Vote Trump 2016 !

Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Friday, November 27, 2015

Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed November 27, 2015
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from JustiaSubscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Wilder v. United States

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Docket: 14-1815Opinion Date: November 20, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming that the jury selection process for his trial violated his Fifth Amendment right to be present and his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Appellant did not raise either the Fifth Amendment or the Sixth Amendment claim at trial or on direct appeal. The district court denied habeas relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant could not overcome his procedural default from not pursuing either his Fifth Amendment or Sixth Amendment claim at trial or on appeal.
http://j.st/4e8UView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Foster v. Patrick

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-6254Opinion Date: November 20, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Plaintiff, the father of Armetta Foster, filed suit against the deputy sheriff that shot and killed Armetta. On appeal, the deputy appealed the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that, even without the benefit of hindsight, a jury could reasonably conclude that neither the deputy nor anyone else was in danger when he shot thirteen or fourteen rounds at Armetta - eight of which actually struck her; the evidence also supports a finding that the deputy continued firing at her as she was driving away in the police vehicle and no one was in the cruiser's path; and the court has previously acknowledged that the danger presented when a suspect drives off in a stolen police car, without more, is not so grave as to justify the use of deadly force. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could conclude that the deputy's use of deadly force violated Armetta's clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment.
http://j.st/4e8gView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Hearring v. Sliwowski

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-6039, Docket: 14-6315Opinion Date: November 20, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law
In 2009, a first grade student complained to a teacher that her genitals hurt and the teacher sent her to the school nurse who visually inspected the girl. Plaintiff, the girl's mother, filed a money-damages action against the nurse and the school district for conducting a search in violation of her child’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court subsequently issued an injunction that required the school system to train its nurses more effectively to prevent incidents of this sort from happening again. The court reversed the injunction because: (1) the mother did not seek such an injunction; (2) the undisturbed (and now unappealed) jury verdict that no constitutional violation occurred eliminated the factual predicate for such an injunction; and (3) the mother (and daughter) lacked standing to obtain such an injunction anyway. The court directed the district court to enter judgment in favor of the school district.
http://j.st/4e8MView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Keepers Inc. v. City of Milford

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket: 14-1581Opinion Date: November 20, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Construction Law, Government & Administrative Law
Keepers appealed, and the City cross-appealed, from partial summary judgment awards. At issue are two questions related to Chapter 2.3 of Milford’s municipal code, which regulates “adult‐oriented establishments.” First, whether the district court improperly considered the affidavit of the police chief in granting partial summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that the district court did not “abuse its discretion” in considering the affidavit and therefore affirmed as to this issue. Second, whether the City’s requirement that sexually oriented businesses publicly post the names of their operators, officers, and significant owners violates the First Amendment. The court concluded that the district court should not have reached the merits of that issue, nor does this Court do so, because Keepers’ First Amendment challenge does not present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Even if Keepers originally had standing to challenge the public‐posting requirement based on its asserted right against compelled speech, the case has become moot on appeal. Therefore, the court vacated as to this issue and remanded with directions.
http://j.st/4e8eView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Trapp v. Roden

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial CourtDocket: SJC-11863Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
In 1995, Randall Trapp and four other inmates, who were adherents of Native American religious practices, filed a complaint asserting that the Department of Correction (DOC) had violated their rights to exercise their religion. In 2003, the parties entered into a settlement agreement requiring the DOC to construct a purification lodge at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC). Within six months of building the SBCC lodge, the DOC halted all ceremonies, citing health concerns that resulted from smoke filtering into the main building from wood fires at the lodge. In 2010, Trapp and Robert Ferreira filed an amended complaint against the Commissioner of Correction and two DOC employees at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk, alleging that the lodge’s closure violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), article 2 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and the 2003 settlement agreement. A superior court judge entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all three claims. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the closure of the SBCC lodge violated RLUIPA and the settlement agreement.
http://j.st/4eXHView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

People v. Harris

Court: New York Court of Appeals Citation:2015 NY Slip Op 08607Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was indicted for burglary in the second degree and petit larceny. The burglary charge was timely interposed but the petit larceny charge was not, as the applicable statutory period ran approximately one and one-half years before the filing of the accusatory instrument. Defendant’s counsel never obtained the time-barred count’s dismissal, and Defendant was convicted of both indicted offenses. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his for-cause challenge to a prospective juror and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by vacating Defendant’s conviction on the charge of petit larceny and dismissing that charge in the indictment, holding that the failure of Defendant’s counsel to have the time-barred petit larceny count dismissed constituted ineffective assistance.
http://j.st/4eXjView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

People v. Ambers

Court: New York Court of Appeals Citation:2015 NY Slip Op 08608Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was convicted of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, rape in the second degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to seek the dismissal of time-barred charges against him and by failing to object to certain statements by the prosecutor during her summation. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) given the presence of a plausible and reasonable strategy that could explain counsel’s action, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of the time-barred charges; and (2) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to certain statements made during the prosecutor’s summation.
http://j.st/4eX9View Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Mech v. School Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 15-10778Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the School Board violated his constitutional right to free speech when three of its schools removed banners for plaintiff's tutoring business from their fences. The schools removed the banners after they discovered that plaintiff's tutoring business shares a mailing address with his pornography business. The district court concluded that the schools did not remove the banners based on their content and granted summary judgment for the schools. The court affirmed on different grounds, concluding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not protect plaintiff because the banners are “government speech.” Despite the lack of historical evidence in the record, the banners exhibit strong indicia of government endorsement and control.
http://j.st/4eXLView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Guy v. Lampert

Court: Wyoming Supreme CourtCitation: 2015 WY 148Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law
Appellant, an inmate at the Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution, filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the district court to find that Steve Hargett, the warden of the institution, and Robert Lampert, the director of the Department Prison Division, violated the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA) by delaying the production of a record he had requested under the WPRA. Appellant also asked the district court to declare that the Department of Corrections had to produce certain types of records if he requested them in the future. After Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, Appellant filed a motion to amend his petition. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that it did not have jurisdiction under the WPRA to provide the relief Appellant was seeking. The district court did not expressly rule on the motion to amend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition because the relief Appellant sought was not available under the WPRA; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying the motion to amend, as the proposed amendment was futile.
http://j.st/4eXvView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Smith v. Chicago Transit Auth.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 14-2622Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
Plaintiff, who is black, filed a complaint against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in federal court, alleging that the CTA fired him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The CTA responded that Plaintiff was fired because he violated CTA’s policy against sexual harassment. The district court granted the CTA’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to create a triable issue under either the direct or indirect methods of proving unlawful discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s case failed under both the direct and indirect methods of proof.
http://j.st/4eXaView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Schimel

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 15-1736Opinion Date: November 23, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Health Law
On July 5, 2013, the Governor of Wisconsin signed into a law a statute that the Wisconsin legislature had passed one month earlier prohibiting a doctor from performing an abortion unless he or she has admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles from the clinic in which the abortion is performed. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Milwaukee Women’s Medical Services (which operate the only four abortion clinics in Wisconsin) joined by two doctors employed by Planned Parenthood, challenged the statute’s constitutionality under 42 U.S.C. 1983, first seeking and obtaining a preliminary injunction and ultimately seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the statute. After a trial, the trial judge granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of the statute. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to sue; and (2) the statute is unconstitutional because it imposes a burden excessive in relation to the aims of the statute and the benefits likely to be conferred by it.
http://j.st/4eXRView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Commonwealth v. Watkins

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial CourtDocket: SJC-09950Opinion Date: November 24, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial and declined to reduce the degree of guilt pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant’s conviction; (2) Defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose certain evidence; (3) there was no error due to the Commonwealth’s exclusion of third-party culprit evidence; (4) the judge judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude hearsay statements by the victim’s girl friend; (5) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct; (6) defense counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient; and (7) Defendant failed to establish that a new trial was required because the prosecutor had represented him on several previous occasions.
http://j.st/4e2wView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Auld

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii Docket:SCWC-13-0002894Opinion Date: November 24, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
A jury found Defendant guilty of committing robbery in the second degree. The jury was not required to find that Defendant had any prior convictions. The prosecution filed a post-conviction motion for the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and introduced into evidence the judgment for Defendant’s prior convictions. The circuit court took judicial notice on file for both of Defendant’s prior convictions and granted the State’s motion for imposition of mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, asserting that, in accordance with Alleyne v. United States, a jury should have considered the facts alleged in the prosecution’s motion for imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) repeat offender sentencing under section 706-606.5 enhances the penalty of the crime committed, and therefore, a defendant’s predicate prior conviction(s) must be alleged in the charging instrument; (2) a jury is required to find that the defendant’s prior conviction(s) have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to trigger the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under section 706-606.5; but (3) these rules are given prospective effect only.
http://j.st/4e2qView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Dobbey v. Mitchell-Lawshea

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 14-2772Opinion Date:
...

[Message clipped]  View entire message
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:Social Media

Friday, November 13, 2015

Civil Rights


Weekly Summaries Distributed November 13, 2015
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from JustiaSubscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Shadrick v. Hopkins Cnty.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-5603Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Butler, age 25, arrived at Hopkins County Detention Center to serve a misdemeanor sentence. A tower operator saw Butler put something in his mouth and swallow, and relayed her observation to deputies, who started booking procedures. Butler vomited twice. Deputies noticed that Butler appeared to be under the influence and was sweating profusely. While answering questions, his demeanor deteriorated and he had difficulty standing. Butler stated that he had an MRSA infection, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and osteoporosis. He listed several prescribed medications and denied drug or alcohol addiction. The deputies did not want to admit Butler because of his condition. A licensed practical nurse examined Butler and instructed the deputies to admit Butler. As an LPN, she lacked the credentials to diagnose any illness, but was aware that untreated MRSA infection could lead to sepsis and death. Although staff placed Butler on suicide watch, there is no evidence that Butler was evaluated for suicidal ideation, nor any evidence that Butler received blood pressure medication while confined or that the nurses questioned why his blood pressure fell, absent medication. Butler died three days later from MRSA complications. The court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983b on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, noting genuine issues of material fact and that the facility's medical contractor is not entitled to governmental immunity on the state-law claim.
http://j.st/4ef9View Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Robinson

Court: Kansas Supreme Court Docket:90196Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
The State charged Appellant with multiple offenses related to the murders of six women. The murders constituted parts of a common scheme or course of conduct. Appellant was sentenced to death for his convictions for two counts of capital murder. On appeal, Appellant raised nineteen general claims of reversible error covering the entire trial proceedings, as well as a variety of sub-claims. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count II; (2) reversed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count III and his first-degree murder conviction charged in Count V as unconstitutionally multiplicitous with the capital murder conviction in Count II; (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant’s convictions; (4) affirmed Appellant’s sentence of death under his capital murder conviction in Count II; and (5) vacated the portion of Appellant’s sentence designating certain of his crimes sexually motivated and remanded for a correction of the journal entry.
http://j.st/4eftView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Cullen

Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 292 Neb. 30Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse that resulted in the death of an infant in her care. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years to life. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that evidence of the infant’s prior injuries while in her care should have been excluded as prior bad acts under Neb. R. Evid. 404. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial on the basis of allowing the admission of the prior injuries, as the prior injuries were inextricably intertwined with the charged crime; (2) there was no misconduct by the prosecutor during closing argument; (3) Defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance.
http://j.st/4eYkView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Poe

Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 292 Neb. 60Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing and directed the trial court to decide if Defendant’s trial counsel failed to utilize a statement the State’s key witness made to Defendant’s girlfriend to the effect that Defendant was innocent. On remand, the district court again overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err by (1) excluding certain out-of-court statements on hearsay grounds; and (2) concluding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://j.st/4eYZView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Noel

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Docket: 14-0174Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing in a vehicle, possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine). Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence a police officer discovered upon searching Defendant’s vehicle, arguing that no probable cause existed for either the traffic stop or the subsequent search. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and resultant sentences and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and therefore, the circuit court erred by not suppressing the evidence found during that search.
http://j.st/4eYwView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Comm’r of Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Vawter

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana Docket:49S00-1407-PL-494Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Plaintiffs, as a certified class, challenged the constitutionality of the program utilized by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) in the processing of applications for personalized license plates (PLPs), arguing that the decision making process used in denying or revoking PLPs violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the class, concluding that the statute that authorizes the BMV to refuse to issue PLPs and its related policies are vague, overbroad, and lacking in content-neutrality and that the Bureau violates due process safeguards by providing insufficient reasons for a denial or revocation of a PLP. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) PLPS are government speech; and (2) therefore, the statute and policies at issue in this case are constitutional.
http://j.st/4eYiView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

McGinn v. State

Court: Wyoming Supreme CourtCitation: 2015 WY 140Opinion Date: November 6, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of domestic battery and possession of a weapon with intent to threaten. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the prosecutor improperly asked him a series of questions during his testimony at trial in which the prosecutor repeated statements made by Defendant’s daughter and asked, “was she lying?”; and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it allowed evidence of prior discharge of a gun. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s questioning was improper, and the error was prejudicial; and (2) the absence of appropriate findings and discussion regarding the admission of the discharge evidence hinders review of the district court’s decision to admit the evidence. Remanded.
http://j.st/4eY5View Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Mullenix v. Luna

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 14-1143Opinion Date: November 9, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Sergeant Baker, with a warrant, approached Leija’s car at a restaurant and stated that he was under arrest. Leija sped onto I-27. Leija led Baker and Texas Trooper Rodriguez on an 18-minute chase at 85-110 mph. Leija twice called dispatch, claiming to have a gun and threatening to shoot the officers. The dispatcher broadcast Leija’s threats and a report that Leija might be intoxicated. Officer Ducheneaux, who was trained in using tire spike strips, manned a spike strip beneath an overpass. Trooper Mullenix drove to that overpass, where he radioed a plan to shoot and disable the car. Rodriguez responded “10– 4.” Mullenix asked the dispatcher to inform his supervisor, Byrd, of his plan Before receiving a response, Mullenix took a shooting position. Byrd responded to “see if the spikes work first.” Whether Mullenix heard the response is disputed. Deputy Shipman informed Mullenix that another officer was beneath the overpass. Approximately three minutes after Mullenix took his position, he spotted Leija’s vehicle and fired six shots. Leija’s car engaged the spikes, hit the median, and rolled. Leija was killed by Mullenix’s shots. Apparently, no shots hit the radiator, hood, or engine block. Leija’s estate sued Mullenix under 42 U. S. C. 1983. Mullenix unsuccessfully sought summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that immediacy of risk was a disputed fact. The Supreme Court reversed on the qualified immunity question, declining to address whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation. Mullenix confronted a reportedly intoxicated fugitive, set on avoiding capture through high-speed vehicular flight, who twice had threatened to shoot police officers, and who was moments away from encountering an officer; whatever the wisdom of Mullenix’s choice, Supreme Court precedents do not indicate that he “beyond debate” acted unreasonably.
http://j.st/4eg4View Case
View Case On: Justia Legal Information Institute Google Scholar

Mullins v. Cyranek

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-3817Opinion Date: November 9, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Cincinnati officers, assigned to provide security outside the Black Family Reunion at Sawyer Point, were informed that young African American males were throwing guns over the fence to individuals who were inside. After Cyranek and other officers approached, those individuals ran toward downtown. The officers were then told to provide extra security at Government Square and Fountain Square. Cyranek saw 16-year-old Mullins walking from Fountain Square and recognized two individuals with Mullins from Sawyer Point. Cyranek observed Mullins holding and trying to conceal his right side, which led Cyranek to suspect that Mullins possessed a weapon. Cyranek followed him, but did not alert other officers or radio in his concerns. During a confrontation that lasted two minutes, Cyranek held Mullins to the ground, Mullins brandished a gun and gained enough freedom from Cyranek’s grip to throw his weapon 10-15 feet behind Cyranek. As Mullins threw his gun, Cyranek rose from his crouched position and fired twice. Video footage shows that, at most, five seconds elapsed between when Mullins threw his firearm and when Cyranek fired his final shot. Cyranek retrieved Mullins’s gun and placed it near Mullins’s feet. Mullins was pronounced dead at a hospital. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity, calling the shooting a “tragedy,” but finding Cyranek’s split-second decision to use deadly force “not objectively unreasonable.”
http://j.st/4eg3View Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State of Texas v. United States

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Docket: 15-40333Opinion Date: November 9, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Three movants appealed the denial of their motion to intervene in State of Texas v. United States, where 26 states seek injunctive relief against the United States and several officials of DHS to prevent them from implementing a program entitled “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” (DAPA). Movants are aliens who have lived in the United States for more than ten years, currently live in the Rio Grande Valley, and have minor children who are United States citizens. Movants believe that they are likely to receive grants of deferred action if DAPA goes into effect. The court reversed the district court's order denying intervention because movants satisfy the requirements for intervention by right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The court remanded to the district court.
http://j.st/4egcView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Matthews v. White

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 13-5901Opinion Date: November 10, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law
In 1982, Matthews was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence have been affirmed on direct appeal and in post-conviction proceedings, including in federal court. Having exhausted his judicial remedies, Matthews intends to petition the Governor of Kentucky for clemency under section 77 of the Kentucky Constitution, based on mitigating factors related to his neuropsychological health. The district court denied his request for funding under 18 U.S.C. 3599 to pay for a neuropsychological evaluation to support this argument, but apparently relied on an incorrect rule that section 3599 funding is available only for use in federal proceedings and did not otherwise explain its reasons for denying the request. The Sixth CIrcuit vacated and remanded, noting evidence that in the decades since the 1982 evaluation was conducted, the Bender Gestalt Test administered to Matthews has become “very outdated, rarely used today, and [is] not helpful to gain a full and reliable understanding of the extent of Matthews’ neuropsychological deficits and brain damage.”
http://j.st/4egLView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Board v. Bradshaw

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-3199Opinion Date: November 10, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
In September, 2010, Board pleaded guilty to drug trafficking with forfeiture specifications, a felony that carried a mandatory prison term of three-10 years under Ohio law. His plea agreement recommended a seven-year sentence. The court sentenced Board to seven years in prison. Board did not timely appeal his sentence. In June, 2011, Board filed a pro se notice of appeal and motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, asserting that both the court and counsel failed to inform him of his appellate rights. The Ohio Court of Appeals summarily denied Board’s motion. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the case in December, 2011. Board sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that he was denied due process and equal protection when the trial court failed to inform him of his appellate rightsand his subsequent motion for leave to file a delayed appeal was denied, and ineffective assistance. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. Board’s Ohio motion was a “properly filed” motion for collateral relief that tolled AEDPA’s statute of limitations from that date until December 21, 2011, when the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Board’s appeal of the denial of his motion.
http://j.st/4egbView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Davis v. Comm’r of Corr.

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court Docket:SC19286Opinion Date: November 17, 2015
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. The plea agreement stated that Petitioner would receive a total sentence of between twenty and twenty-five years’ imprisonment and that defense counsel had a right to argue for a sentence beneath the twenty-five year cap. At sentencing, defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor’s recommendation that the trial court should impose the maximum sentence under the agreement. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to twenty-five years imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court denied relief, determining that Petitioner failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The Appellate Court affirmed
...

[Message clipped]  View entire message
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:Social Media
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)