Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Jenkins was convicted in Massachusetts state court in 2005 of the first-degree murder of his cousin and was sentenced to life in prison. He did not testify. The state trial court denied Jenkins's motion for a new trial, and the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed. The federal district court denied his habeas petition and granted a certificate of appealability only on the issue of Jenkins's waiver of his right to testify in his own defense. Jenkins argued that his attorney unilaterally decided that he would not testify. The First Circuit affirmed the denial, engaging in deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) because the SJC adjudicated Jenkins's claim on the merits . Because there is no Supreme Court precedent clearly establishing the proper standard and burdens for assessing whether a criminal defendant has validly waived his right to testify on facts like these, Jenkins is not entitled to habeas relief. His claim depends on too broad a characterization of waiver of federal constitutional rights, not drawn from cases of like circumstances. View "Jenkins v. Bergeron" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of sixty months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition and erred in classifying his prior convictions and convictions of a crime of violence for purposes of calculating his base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress but vacated the remanded for resentencing proceedings, holding (1) there was no unlawful seizure at the time that Defendant contended one occurred, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2) was erroneous. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

Michael McLaughlin, James Fitzpatrick, and Bernard Morosco, all of whom worked for a public agency responsible for providing low-income housing, were indicted for knowingly and unlawfully conspiring to defraud the United States and its agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. McLaughlin pleaded guilty. After a jury trial, Fitzpatrick and Morosco were found guilty as charged. Fitzpatrick and Morosco appealed, raising a number of arguments. The First Circuit affirmed Fitzpatrick’s conviction and sentence, denied as moot Fitzpatrick’s earlier-filed motion asking the Court to stay his sentence pending appeal, and affirmed Morosco’s conviction, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on any of their arguments. View "United States v. Morosco" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were property owners who privately leased units in Worcester, Massachusetts to students from the College of the Holy Cross. Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that the City of Worcester engaged in a scheme, through its zoning and code enforcement officials and entities, to selectively enforce the Worcester Zoning Ordinance and state Lodging House Act in order to pressure Holy Cross to make voluntary payments in lieu of property taxes to Worcester. The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. View "College Hill Props., LLC v. City of Worcester" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a piece of land with plans to develop the property. In response to the opposition Defendants’ mounted to Plaintiffs’ plan, Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law rights. Plaintiffs also alleged First Amendment retaliation claims, a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, and a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, all with corresponding state-law claims. The district court granted judgment in favor of Defendants due to Plaintiffs’ failure to state any viable claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the allegations put forth by Plaintiffs were insufficient to survive the pleading stage. View "Najas Realty, LLC v. Seekonk Water Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to armed bank robbery and related firearm charges. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of a residence by police. At issue on appeal was whether the police had a reasonable belief that another man, Tommy Smith, lived at and would be present at the residence when they entered the residence in order to execute an arrest warrant for Smith. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that it was reasonable for the police to believe that Smith lived at the residence and that he would be there at the time of the police entry. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of individuals and advocacy groups, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Article 68 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico and other laws of the Commonwealth that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. After the lower court dismissed Petitioners’ claims, the United States Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. All parties subsequently agreed that the Commonwealth’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The First Circuit agreed and vacated the judgment. On remand, however, the district court did not enter judgment in favor of Petitioners but, instead, issued a memorandum concluding that the Commonwealth’s ban was not unconstitutional because the “right to same-sex marriage” had not been determined to apply in Puerto Rico. Petitioners requested a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to enter judgment in their favor striking down the ban as unconstitutional. Respondents moved for leave to join in Petitioners’ request. The First Circuit granted Petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus and Respondents’ motion to join in the petition, holding that the district court erred in ruling that the ban is not unconstitutional and directly contradicted the First Circuit’s mandate and compounded its error by failing to enter a final judgment to enable an appeal in ordinary course. View "In re Conde-Vidal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a discrimination and retaliation suit against his Employer, alleging illegal harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it did not employ the minimum number of employees necessary to qualify as an “employer” under either the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to Employer’s motion for summary judgment, attaching a post-discovery sworn statement in support of his opposition. Employer requested that the district court strike the sworn statement. The district court granted Employer’s motions for summary judgment and to strike Employer’s sworn statement under the sham affidavit doctrine. The district court then sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel for filing the sham affidavit after he received repeated warnings in earlier cases not to do so. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) striking Plaintiff’s sworn statement; (2) granting summary judgment to Employer on the basis that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing that Employer had enough employees to qualify as a covered employer under either the ADA or ADEA; and (3) ordering sanctions. View "Escribano-Reyes v. Prof’l HEPA Certificate Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial in federal district court, Defendant was convicted of sex trafficking and transporting minors to engage in prostitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s argument that the indictment was defective based on its failure to allege facts to support the aiding and abetting charges failed because Defendant could not show plain error and because any error would be harmless; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence from the victim’s cell phone; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for production of classified Department of Children and Families records that would purportedly show that the victim had previously offered men sex in exchange for a place to stay; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Defendant had prostituted and physically abused another woman; (5) the government did not commit misconduct in its closing argument by impermissibly commenting on Defendant’s failure to take the stand; and (6) the district court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury regarding the knowledge requirement of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a). View "United States v. Gemma" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer, during the course of a Terry stop, conducted a pat-frisk of a fanny pack that Defendant was wearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the facts were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous, and therefore, the law enforcement officer was justified in touching the fanny pack. View "United States v. Cardona-Vicente" on Justia Law