Vote Trump 2016 !

Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016

Friday, December 26, 2014

Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed December 26, 2014
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from JustiaSubscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Scott v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme CourtCitation: 2014 Ark. 541Opinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial in 1989, Appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced as a habitual offender to 200 years’ imprisonment. In 2000, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the 200-year sentence exceeded the statutory maximum sentence for first-degree murder and was thus illegal. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the sentence was within statutory range. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising seven claims. The circuit court denied the petition. the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s claim that his sentence was excessive had already been addressed; and (2) the remaining allegations raised by Appellant were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.
http://j.st/4TtdView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Johnson v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court Docket:2013-SC-000209-MROpinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of third-degree terroristic threatening, other firearm-related offenses, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that a Batson violation occurred as a result of one of the peremptory strikes made by the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) a Batson violation occurred when the prosecutor struck an African-American juror from the jury pool and failed to provide a cognizable race-neutral reason for striking the juror; and (2) therefore, the trial court’s overruling of Appellant’s Batson challenge was an abuse of discretion.
http://j.st/4TtXView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Spears v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court Docket:2013-SC-000140-MROpinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the admission of a state police detective’s testimony regarding Appellant’s invocation of his right to an attorney was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court did not err by refusing to allow Appellant’s forensic expert witness to sit with defense counsel during the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for an instruction on first-degree manslaughter based upon extreme emotional disturbance; and (4) Appellant was not entitled to a new penalty phase trial even though the sentencing protocols as provided for in Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.025(3) were not followed in this case, as this deviation from the statutory procedure did not affect the ultimate sentence or jeopardize Appellant’s right to due process of law.
http://j.st/4TtuView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Basham v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court Docket:2013-SC-000588-MROpinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of probation or parole for twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the victim had been previously exposed to allegedly pornographic material on the internet; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in granting the Commonwealth’s motion to strike a juror for cause over defense objection.
http://j.st/4TtDView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Sluss v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court Docket:2011-SC-000318-MR,Docket: 2013-SC-000258-MROpinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, assault in the first degree, two counts of assault in the fourth degree, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. During jury selection, fifty jurors were excused for cause. On Appellant’s appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Appellant was entitled to a new trial because of possible interaction between jurors and the murder victim’s mother. On remand, the trial court concluded that Appellant was not entitled to a new trial on this issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to strike one of the jurors for cause because she had three associations with Appellant, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the juror could not render a fair and impartial verdict.
http://j.st/4TtjView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court Docket:2011-SC-000756-DG,Docket: 2012-SC-000104-DGOpinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law, Government & Administrative Law
At issue in these two cases was the applicable scope of Ky. Rev. Stat. 15.520, which sets forth specific procedural rights for police officers who are accused of misconduct and face the disciplinary processes administratively conducted by the police agency that employs them. Appellants in both cases were police officers who were subjected to administrative disciplinary actions that were initiated as a result of allegations that arose from within the police department itself. Both officers requested an administrative review procedure consistent with section 15.520. The requests were denied. Each Appellant sought review of the disciplinary actions in circuit court. The circuit courts concluded that the officers were not entitled to an administrative hearing subject to the due process provisions of section 15.520. The appeals courts affirmed, determining that section 15.520 applies only when the disciplinary action was initiated by a “citizens complaint.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 15.520 applies to both disciplinary proceedings generated by citizen complaints and those initiated by intra-departmental actions. Remanded.
http://j.st/4TtvView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Adams

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation:2014 ME 143Opinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was at the place of his employment when his employer asked him to submit to a breath test. The results from the employer’s self-contained portable breath-alcohol testing device showed that Defendant had indicators of alcohol in his system, and Defendant was sent home on unpaid leave. Defendant was driving his van after leaving his place of employment when he was stopped and arrested. A police officer administered several field sobriety tests after stopping Defendant. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence. Before trial, the court granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude any evidence of the workplace breath-alcohol test to challenge the accuracy of the State’s intoxilyzer test. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge then appealed the order on the motion in limine. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that Defendant was entitled to challenge the reliability of the test results offered by the State by any appropriate means that is otherwise admissible in evidence, and thus the trial court denied Defendant the opportunity to make a formal offer of proof by excluding evidence of the workplace breath-alcohol test.
http://j.st/4TFyView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Newton v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme CourtCitation: 2014 Ark. 538Opinion Date: December 18, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of sexual indecency with a child and sexual assault in the second degree. After the conviction was affirmed on appeal, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was untimely filed. This appeal concerned Appellant’s third pro se petition for postconviction relief in which he made essentially the same allegations as he raised in his first postconviction petition. The trial court denied and dismissed the petition, ruling that Appellant could not file a subsequent petition for postconviction relief when a postconviction petition alleging essentially the same claims had already been denied as being untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not appeal from the order dismissing his first petition as untimely, his third petition was likewise untimely, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
http://j.st/4TtpView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Greco v. Cnty. of Livingston

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-1203Opinion Date: December 19, 2014
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Greco drank wine, drove her car into a ditch, and walked to a nearby gas station where she met EMTs refueling their ambulance. They smelled alcohol on her breath and called the police. Greco ran behind the station. Deputy Clayton arrived with his canine, Diago, other officers, and civilian “ride along,” Stuart. Clayton instructed Diago to track Greco. Clayton claims he was concerned about Greco’s well-being because, despite cold and wet weather, Greco was wearing sandals and a short-sleeved shirt. Clayton thought she might be injured. He announced their presence and entered a “swamp area,” slipped and fell, looked up and heard screaming as Diago bit Greco’s leg. Clayton waited for Greco to stop moving so he could ensure she was weaponless. After “10 to 20 seconds,” Clayton released Diago and summoned the EMTs. Greco claims she ran to “bushes” scared, alone, and needing to pee and was squatting when men approached with a dog, shouting “put your hands on your head.” Clayton “sicked the dog.” She dropped to protect herself, but the dog held on. Stuart agrees that the “woods” were slippery and that Greco was belligerent and on her back kicking the dog. Greco had a thigh injury and filed suit. The district court denied the defendants summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that a jury could reasonably believe that Clayton intentionally detained Greco with an unconstitutional level of force. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting the conflicting claims.
http://j.st/4TyLView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar
Posted by at
Labels:Social Media