Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Emiliano Martinez pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered, short-barrel shotgun in violation of federal law. Under his plea agreement, Martinez reserved the right to appeal his sentence if the district court determined that his total offense level was greater than 23 under the 2014 United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court calculated his total offense level as 27 after applying a four-level enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. Central to this enhancement was the district court’s finding that Martinez had possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense: a burglary of the home from which the shotgun Martinez later possessed was stolen. On appeal, Martinez argued that the district court clearly erred at sentencing when it considered the hearsay statements of Eduardo Hernandez, who, in a police interview, had admitted to committing the burglary with Martinez. Martinez argued that Hernandez’s hearsay statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Michael Smith was charged with two counts of murder for the killings of Sarath Pulluru and Janet Moore. He was convicted and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal and denied his two applications for postconviction relief. Smith sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing, as relevant here, that: (1) he was ineligible for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled; (2) that the state trial court had erred in admitting Smith’s videotaped confession to the murders at trial; (3) that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in the presentation of his mitigation case; and (4) that cumulative error rendered his trial unfair. The district court denied habeas relief, and Smith appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Smith’s request for a certificate of appealability on these four issues, and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court found that Smith failed to demonstrate that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ rejection of his claims was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Smith v. Duckworth" on Justia Law

Jason Holland and his brother were accused of robbing a driver of her purse on a rural Oklahoma highway, and then unlawfully entering a home after their getaway car had a flat tire. At a joint trial, the state court allowed, as relevant here, two pieces of evidence to be introduced: (1) one of the victims’ statements that she saw Holland had Nazi tattoos on his arm, and (2) the other victim’s statement that she heard Holland’s brother confess to the robbery. The second victim thought she saw a black man in the back seat of Holland's car when the brother allegedly piped up saying “I did it. I did it. We don’t associate with black guys.” This evidence was admitted without objection and both brothers were convicted of the crimes. After his convictions became final on state direct review, Holland brought in federal court a petition for habeas relief. The district court granted relief on two grounds: (1) the introduction of the above evidence at trial deprived Holland of a fundamentally fair trial, and (2) Holland’s trial counsel’s failure to object to the evidence deprived him of constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Applying the deferential standard of review contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to the holding of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court law in finding that the evidence at issue here did not substantially affect the outcome of the trial. View "Holland v. Allbaugh" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, Defendants-Appellants Adan Molina, Fidencio Verdin-Garcia, and Miguel Romero appealed denials of their respective motions for sentence reduction. Defendants relied upon U.S.S.G. Amendments 782 & 788 which retroactively lowered the base offense levels for many drug quantities listed in the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, defendants sought reversal of these denials on the basis that the district courts erred by failing to address their material, nonfrivolous arguments. Finding no reversible error in either case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Verdin-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee Clifton Bennett pleaded guilty to federal child pornography charges and the district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months of imprisonment to be followed by several conditions of supervised release. Bennett and the government each contended the district court erred at sentencing: the government argued the court should have found Bennett had a prior Colorado conviction relating to child pornography, which would trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence; Bennett challenged the imposition of special condition of supervised release that required he undergo mandatory testing for sexual attraction to minors. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Bennett’s prior Colorado misdemeanor conviction for sexual exploitation of a child "relates to" child pornography, and he was therefore eligible for the mandatory minimum. With regard to Bennett's challenge, the Court was "faced with too many speculative factors, too far in the future, to make a decision sounding in constitutional principles, so we dismiss Bennett’s cross-appeal without prejudice on ripeness grounds." View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

In 1998, Juston Shaw was convicted in Texas state court on a charge of sexual assault. Roughly ten years later, he moved to Oklahoma. When he did, his sexual-assault conviction triggered application of the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act. Shaw challenged his registration obligation, arguing the Oklahoma Act constituted unconstitutional retroactive punishment. The district court disagreed, holding that the statute's retroactive application didn't amount to punishment. On appeal, the issue presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether Shaw’s restrictions on reporting, residency, and loitering constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Responding in the negative, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Shaw v. Patton" on Justia Law

J.S. is the mother of M.S., a child covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. was a residential student at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (“USDB”). Believing USDB was not complying with IDEA’s procedural requirements and was not providing M.S. with free appropriate public education (FAPE), J.S. sought a due process hearing. Unsatisfied with the relief she obtained in that hearing, J.S. filed a civil action in federal court, and appealed the district court decision granting her additional limited relief. She asserts the district court erred when it: (1) delegated its authority to resolve the propriety of M.S.’s residential placement to members of the team tasked with developing M.S.’s individualized education program (“IEP”); and (2) granted her only a partial award of attorneys’ fees. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court delegated the issue of M.S.’s residential placement to her IEP team and that such delegation "[was] at odds with" 20 U.S.C. 1415. The Court remanded this case to the district court to resolve the issue of M.S.’s residential placement and reconsideration of the attorney fee award. View "M.S. v. Utah School for the Deaf" on Justia Law

Brian Von Behren was serving a three-year term of supervised release stemming from a 2005 conviction for distribution of child pornography. One of the conditions of his release was modified to require that he successfully complete a sex offender treatment program, including a sexual history polygraph requiring him to answer questions regarding whether he had committed sexual crimes for which he was never charged. Von Behren contended that the polygraph condition violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court disagreed and held that the polygraph exam questions did not pose a danger of incrimination in the constitutional sense. Von Behren refused to answer the sexual history questions, thereby requiring the treatment provider to expel him from the program and subjecting him to potential revocation of his supervised release for violating the condition of supervision. The Tenth Circuit reversed on the Fifth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Von Behren" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned two suits: one in state and one in federal court, and statutory limitations on the power of the federal court to enjoin the state court case. In the federal case, the Utah Attorney General and the Board of Tooele County Commissioners sued the federal government under the Quiet Title Act, attempting to quiet title in favor of Utah for hundreds of rights of way in Tooele County, Utah. Five environmental groups opposed this suit, and the federal district court permitted the groups to intervene. In the state court case, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Michael Abdo, a Tooele County resident, claimed that the Utah officials lacked authority under state law to prosecute the quiet-title action in federal court. The Utah officials asked the federal court to enjoin the Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo from prosecuting the state-court case. The federal district court granted the request and entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo for an indefinite period of time. The Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and (2) did the federal district court have the authority to enjoin the state-court suit? After concluding it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the Tenth Circuit then concluded that the federal district court did not have authority to enjoin the Utah state court. "The All Writs Act grants a district court expansive authority to issue 'all writs necessary.' But the Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from enjoining state-court suits." An exception exists when an injunction is "in aid of" the federal court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. This exception applies when: (1) the federal and state court exercise in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over the same res; and (2) the federal court is the first to take possession of the res. These circumstances are absent because the state-court action was neither in rem nor quasi in rem. Thus, the district court’s order violated the Anti-Injunction Act. View "Tooele County v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Robert McCormick unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas relief from his conviction for child sexual abuse. He alleged the State of Oklahoma violated his due process rights when the prosecution suppressed evidence regarding the credentials of a witness who testified falsely that she was a certified sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse) at the time of trial. After review of the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the SANE nurse was a member of the prosecution team. As such, the Court imputed her knowledge of her own lack of credentials to the prosecutor, who was obligated to disclose this impeachment evidence to the defense. Accordingly, the Court held the prosecution suppressed favorable, material evidence in violation of McCormick’s rights. The Court reversed the district court and granted McCormick’s petition for habeas relief. View "McCormick v. Parker" on Justia Law