Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In February 2003, Devin Bennett was found guilty of capital murder, and a jury sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Bennett’s conviction and sentence on appeal. In 2006, Bennett sought leave from the Court to file a motion for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court ultimately determined that Bennett was entitled to seek post-conviction relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. Bennett filed his PCR petition on October 1, 2008, and an amended petition on May 16, 2012. On March 25, 2021, the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, and it ultimately denied Bennett’s amended petition. Bennett appealed again, but the Supreme Court upheld the denial: "while counsel might be faulted for not more thoroughly investigating the alternative mitigation case Bennett presented at the PCR hearing, we cannot find any reasonable probability that doing so would have led to a different outcome. In fact, although Bennett had fifteen years to assemble an alternative mitigation case, we agree with the trial judge that the additional evidence would have hurt Bennett more than it helped him." View "Bennett v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Nathan Lollis and his codefendants, Marcel Smith and Charles Wells, were convicted by jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Lollis received a life sentence for murder and twenty years for conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court denied Lollis’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. He appealed, raising sufficiency of the evidence as the sole issue on appeal. Finding no error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lollis v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Appellant sued the Northside Independent School District, arguing that the District failed to properly accommodate her hearing impairment as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the District, holding that Appellant’s ADA claim was barred by 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(l), the “exhaustion requirement” of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the summary judgment order; the court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of Section 1415(l). The court explained that the district court erred when it held that Appellant did not have a standalone claim under the ADA because the gravamen of her complaint was the denial of a FAPE. Under the plain text of Section 1415(l), “nothing in [the IDEA]” “restricts or limits” Appellant’s ability to assert her claim “under . . . the Americans with Disabilities Act.” The court noted that as Fry explained, “the IDEA does not prevent a plaintiff from asserting claims under [other federal] laws”—including “the ADA”—“even if . . . those claims allege the denial of an appropriate public education (much as an IDEA claim would). Further, the court wrote that it cannot affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment, as it would return the Circuit to the Smith era—an erroneous decision that would have “consequences . . . for a great many children with disabilities and their parents,” and one which Congress directly abandoned by enacting Section 1415(l). View "Lartigue v. Northside Indep" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to a charge of second-degree murder. Appellant admitted as true an enhancement allegation regarding the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. The trial court sentenced Appellant to prison for 15 years to life. Appellant filed a petition for resentencing in the trial court, claiming he could not be convicted of murder based on the 2019 changes to the law. After giving the parties a chance to brief this issue, the court denied the petition, concluding Appellant was ineligible for resentencing because his conviction had occurred after Senate Bill No. 1437 became effective.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s petition. The court explained that Appellant is ineligible for resentencing for two reasons. First, in order to be resentenced, the charging document filed against Appellant must have allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of murder liability that is now invalid. This requirement is not met here. The prosecution filed the information against Appellant in 2020. Thus, when this criminal proceeding was initiated, the prosecution was precluded from proving the murder charge under a theory of imputed malice. This deficiency amply demonstrates that the trial court did not err when it denied Appellant’s petition for resentencing. Further, when Appellant entered his change of plea, the now invalid theories of murder liability had already been eliminated. Consequently, Appellant has already received the benefits of Senate Bill No. 1437. View "P. v. Reyes" on Justia Law

Escorted by an officer who had followed him from the scene of a shooting, Hudson entered the Medical Center seeking emergency treatment for a gunshot wound. The officer stood outside Hudson’s hospital room. Medical staff discovered Hudson was concealing “something plastic” in his mouth and spent nearly 20 minutes admonishing Hudson to spit it out before he finally complied, revealing a device used to convert a firearm into a fully automatic weapon. Hudson moved to suppress the device, arguing that the medical staff acted as government agents in conducting a warrantless search.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Knowledge and inaction alone are insufficient to establish an agency relationship. There must be some evidence of government participation in or affirmative encouragement of the private search before a court will hold it unconstitutional. Viewed in context, the officer answered questions but did not direct the medical staff to act in any particular way. The facts supported a finding that medical staff acted with the purpose of providing medical treatment, not assisting law enforcement. The court noted that both the officer and the medical staff apparently assumed that Hudson was concealing drugs, voicing concerns that the suspected drugs could cause him to overdose. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law

At approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 15, 2018, Alyssa Houston, Heather Lamb, and Lamb’s eight-year-old daughter exited Lamb’s house and departed in Lamb’s vehicle to go shopping. Houston noticed that Appellant Angelo Weeden was following directly behind Lamb’s vehicle in his Volkswagen Jetta, tailing them down a narrow street. When Lamb drove off of the main road to enter a residential area in the North Side neighborhood of the City of Pittsburgh (the “City”), Appellant pulled around the driver’s side of her vehicle and blocked its forward movement. Appellant then exited his vehicle and approached the passenger side of Lamb’s car, prompting Houston, who was sitting in the passenger-side front seat, to lock the car door. As Appellant aggressively attempted to pull the passenger-side front door open, Lamb’s daughter yelled “gun,” and Lamb quickly placed her car in reverse, backed around Appellant’s vehicle, and began to drive away. Simultaneously, the occupants of Lamb’s vehicle heard four gunshots, two of which struck Lamb’s vehicle on the rear passenger side. Consequently, Lamb drove to the police station, and she and Houston reported the incident. The following day, Appellant was arrested, and the Commonwealth charged him with one count each of aggravated assault, person not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle, and three counts of recklessly endangering another person. At trial, a veteran detective testified about the police department’s use of a gunfire detection program, “ShotSpotter.” The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review was whether a printed summary created by a computerized system, “ShotSpotter,” which contemporaneously collected data regarding potential gunshots and transmitted the same to the subscribing police force, fell within the purview of the Confrontation Clause when used as evidence in the course of a criminal prosecution. The Court concluded that, under the circumstances presented, the admission of the document did not run afoul of Appellant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, his conviction was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Weeden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was filming a protest when Officer Olsten pepper sprayed the crowd. She sued Officer Olsten, Commissioner Hayden, and the City of St. Louis for violating her First Amendment rights, among other things. The district court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her First Amendment claim against Officer Olsten and her municipal liability claim against the City. She also argued that her state law causes of action should be “reinstated.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that De Mian’s actions motivated Officer Olsten to spray in her direction. So the lack of a causal connection is “so free from doubt as to justify taking this question from the jury.” Plaintiff argued that she is a well-known reporter and is readily identifiable because she is in a wheelchair. But this fact, without more, is insufficient for a jury to infer that Officer Olsten knew or recognized her. She also speculates that Officer Olsten may have been retaliating against her for filming. But “there is no evidence Officer Olsten observed her filming or deployed pepper spray in retaliation for her doing so.” View "Heather De Mian v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Defendants “Divina” and “Javier” were parents to “Ignacio,” born in 2015; “Josefina,” born in 2016; “Antonia,” born in 2019; and “Ian,” born in 2020. The record reflected extensive evidence of domestic violence involving Divina and Javier. In July 2018, the trial court granted the Division of Child Protection and Permanency care, custody, and supervision of Ignacio and Josefina, citing concerns about continuing domestic violence, Divina’s inability to provide a safe environment for the children, and Divina’s mental health. Antonia and Ian were each removed from the home shortly after birth. Ignacio and Josefina were placed together in a resource home; Antonia and Ian were each placed in different resource homes. The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether trial courts could still consider the relationships between children and resource families under the fourth prong of the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4), despite a 2021 Amendment that precluded consideration of those relationships under the test’s second prong, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2). The Court concluded that the New Jersey Legislature did not intend to bar trial courts from considering evidence of the child’s relationship with the resource family when addressing the fourth prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The Court determined the trial court properly considered the relationships between the children and their resource families, and its determination as to all four prongs of the test were grounded in substantial and credible evidence in the record. View "DCPP v. D.C.A. and J.J.C.B." on Justia Law

Defendant contested her convictions for transferring a firearm to a prohibited person and for making false statements while purchasing a firearm, as well as the sentence imposed on her resulting from these convictions. She argued that these convictions run afoul of In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,(“Bruen”), and that her upwardly varying sentence was substantively unreasonable.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant’s arguments concerning her convictions failed plain error review because there was no clear or obvious error, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upwardly varying sentence. The court explained that the district court gave a fulsome explanation of the reasons underpinning its decision to vary on Defendant’s sentence. The court explained that it made clear that it was prepared to upwardly vary even more but for the very factors to which Defendant says it did not give sufficient weight. According to the district court, the “sentence would be much higher” had it not considered these factors. Moreover, the court explained that the sentence imposed was well within a reasonable variance from the guidelines. It was only 36 months above the top of the guidelines range and 15 years below the statutory maximum sentence. View "USA v. Sanches" on Justia Law

S.C., a high school freshman, was unwillingly video-recorded engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with a male student on school property. The video was shared online and other students began to harass S.C. Students then began harassing and threatening S.C. and her family. S.C. and her mother met with Detective, Carrigan, who assumed the video-recording and sexual encounter were consensual and repeatedly rejected S.C.’s statements and information about the threats, suggesting that S.C. had participated in producing child pornography. Following another meeting, Principal Kessler denied being informed that the encounter was not consensual or of any harassment, although a list of students making threats was found in Kessler’s file. Kessler suspended S.C., after which she was expected to return to school. The Assistant Principal also declined to address the threats. S.C. entered an in-patient facility and continued coursework remotely. Because the threats continued, her family moved to a different county. S.C.'s grades dropped substantially, she began abusing drugs and alcohol, and she engaged in self-harm. Before the incident, the district already had “a widespread problem of students circulating sexual pictures and videos of themselves and their peers.” The district was aware of the problem.S.C. alleged deliberate indifference to student-on-student harassment before she was assaulted; deliberate indifference during the investigation; and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims. S.C.’s Title IX “before” claim was dismissed. The court found the district liable for emotional distress and other damages on the Title IX “after” claim, but not liable under section 1983. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded the Title IX and Section 1983 “before” claims and affirmed that the district is liable on S.C.’s Title IX “after” claim. View "S.C. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County" on Justia Law