Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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 rights and 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. View "Board v. Bradshaw" on Justia 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.” View "Mullins v. Cyranek" on Justia 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. View "Shadrick v. Hopkins Cnty." on Justia Law

In 1987, Abdur’Rahman was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit first-degree murder, and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. Abdur’Rahman unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. Abdur’Rahman sought 28 U.S.C. 2254 relief. The Sixth Circuit vacated an order of habeas relief, concluding that Abdur’Rahman was not prejudiced by counsel’s performance. Abdur’Rahman filed a Rule 60(b) motion. The Sixth Circuit held that the prosecution did not violate Brady with respect to the codefendant’s pretrial statements and that trial counsel interviewed the police officer about, and could have obtained a separate report, concerning an incident following arrest. A cumulative error claim was defaulted as not raised in state court. In 2013, Abdur’Rahman sought to reopen claims in light of the Supreme Court holding, Martinez v. Ryan (2012). Abdur’Rahman specified: cumulative error affecting sentencing arising from prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance and an improper jury instruction regarding accomplice testimony and counsel’s failure to challenge the instruction. After the district court denied relief and issued its certificate of applicability, Abdur’Rahman moved for remand in light of intervening Sixth Circuit decisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and denied remand.As a change in decisional law, Marinez did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. None of the claims involve substantial claims of ineffective assistance that were procedurally defaulted by inadequate post-conviction counsel. View "Abdur'Rahman v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Dearborn hosted Arab International Festival, 1995-2012, attracting 250,000 people with entertainment and food. The 2012 Festival had 85 vendors and information tables, including several affiliated with Christian and other groups. Bible Believers attended in 2011, bearing “Christian signs, banners, and t-shirts” that provoked confrontations. Their attorney asserted that the sheriff sided with “violent Muslims” and demanded protection. Counsel responded that the sheriff “owes a duty to the public as a whole and … cannot protect everyone from the foreseeable consequences that come from speech that is ... perhaps intended to elicit a potentially negative reaction.” The sheriff claims to have allocated more personnel to the Festival than to “the World Series or the President.” In 2012, Believers displayed messages including: “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder,” a severed pig’s head on a stick, and references to a “pedophile” prophet. The crowd threw debris, and shoved a Believer to the ground. Officers detained debris-throwers and attempted crowd control. Believers continued to preach until officers escorted the Believers out. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the county defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but later reversed, reasoning that “Speech is often provocative,” and the defendants impermissibly cut off the Believers’ protected speech, placed an undue burden on their exercise of religion, and treated them disparately from other speakers at the Festival, solely on the basis of the views that they espoused. View "Bible Believers v. Wayne County" on Justia Law

Coleman was convicted of armed robbery, as a felon-in-possession of a firearm, and of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony and was sentenced to 22-32 years in prison. Coleman filed an unsuccessful pro se motion for a new trial. His direct appeal was unsuccessful. Coleman then moved for relief from judgment, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his appellate attorney failed to argue that he was allowed to proceed without counsel on his motion for a new trial. The state trial judge denied Coleman’s motion, noting that he had warned Coleman against proceeding without counsel, albeit at the end of the hearing rather than the outset. The Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The district court denied his federal habeas petition on the merits. The Sixth Circuit granted review, then vacated the COA as improvidently granted, The Supreme Court has never held that a hearing on a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, so there is no “clearly established Federal law” creating a right to counsel at a hearing on a motion for a new trial and no basis on which Coleman’s appellate attorney could have argued before the Michigan Court of Appeals that a violation of the Sixth Amendment had occurred. View "Coleman v. Bergh" on Justia Law