Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed from judgments following a jury trial that resulted in their convictions for racketeering and related offenses. Defendants all contended, inter alia, that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the relatedness and continuity factors required to establish a pattern of racketeering under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d). The court concluded that the district court's RICO instruction was legally erroneous and this error was prejudicial with regard to Chris Cain. With regard to the racketeering convictions of David Cain, Jr. and Jamie Soha, however, applying a plain error standard of review, the court concluded that it was not reasonably likely that a properly instructed jury would have failed to find a pattern of racketeering. Accordingly, the court reversed the RICO convictions with regard to Chris Cain only and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed the convictions in all other respects.

In 1988 petitioner was convicted of first-degree robbery. After his release, he was arrested for murder and attempted murder and, in 2001, entered a plea of guilty in New York state court. Treating the attempted murder as a second violent felony, the state court imposed three consecutive terms of 25 years. The Department of Correctional Services determined that an undischarged portion of the robbery prison term should be added to the 2001 sentence. Direct review ended in 2005; from 2005-2008, petitioner pursued post-conviction motions in state court. In 2008, he filed a federal petition for habeas corpus, which was dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The petition did not mention the DOC sentencing calculation. The Second Circuit affirmed. State applications for post-conviction relief did not toll the one-year statute of limitations. Section2244(d)(2) limits tolling to those applications for post-conviction or other collateral review that are made with respect to the pertinent judgment: the 2001 conviction and sentence. The applications at issue were directed neither to the conviction nor to the sentence; they concerned only a post-conviction administrative determination that the sentence ran consecutively to the earlier undischarged prison term.

Petitioner was convicted in a New York state court of second-degree murder. Petitioner subsequently appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The court held that because the evidence was sufficient to support petitioner's conviction of "depraved indifference" murder under New York law, his counsel's failure to preserve a claim of insufficiency in the trial court was not prejudicial.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree, arising out of the death of his estranged wife. Petitioner appealed from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner contended that by upholding his conviction for depraved indifference murder, the state courts unreasonably applied the rule of Jackson v. Virginia that a jury find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying the law as it existed after defendant's conviction became final in July 2004, the court found that although the evidence of "significantly heightened recklessness," was slim at best, giving the state courts and the jury the utmost deference, the court could not find that the evidence was so completely lacking that no rational jury could have found defendant guilty of depraved indifference murder. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1 et seq., and the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his conspiring with others in a scheme to illegally purchase SOCAR, a state-owned oil company, by bribing the Azerbaijani president and other officials. Defendant appealed his conviction. The court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury regarding overt acts, conscious avoidance, insufficiency of the mens rea charge, and proposed bad faith instructions; the district court did not err in allowing his conviction on the false statements count to stand because it was supported by sufficient evidence; and the district court did not err in not permitting testimony by the vice president for investments at Columbia University, not permitting cross-examination of Thomas Farrell, and permitting a portion of a certain memorandum referencing a conversation as a prior consistent statement. The court examined the remainder of defendant's arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.

Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants had retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that the speech on which plaintiff based her claim was not protected under the First Amendment and that the individual defendants had qualified immunity from suit. The district court held, alternatively, that summary judgment would have been appropriate if the speech had been protected, because the school district would have fired plaintiff even in the absence of the speech. Plaintiff appealed. The court held that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment; that appellees' rebuttal was subject to credibility questions and hence could not be resolved as a matter of law; and that appellees were not, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to qualified immunity.

Petitioner appealed from an order of the district court following an evidentiary hearing on a remand pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, denying petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to set aside certain convictions on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that petitioner's request for an expansion of the certificate of appealability was denied because his submission failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also held that there was no error in the district court's conclusion that there was no deficient performance by counsel with respect to the failure-to-advise aspect of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim or his claim that his attorneys overrode his desire to testify. The court saw no basis on the present appeal for concluding, as to any count, that there was any reasonable probability that, had there been objections, the jury would not have found petitioner guilty. Thus, petitioner could not show that the failures to object satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test and this facet of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was properly rejected. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Appellants appealed from an order of the district court denying hotel owners' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Chapter 225 of the Laws of New York State of 2010, which prohibited rental of hotel rooms in certain types of buildings for less than 30 days. Appellants alleged that Chapter 225 would destroy their budget friendly hotel businesses, under which they rent out a large number of the units in their buildings on a temporary basis to tourists. The court affirmed the district court's order and held that appellants failed to make a sufficient showing of irreparable injury.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for physically obstructing access to a reproductive services facility in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), 18 U.S.C. 248. On appeal, defendant contended, inter alia, that he was entitled to a jury trial as opposed to a bench trial. Because the court concluded that defendant was charged with a petty offense, the court agreed with the district court that defendant was not entitled to a jury trial.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing her disability-discrimination complaint against JetBlue. Plaintiff alleged that she required wheelchair assistance as a result of her disability and that JetBlue discriminated against her by failing to provide timely wheelchair assistance. The court affirmed the order of the district court because no private right of action existed for a violation of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. 41705, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12181-12189, did not apply to services provided by an air carrier in an airport terminal used primarily to facilitate air transportation.