suspected Phillips of committing traffic violations and had probable cause to search the vehicle. The Court also found that any error concerning the challenged trial testimony was harmless.

Ralph Harrison Benning v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 21-11982

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: JORDAN

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff is serving a life sentence in Georgia and is in the custody of the GDC. As an inmate, his communications with those on the outside are governed by GDC policies and regulations. In 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. His complaint named the GDC Commissioner, and Ms. Patterson and Ms. Edgar—the GDC analysts who had intercepted his emails in September and October of 2017—as defendants. It did not name Ms. Keen—the GDC analyst who intercepted the email to the Aleph Institute in February of 2018—as a defendant. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
 
The Eleventh Circuit, on Plaintiff’s due process claims, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that Plaintiff had a First Amendment liberty interest in his outgoing emails. As a result, he was entitled to procedural safeguards when his emails in September and October of 2017 were intercepted. Although Ms. Patterson and Ms. Edgar are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s requests for damages on the due process claims, those claims must be tried by a jury. The requests for declaratory relief on the due process claims are not barred by qualified or sovereign immunity, and a reasonable jury could find that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights. With respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims relating to the forwarding and inmate information policies, the court affirmed.

United States Trustee Region 21 v. Bast Amron LLP

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 20-12547

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: ANDERSON

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Constitutional Law, Tax Law

In 2008, Debtors Mosaic Management Group, Inc., Mosaic Alternative Assets, Ltd., and Paladin Settlements, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Florida, a “UST district” in which the U.S. Trustee program operates. In June 2017, the bankruptcy court confirmed a joint Chapter 11 plan, under which most of the Debtors’ assets were transferred to an Investment Trust managed by an Investment Trustee. The issue before the court is the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation the Supreme Court found in Siegel. The Debtors in this case—being debtors in a U.S. Trustee district—have been required to pay higher fees than a comparable debtor in one of the six BA districts in Alabama or North Carolina.
 
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The court concluded that Reich, Newsweek, Bennett, McKesson, and the long line of similar state tax cases are closely analogous to the instant case and provide strong precedent supporting the refund remedy urged upon us by the Debtors. Accordingly, the court held that the appropriate remedy in this case for the constitutional violation identified in Siegel is the refunds that the Debtors in this case seek.

ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS

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

Docket: 22-5074

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: KATSAS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

The H-1B visa program allows foreign nationals to work in the United States in specialized positions for sponsoring employers. By regulation, any such employer must file amended paperwork with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services whenever it makes a “material change” in the terms of covered employment. In Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I & N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015), USCIS interpreted that phrase to include a change in the place of employment. And in an ensuing guidance document, USCIS memorialized this interpretation and exercised discretion to limit its retroactive enforcement. ITServe Alliance, Inc., a trade association representing employers, seeks a declaratory judgment that Simeio and the guidance document are unlawful. ITServe contends that Simeio was a procedurally defective rulemaking and that USCIS lacks statutory authority to require the amended filings.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and held that ITServe has Article III standing to raise these arguments, but the court rejected them on the merits. The court explained that because USCIS may consider LCA-related issues in exercising its own authority to approve, disapprove, or revoke H-1B petitions, it may require new or amended petitions corresponding to changes in the place of employment that necessitate the filing of new LCAs.

Kristen Colindres v. DOS

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

Docket: 22-5009

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: WALKER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Appellant applied for a visa to enter the United States. But the Government denied his application, fearing that he was part of a criminal organization. Appellant and his wife (collectively “Appellants”) — who is an American citizen — filed this suit to challenge that decision. But their suit faced an uphill struggle: With narrow exceptions, a court may not review the government’s decision to deny a visa. To show that their suit fits within an exception, Appellants pointed to a rule allowing American citizens to challenge visa denials that burden their constitutional rights. Appellant’s wife argued that the rule applies because denying her husband a visa interfered with her constitutional right to marriage. The district court rejected that argument and dismissed it.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that though marriage is a fundamental right, it does not include the right to live in America with one’s spouse. So the right is not burdened when the government denies a spouse’s visa application. Further, the court wrote that even if the exception applied, allowing us to review the Government’s visa denial, Appellant’s wife’s challenge would fail on the merits. To survive judicial review, the Government need only cite a statute listing a factual basis for denying a visa. It did that here.

Radiya Buchanan v. William Barr

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

Docket: 22-5133

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: SENTELLE

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Appellants, individual protestors and Black Lives Matter D.C. brought consolidated actions against federal law enforcement officers, alleging that officers’ actions in clearing protestors from Lafayette Park in June 2020 violated their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights and seeking damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Appellees, former Attorney General Barr and various named U.S. Park Police officers moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that a Bivens remedy is unavailable in this context. The district court granted the motions.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court held that, in applying Supreme Court precedent, Appellants’ claims arise in a new context and that special factors counsel hesitation against extending the availability of Bivens claims to that context. The court explained that it did not reach Appellees’ other special factors arguments regarding the availability of alternative remedies, congressional involvement in the intersection between presidential security and protestors’ rights, the political branches’ activity in investigating the events underlying Appellants’ claims, and the risk that discovery might expose “sensitive Executive Branch communications between high-ranking officials.”

Roger Severino v. Joseph Biden, Jr.

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

Docket: 22-5047

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: MILLETT

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

A Council of ten members, appointed by the President, supervises the work of the Conference. The question, in this case, is whether an appointee to the Council is removable at will by the President. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Congress designed the Conference to be a forum inside the Executive Branch for shop talk and collaboration with external experts. It has no adjudicatory or legislative features that would clearly signal a need for some measure of independence from Presidential control. And nothing in the text of the legislation creating the Conference and Council hints at a congressional intent to limit the President’s removal power, let alone overcomes the presumption of presidential control over Executive Branch officials. The statute, in other words, gives no indication that Congress intended to take the unusual and potentially constitutionally troublesome step of tying the President’s hands when it comes to the at-will removal of such a core Executive Branch officer as a member of the Administrative Conference’s Council.

Jenkins v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 22-1378

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Timothy B. Dyk

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Jenkins purchased a 1987 Oldsmobile and a 2001 Chevrolet and transferred the titles to his mother, Buchanan, retaining exclusive use of both vehicles. The DEA, investigating Jenkins for drug conspiracy crimes, seized the vehicles, which were towed to an impound lot. The DEA obtained a search warrant, which was executed in October 2012. In April 2013, Jenkins pled guilty and was sentenced to 252 months of imprisonment. In October, the impound lot sent letters to the address on file for Buchanan notifying her that the vehicles could be reclaimed upon payment of towing and storage charges. Buchanan did not receive the letters, having moved. No letter was addressed to Jenkins. Jenkins acknowledged that he “was informed" to pick up the vehicles. In February 2014, the impound lot sent final notices to Buchanan, who was incarcerated, then sold the vehicles, retaining the proceeds.

In 2017, Jenkins moved in his criminal case for the return of the cars (FRCP 41(g)). The government responded that the cars “are available for return.” The court dismissed the motion. In 2019, Jenkins unsuccessfully sought monetary compensation in excess of $10,000, then filed a civil action under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), alleging a physical taking of his vehicles.
The Sixth Circuit vacated summary judgment. While the government’s police power may preclude liability for an initial seizure, there is no police power exception that precludes takings liability for the period after the property is not needed for criminal proceedings. The court noted a factual issue of abandonment and affirmed the dismissal of the due process clause for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice.

California v. Codinha

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D080633(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Joan Irion

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

Joseph Codinha appealed an order increasing his aggregate prison term by 16 months in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) informing the trial court it had erroneously imposed a concurrent prison term on a count on which the law required a consecutive term. The issues this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on: (1) whether a trial court has jurisdiction to modify a final judgment in response to such a letter; and (2) if so, whether the appropriate remedy is for the court to modify the judgment by simply correcting the error or to conduct a full resentencing hearing. To these, the Court concluded: (1) a trial court’s inherent authority to correct an unauthorized sentence allows it to modify a final judgment in response to a notice from the Department that a sentence does not contain a legally required component; and (2) the proper remedy is a full resentencing hearing where, as here, the sentence included multiple components and the trial court exercised discretion at the original sentencing hearing to impose a non-maximum aggregate prison term it considered appropriate. The Court therefore vacated the modified sentence and remanded the matter for a full resentencing hearing.

P. v. Falcon

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: F083577(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: MEEHAN

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Non-Profit Corporations

After shooting his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, Defendant was convicted by a jury of the following: two counts of premeditated attempted murder; two counts of assault with a deadly weapon; one count of inflicting corporal injury on a prior dating partner; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury also found true multiple enhancement allegations under section 12022.53. The trial court imposed the following sentence: two consecutive indeterminate terms of seven years to life for the premeditated attempted murder convictions (counts 1 & 4), plus two additional terms of 25 years to life for the respectively attached firearm enhancements under section 12022.53(d). All other enhancements attached to counts 1 and 4 were stayed under section 654. On appeal, Defendant argued the sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing under People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 (Tirado).  
 
The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment but vacated Defendant’s sentence. The court remanded the case to the trial court for a resentencing hearing where further evidence and argument may be received regarding the sentence to be imposed. The court held that the trial court, in this case, made its sentencing decision in the absence of the new presumption against exceeding the middle term, and the record does not clearly indicate that the court would have imposed upper-term sentences had it been aware of the new constraint on its discretion. The court held that Gutierrez is binding and the appropriate remedy is to remand for the sentencing court to exercise its newly informed and circumscribed discretion in the first instance.

Yedinak v. Superior Court

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: E080685(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 23, 2023

Judge: Slough

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Nicholas Yedinak petitioned for mandamus relief, challenging the trial judge’s order denying him bail. Yedinak was charged with two counts of felony child abuse based on allegations he inflicted severe, nonaccidental injuries to his six-week-old son. For the two years and nine months after arraignment, Yedinak had been out on bail, making each court appearance and living in the community without incident. After his preliminary hearing, the judge issued a pretrial detention order based on a finding that other children in the community would probably not be safe if Yedinak were released pending trial, given the violent nature of the charged crimes. In support of his petition, Yedinak argued the order failed to satisfy the legal requirements for pretrial detention articulated in article I, section 12, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution, and In re Humphrey, 11 Cal.5th 135 (2021). The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court's order "fell short of the standard set forth in section 12(b)." The Court granted Yedinak's petition, ordering the trial court to vacate its pretrial detention order, and to reconsider the motion to set affordable bail.

Colorado v. White

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 CO 43

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Samour

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Thomas Mitchell was driving when a flat tire forced him to stop in the right-hand lane of traffic. While standing behind his car and removing items from his trunk, another driver, Eli White, struck him, pinning him between the two cars and severing his legs. A blood sample consensually provided by White at the scene of the crash later revealed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) in an amount seven times that which, under Colorado law, gives rise to a permissible inference that a person was driving under the influence (“DUI”) of one or more drugs. White was charged with class 4 felony DUI, and class 1 misdemeanor careless driving. White sought to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing, as relevant here, that by the time the officers requested a blood sample from him, his investigatory stop had turned into an arrest that was unsupported by probable cause. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the motion, finding that when the officers collected the blood sample from White, they lacked any indicia of drug intoxication and had already determined that they had no more questions for him and that the cause of the collision was his distraction from the road as he attempted to adjust the car’s climate control features. Therefore, the court concluded the officers' detention of White for the purpose of obtaining his consent for a blood sample was unconstitutional. And because the court believed that White’s consent was not sufficiently attenuated from what it viewed as his illegal arrest, it found that his consent was invalid. The State then brought an interlocutory appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, finding the officers asked White if he would consent to a blood draw about thirty minutes into their investigation. "Further, there were substantial delays caused by White’s requests to consult with his mother about the possibility of providing a blood sample. The officers accommodated White’s requests and allowed him to speak with his mother by phone and, once she arrived on the scene, in person." Under the circumstances present, the Supreme Court held the officers did not exceed the scope and character of the investigatory stop so as to transform it into an arrest. And because the officers did not unreasonably detain White, his consent to provide a blood sample was not rendered invalid.

Figueroa-Sanabria v. State

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Docket: SC2021-1070

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Couriel

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of first-degree murder but set aside and his sentences of death for each murder, holding that Defendant was deprived of his right to "have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" when the trial court put him to an improper choice at the beginning of the penalty phase proceedings.

After the jury returned guilty verdicts for both first-degree murder charges the matter proceeded to the penalty phase. The jury unanimously recommended sentences of death. After a series of Spencer hearings, the trial court sentenced Defendant to death for each murder. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case for a new penalty phase, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings during Defendant's guilt phase proceedings; (2) Defendant's convictions were supported by competent, substantial evidence; but (3) Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during the penalty phase was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and Defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing based on the trial court's fundamental error in forcing him to abandon counsel during that phase.

Caldwell v. Edenfield

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Dockets: S23A0260, S23X0261

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Bethel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2009, a jury convicted David Edenfield for the 2007 sexual assault and murder of six-year-old Christopher Barrios, and the jury imposed a death sentence for the murder. Lead trial counsel, joined by other attorneys, represented Edenfield on direct appeal, and, in June of 2013, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Edenfield’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Edenfield subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting he was ineligible for the death penalty because he is intellectually disabled and that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance during his trial in several ways, including by failing to present evidence of Edenfield’s alleged intellectual disability in the sentencing phase as mitigating evidence. He also contended that appellate counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The habeas court denied relief on all claims except for the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim concerning counsel’s presentation of evidence of Edenfield’s alleged intellectual disability as mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase. Based on that claim, the habeas court vacated Edenfield’s death sentence. The Warden appealed in Case No. S23A0260, and Edenfield has cross-appealed in Case No. S23X0261. In the Warden’s appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the habeas court’s decision to vacate Edenfield’s death sentence. In Edenfield’s cross-appeal, the Court affirmed in part; the Court conclude as to Edenfield’s claim regarding trial counsel’s alleged deficiency concerning certain allegedly mitigating circumstances that additional findings of fact and conclusions of law were required, and the case was therefore remanded to the habeas court for further proceedings.

Bahr v. Idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal

Docket: 49305

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Brody

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Brandon Bahr appealed a district court’s summary dismissal of his untimely petition for post-conviction relief. Bahr filed his untimely petition roughly two years after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. The State responded with a motion seeking summary dismissal. Bahr opposed dismissal, arguing the limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on his alleged lack of access to the Idaho courts while transferred to, and incarcerated in, Texas prison facilities. The district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal. Bahr argued on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court that the district court erred by denying him equitable tolling, and by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing concerning whether Bahr lacked access to the Idaho courts while incarcerated in Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed: "Even if Bahr was denied access to the Idaho courts while in Texas, a fact which we have not determined, he is not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to allege any diligent efforts to pursue his rights while in Texas."

Kinnett v. Kinnett

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2023-CJ-00060

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Jefferson D. Hughes, III

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law

The putative biological father sought to rebut, pursuant to La. C.C. art. 198, a presumption set forth in La. C.C. art. 185, despite having filed his avowal petition more than one year after the birth of the child and even though no “bad faith” was found on the part of the mother. After years of litigation on preliminary issues, the appellate court reviewed an earlier district court ruling, which found that La. C.C. art. 198 was not unconstitutional, and reversed the district court, concluding Article 198 was unconstitutional as applied. On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that under the facts presented here, that the putative biological father had no fundamental constitutional right to parent a child born to a mother, who was married to and living with another man at the time of the child’s conception and birth. Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate court, reinstated the district court judgment holding that La. C.C. art. 198 was constitutional, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Louisiana v. Shallerhorn

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-KK-01385

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Crichton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review was a matter of first impression: whether a defendant who is charged with first degree murder can elect a bench trial when the state has filed a formal notice that it will not seek capital punishment. The question presented involved the interpretation of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 780, specifically the meaning of the phrase “an offense other than one punishable by death.” In February 2021, defendant John Shallerhorn was arrested for several offenses, including on suspicion of first degree murder. The state filed notice that “for any charges for which the grand jury returns an indictment in [this] case, the State will elect to forego capital punishment.” Shallerhorn was ultimately indicted for first degree murder and armed robbery. Defendant filed a motion for a bench trial, seeking to waive his right to a trial by jury pursuant to the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. article 780. The state opposed this motion, and the trial court, agreeing with the state, denied it. The trial court noted that though the state was not currently pursuing the death penalty, “if something changes at the DA’s office and somehow death is back on the table,” then the defendant could not waive a jury and elect a bench trial. The Supreme Court held that after the state provides formal notice that it will not seek the death penalty, and thereby elects to prosecute the offense of first degree murder as a non-capital case, a defendant may waive a trial by jury and elect a bench trial.

T.S. v. Congregation of Holy Cross Southern Province, et al.

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-CA-01826

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Genovese

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

Defendants, the Congregation of Holy Cross Southern Province, Inc. and Holy Cross College, Inc. (collectively “Holy Cross”), challenged the constitutionality of 2021 La. Acts 322, §2 (“Act 322”), an enactment of the Louisiana legislature that amended La. R.S. 9:2800.9 and revived prescribed child sex abuse claims for a limited three-year period (sometimes referred to as “revival provision”). Plaintiff T.S. directly appealed the trial court’s judgment sustaining Holy Cross’s exception of prescription. In sustaining the exception, the trial court found the matter could not be resolved on non-constitutional grounds and declared Act 322, §2 unconstitutional, reasoning that the legislature lacked authority to revive a prescribed claim. After reviewing the record, along with the pertinent legislation, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in finding Act 322 unconstitutional when this matter could be resolved on non-constitutional, statutory grounds. Nevertheless, the Court found the trial court was correct in granting the exception of prescription.

Commonwealth v. Miranda

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13225

Opinion Date: June 26, 2023

Judge: Kafker

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

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the trial justice erred when he failed to instruct the jury on the impact of mental impairment and intoxication on whether Defendant acted in a cruel or atrocious manner, and this error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty for the death of a woman who died from multiple chop wounds from a machete. On appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, Defendant argued that the trial justice erred by failing to provide two jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial justice did not err by omitting Defendant's requested instructions on sudden combat but did err in failing to give an instruction on mental impairment as it related to extreme atrocity or cruelty, and the error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

Turner v. Mississippi

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2022-KA-00236-SCT

Opinion Date: June 22, 2023

Judge: Maxwell

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Leroy "Lucky" Turner (aka, "Chino") admittedly shot Jeffrey Johnson in the back following a confrontation outside a convenience store. At his trial for aggravated assault, Turner claimed he acted out of fear for himself and his sixteen-year-old nephew. But video surveillance and eyewitness testimony supported the State’s theory that Turner was the aggressor. A jury convicted Turner as charged, for which Turner was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment with three suspended. Turner appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Turner's conviction.

State v. Barton

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC99886

Opinion Date: June 27, 2023

Judge: Paul C. Wilson

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

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the circuit court sustaining Defendant's motions to suppress evidence obtained after his warrantless arrest for a felony, holding that to the extent the decision was based on Defendant's claim that the Fourth Amendment is violated when an arresting officer was outside of the officer's jurisdiction unless the officer personally observed the crime, the decision was clearly erroneous.

Defendant was charged in two separate cases for his involvement in two robberies. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after a warrantless arrest, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer was outside of his jurisdiction. The circuit court sustained the motions to suppress. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that while Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015), requires both probable cause and that the crime be committed in the officer's presence for an arrest to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, when a warrantless arrest is for a felony, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the arresting officer has probable cause for the arrest, even when the felony was not committed in the arresting officer's presence.

Facebook, Inc. v. State of New Jersey

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: A-61-21/A-7-22

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Stuart Rabner

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Internet Law

The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review centered on whether Facebook could be compelled to provide the contents of two users’ accounts every 15 minutes for 30 days into the future based only on probable cause, the ordinary standard for a search warrant, or whether the State must instead satisfy certain requirements and apply for a wiretap order, which required an enhanced showing -- one beyond probable cause -- because gaining access to private communications in real time is considerably more intrusive than a typical search. In the two matters under review, trial courts quashed the State’s request for prospective information based on a Communications Data Warrant (CDW), which was the equivalent of a search warrant and can be issued on a showing of probable cause.
The Appellate Division consolidated the cases and held that the State could obtain prospective electronic communications with a CDW, reasoning that the wiretap statute applied to the contemporaneous interception of electronic communications, not efforts to access communications in storage. The Supreme Court concluded that based on the language and structure of the relevant statutes, the State’s request for information from users’ accounts invokes heightened privacy protections. "The nearly contemporaneous acquisition of electronic communications here is the functional equivalent of wiretap surveillance and is therefore entitled to greater constitutional protection. New Jersey’s wiretap act applies in this case to safeguard individual privacy rights under the relevant statutes and the State Constitution."

Oregon v. Lee

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S069654

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: James

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

An informant told law enforcement that a person named “Tom Collins” was dealing heroin from a residence in Albany, Oregon. Detectives planned to utilize the informant in executing a controlled buy at the residence. However, rather than relying on the observations and results from that controlled buy to subsequently apply for a warrant, the detectives applied for, and obtained, a search warrant for the residence that anticipated that controlled buy. The State argued that the warrant at issue here was an “anticipatory warrant” of the type approved, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Grubbs, 547 US 90 (2006). Defendant disagreed, arguing that anticipatory warrants were incompatible with Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court did not reach the constitutionality of the issue presented. The Court determined that under ORS 133.555(2), a judge could issue a warrant only when “the basis of the record made before the judge” established that “there is probable cause to believe that the search will discover things specified in the application” and the warrant application satisfies the requirement in ORS 133.545(6) that it “particularly set[ ] forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to be searched.” The affidavit in support of the warrant here failed to comply with the requirements of ORS 133.545(6). As a result, the warrant issued in defendant’s case did not comply with ORS 133.555(2), and the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, pursuant to ORS 133.673(1). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and this case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

South Carolina v. Green

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 28165

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: John W. Kittredge

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner Tappia Green's convictions for kidnapping, armed robbery, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. During an in camera hearing, the parties offered competing evidence as to whether Green was given his Miranda warnings, with law enforcement officers claiming they did not Mirandize Green at the time of his arrest and Green asserting they did. The trial court found the State's evidence more credible, determining Green was not Mirandized and, therefore, a violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610(1976) did not occur. As a result, the trial court denied Green's motion for a mistrial. Nevertheless, the State did not further pursue Green's post-arrest silence. The court of appeals affirmed, focusing on the novel question of whether the State or the defendant had the burden of proof in a Doyle hearing and, ultimately, concluding the defendant had the burden to prove Miranda warnings were given and a Doyle violation occurred. The South Carolina Supreme Court took the opportunity of this case to clarify the proper procedure when a potential Doyle violation arises. "Care must be taken when the State seeks to impeach a defendant with his post-arrest silence." As the proponent of such impeachment evidence, the Court held the State bears the burden of proving the evidence is admissible and will not violate the defendant's right to due process as articulated in Doyle and its progeny. "In its role as the gatekeeper of admissibility, the trial court must evaluate the evidence and determine whether the State has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was not given his Miranda warnings." Here, the Court found the trial court properly fulfilled its role and issued a detailed ruling supported by a number of facts in evidence. The Court therefore held the trial court did not commit error in denying Green's motion for a mistrial. The decision of the court of appeals was affirmed as modified and vacated in part.

Falls v. Goins

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Docket: M2020-01510-SC-R11-CV

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Bivins

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's summary judgment to the three named state official defendants in this complaint seeking a temporary injunction related to the August 6, 2020 election, holding that Plaintiff was required to comply with both Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-143(3) and Tenn. Code Ann. 40-29-202 before he could be re-enfranchised.

Plaintiff, a Tennessee resident since 2018, was convicted in 1986 of involuntary manslaughter in Virginia. In 2020, the governor of Virginia granted Plaintiff clemency, thus reinstating his right to vote in Virginia. Later that year, Plaintiff attempted to register to vote in Grainger County, Tennessee but was denied. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit arguing that Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-143(3) requires the state to re-enfranchise persons convicted of infamous crimes out of state when the governor or the appropriate authority of such other state restores that person's rights of citizenship. The chancery court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, to regain the right of suffrage in Tennessee, Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals must comply with both Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-143(3) and the additional requirements set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. 40-29-202.

Ex parte Danny Lane

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Docket: WR-90,084-01

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Slaughter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In an application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, Applicant Danny Lane challenged his 2007 conviction for failing to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements on five grounds: (1) actual innocence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) involuntary plea; (4) due process violation; and (5) no evidence. Though Applicant raised several grounds for relief, the underlying basis for all of his claims was the same: that, unbeknownst to him at the time of his guilty plea, he was not actually required to register as a sex offender because, although he was convicted of aggravated rape in 1982, that conviction was later “set aside” by the convicting court upon his successful completion of probation through a “judicial clemency” order. In support of his position, Applicant relied on a decision from the Sixth Court of Appeals, issued after his guilty plea in this case, interpreting the relevant statutes to mean that a similarly situated individual had no duty to register and thus could not be guilty of failing to register as a sex offender. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed with the habeas court's recommendation to grant relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel resulting in an involuntary plea, or under a theory of actual innocence / no evidence. The Court concluded that the law was unsettled as to whether Applicant had a duty to register as a sex offender following the trial court’s grant of judicial clemency. Thus, trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to further investigate that issue when further investigation would not have yielded any clear answer under the law. The Court concluded the governing statutes in Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 meant that Applicant’s 1982 aggravated rape conviction obligated him to register as a sex offender, notwithstanding the trial court’s order granting him judicial clemency under former Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12, Section 7. Relief was denied on all claims.

Ex parte Rodney Reed

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Docket: WR-50,961-10

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: McClure

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1998, applicant Rodney Reed was convicted by jury of the capital murder of nineteen-year-old Stacey Lee Stites. The indictment alleged that in April 1996, Reed strangled Stacey to death in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault. In the years that followed, continuing through this proceeding, Reed has made multiple efforts to have his capital murder conviction overturned. He primarily advanced the theory that he was innocent of Stacey’s murder —specifically, that the biological evidence linking him to Stacey’s body was deposited there because he and Stacey were in a consensual sexual relationship and that Stacey was actually killed by her jealous and domineering fiance, Jimmy Fennell. After review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found Reed's latest attempts to overturn his conviction failed under Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), and procedurally under Article 11.071, Section 5(a)(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Court denied relief and dismissed any remaining claims as abuses of the writ.

Green v. Texas

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Docket: PD-0008-22

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: Slaughter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2017, after Maria Delcarman Sosa-Esparza was indicted for a felony offense, she entered into a bail bond agreement with Appellant Maxie Green, doing business as A to Z Bail Bonds. Appellant paid a $25,000 bond so that Sosa-Esparza could be released from jail. A condition of the trial court in setting a bond amount was an assurance that Sosa-Esparza would appear for all of her court settings. But on March 1, 2019, Sosa-Esparza failed to appear for her pretrial conference. The trial court then signed a judgment nisi that provisionally forfeited the $25,000 bond. The judgment nisi stated that Sosa-Esparza’s name was “distinctly called at the courtroom door. Defendant was given reasonable time to appear after her name was called, but she did not appear.” The judgment nisi also provided that the judgment would be made final unless good cause could be shown for why Sosa-Esparza failed to appear. Appellant argued, among other things, that because the judgment nisi stated that the defendant’s name was called at the courtROOM door, the State’s evidence failed to conclusively establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether her name was properly called at the courtHOUSE door. (emphasis added). The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether, for purposes of summary judgment in a bond forfeiture case, providing conclusive proof that the name of the defendant on bond was distinctly called at the door of the courtROOM establishes the element that “[t]he name of the defendant shall be called distinctly at the courthouse door[.]” To this, the Court held that it did: "This holding is founded on well-established precedent from this Court and the courts of appeals recognizing that calling the defendant’s name at the courtroom door constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 22.02."

King v. Texas

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Docket: PD-0330-22

Opinion Date: June 28, 2023

Judge: McClure

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

On April 19, 2018 in Forth Worth, Appellant Terry King assaulted a twelve-year-old girl who was on her way to the school bus. At all times relevant to this case, Appellant was working as a truck driver, operating a semi-tractor trailor (hereinafter, “truck”) owned by his employer, John Feltman. Due to the nature of his work as a long-haul truck driver, Appellant lived out of the truck while working on the road. In July 2018, Appellant was arrested in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma near the truck he drove. On the same day, the Oklahoma police searched the truck pursuant to a warrant. During the search, detectives found Appellant’s cell phone and intended to seize it, but inadvertently left the cell phone in the truck. The gathered evidence, minus the cell phone, was transported to the Fort Worth Police Department. Upon realizing the cell phone was missing, Fort Worth Police Detective Pat Henz contacted the truck owner, Feltman, and asked him to retrieve the phone and send it to the police department. Upon receipt on August 9, 2018, a search warrant for the contents of the cell phone was issued and executed. Child pornography was found on the cell phone. The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether an employee retained standing to contest a search or seizure in his work vehicle several days after he was arrested and after the vehicle was returned to his employer. To this, the Court responded "possibly." But based on the facts of this case, the Court found Appellant did not meet his burden to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy as would confer standing.

State v. Wood

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 UT 15

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Petersen

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this interlocutory appeal of the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress calls made by Defendant on the Salt Lake County Jail's telephones and recorded by the jail, holding that Defendant impliedly consented to the conditions the jail had placed on the use of its phones.

Defendant was charged with kidnapping and assaulting his wife and made hundreds of calls to his wife from the jail. The State moved to admit recording of several of those phone calls and filed new charges based on the recordings. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the recordings in both cases. The Supreme Court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant impliedly consented to the interception of the phone calls and that the calls were exempt under the law enforcement exception to Utah's Interception of Communications Act, Utah Code 77-23a-1 to -16. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant impliedly consented to the jail's recording of his phone calls, and therefore, the interception of Defendant's calls was authorized under the Interception Act's consent exception.

State v. Green

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Docket: 2021AP000267-CR

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Ann Walsh Bradley

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

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the case against him with prejudice after a mistrial was declared, holding that retrial would not violate Defendant's right against double jeopardy.

Defendant was tried on one count of trafficking of a child. During trial, the trial court declared a mistrial on the basis that certain evidence was improperly admitted. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that retrial would violate his right under the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free against double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court exercised sound discretion in ordering a mistrial based on manifest necessity and that retrial will not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy.

Walworth County v. M.R.M.

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Docket: 2022AP000140-FT

Opinion Date: June 29, 2023

Judge: Dallet

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's demand for a jury trial before Walworth County extended his involuntary commitment for twelve additional months, holding that Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 966 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2021), applied retroactively to Appellant's case and that the denial of Appellant's jury demand was erroneous.

Following a mental health crisis, Appellant was involuntarily committed and forcibly medicated for six months. Walworth County later sought to extend Appellant's commitment for twelve months. Appellant filed a jury demand at least forty-eight hours prior to his rescheduled final hearing date, but the circuit court denied the jury demand as untimely. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided E.J.W., which held that a jury demand is timely filed if it is filed at least forty-eight hours before a rescheduled final hearing. Appellant appealed, arguing that E.J.W. applied retroactively. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) E.J.W. applies retroactively; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the proper remedy for the circuit court's denial of Appellant's jury demand was not remand but reversal.

Justia Legal Guides: Disability Law Center

Chris Skelton

A disability may cause financial concerns and create obstacles in many areas of life. However, people with disabilities have important legal protections. The Justia Disability Law Center discusses available benefits and their rights more generally.

Read More