Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 and, in the alternative, coram nobis relief. His Section 2255 motion and his coram nobis petition were both denied by the district court. In this appeal, Defendant challenged only the denial of his petition for coram nobis relief, asserting that the court erred and abused its discretion in so ruling. Defendant maintains that he is entitled to a writ of coram nobis because (1) he was convicted in that very court in 1993 under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), (2) he has served his sentence for that offense, and (3) the sole predicate for his 1993 conviction — a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 111 — is no longer a crime of violence.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the two issues involve (1) whether a violation of Section 111(b) constitutes a crime of violence and (2) whether Defendant has shown that his 1993 conviction does not rest on a Section 111(b) violation. The court wrote that an error of the most fundamental character has not been shown, Defendant is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying coram nobis relief. The court explained that Defendant was obliged to show that his 1993 conviction rested solely on Section 111(a). Defendant has not carried that burden, and he therefore has not satisfied the fourth requirement for coram nobis relief. View "US v. Antonio McDaniel" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State’s application to review the court of appeal’s determination that the State failed to prove that 16-year-old D.W. was the person who entered a sheriff’s vehicle and stole firearms from inside it, and therefore that the evidence was insufficient to support the delinquency adjudication for burglary involving a firearm, La. R.S. 14:62, and theft of a firearm, La. R.S. 14:67.15. After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found the State presented sufficient evidence that D.W. was a principal, in accordance with La. R.S. 14:24, to these felony-grade delinquent acts regardless of whether he personally entered the vehicle and took the firearms that were inside it himself. Therefore, the Court reversed the ruling of the court of appeal and reinstated the delinquency adjudication and dispositions imposed by the juvenile court, which were then affirmed. View "Louisiana in the interest of D.W." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review involved the constitutionality a part of the Louisiana Ethics Code, La. R.S. 42:1113(B). Specifically, the Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs-respondents, The Cartesian Company, Inc. (“Cartesian”) and Greg Gachassin (collectively “Plaintiffs”). The trial court ruled that the words “in any way interested in” contained in La. R.S. 42:1113(B) “are hereby struck down, and declared of no effect, as violating both the Federal and State Constitutions because these words . . . are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad . . . as interpreted and applied” to Plaintiffs. The trial court also denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants-respondents, Division of Administration Law Ethics Adjudicatory Board (Panel A) (“EAB”) and the Louisiana Board of Ethics (“BOE”)(collectively “BOE”). Defendants appealed, and the matter was transferred by the appellate court as a direct appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, § 5(D). The Supreme Court found the trial court erred in finding the phrase “in any way interested in” facially unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, it reversed this portion of the judgment. However, the Supreme Court found the trial court correctly determined the phrase was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Plaintiffs and unconstitutionally vague on its face as to all of its applications. As a result, the phrase “or be in any way interested in” was hereby struck from La. R.S. 42:1113(B). The remainder of the statute remained viable and could stand. Accordingly, this portion of the trial court’s judgment was affirmed, amended in part, and affirmed as amended. View "The Cartesian Company, inc. v. Div. of Admin. Law Ethics Adj. Bd. Panel, et al." on Justia Law

This is an appeal from an order granting Defendants Seyfarth Shaw LLP (Seyfarth) and Colleen Regan a portion of the fees they requested pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.161 (the anti-SLAPP2 statute) and resulting judgment. The trial court awarded the fees without finally ruling on Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Plaintiffs immediately thereafter dismissed their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed the fee award on three general theories. Defendants cross-appealed. They argue the trial court should have awarded all the fees they requested, not just a portion of those fees, because all of Plaintiffs’ claims were based on conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, no exceptions applied, and their request was reasonable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that it agreed with Defendants that their motion to strike was wholly meritorious and their fee request therefore should not have been reduced on the grounds that they would have prevailed only partially on their motion. The court disagreed with Plaintiffs that the trial court erred in the ways they claimed. The court explained that under Coltrain, Defendants prevailed because plaintiffs dismissed their suit and failed to show it was for reasons unrelated to lack of merit. Further, under Liu, Defendants were the prevailing party because their Anti-SLAPP motion was entirely meritorious. View "Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP" on Justia Law

A California court sentenced appellant Plaintiff to death. That same year, the California legislature codified a longstanding judicial rule guaranteeing the appointment of postconviction relief counsel to indigent prisoners who had been convicted and sentenced to death. Plaintiff requested the appointment of postconviction habeas counsel 26 years ago. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming that by failing to appoint counsel as promised and so preventing him from developing and prosecuting his state habeas corpus petition for over two decades, state officials are violating his procedural due process rights. He sought a declaration that state officials’ “failure to timely appoint counsel is in violation” of his due process rights. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Plaintiff has standing because he has adequately shown that the declaratory relief he seeks would redress his injuries. The panel agreed with the district court that abstention under O’Shea v. Littleton, as to Plaintiff’s individual request for declaratory relief, was not appropriate. The panel held that California is under no federal constitutional obligation to appoint postconviction counsel for all indigent capital prisoners. But Plaintiff stated a viable due process claim by alleging that he has been deprived of a valuable property interest for over a quarter century. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. However, the panel held that Plaintiff’s complaint, as presently drafted, did not plausibly allege that the state has failed to adequately protect his liberty interest in petitioning for habeas corpus. View "STEPHEN REDD V. PATRICIA GUERRERO, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and finding no error in her criminal trial, holding that the search for evidence in this case violated the Fourth Amendment and that remand was required.Defendant was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine, possession with intent o manufacture, sell, or deliver methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the search and subsequent seizure of contraband did not comport with the Fourth Amendment; and (2) remand was required for the trial court to determine if the evidence should be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Julius" on Justia Law

Appellant participated in the riot that took place on January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. The riot interrupted and delayed Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote that determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. A jury convicted Appellant of obstructing the vote certification in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2). On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he acted “corruptly,” as Section 1512(c)(2) requires. He also challenged his 87-month sentence, making new arguments on appeal that the district court erred in applying two specific offense characteristics for obstruction of the “administration of justice.”   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Robertson acted “corruptly,” and the district court did not plainly err in applying the specific offense characteristics. The court explained that the interpretations of “corruptly” posited by Appellant and the Fischer concurrence appear to confuse sufficiency with necessity: Their proposed definitions of “corruptly” may be sufficient to prove corrupt intent, but neither dishonesty nor seeking a benefit for oneself or another is necessary to demonstrate “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil” behavior within the meaning of Section 1512(c). The court wrote that it declined to adopt the limited constructions of “corruptly” proffered by Appellant and the Fischer concurrence, which each insist that the broad concept of “corrupt” intent must be proved in only one way. View "USA v. Thomas Robertson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting her of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia following a stipulated bench trial, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that Defendant consented to a search of her vehicle, in which certain illegal items were found, and that a subsequent search of Defendant's person occurred incident to a valid arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) probable cause existed to arrest Defendant, and the subsequent search of her person occurred incident to a valid arrest; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Charlie Harris appealed his life sentence and the trial court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. In 2001, Harris was convicted of depraved heart murder and sentenced to life without parole. His conviction and life-without-parole sentence were affirmed on appeal. The trial court did resentence Harris to life in prison: "It appears that Mr. Harris has been an exemplary prisoner while he was incarcerated. However, the sentence of the [trial] [c]ourt at the time was that of murder. At the time of his sentence, there was no differentiation between depraved heart murder and deliberate design murder. The appellate courts have already addressed this issue and it was not—the sentencing was not retroactive. This court will sentence the Defendant according to the law at the time that he went to trial and was originally sentenced and should be sentenced, in this Court’s estimation. The Defendant will be sentenced to a term of life in prison." In his amended motion for reconsideration, Harris argued his life sentence exceeded the current maximum sentence for a depraved heart murder conviction under the Louisiana legislature’s revisions to the murder statutes. Harris asked the trial court to set aside his life sentence and grant him a new sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the motion. Harris timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Harris v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Fieste was charged with threatening to assault and murder two federal judges, three former U.S. presidents, and the current President. She is currently incompetent to stand trial. Fieste's mental illness causes her to experience delusions. In custody, Fieste refused the antipsychotic medication that experts believe will restore her competence. The government obtained permission to involuntarily medicate her to render her competent to stand trial. The order was stayed pending appeal.The Seventh Circuit affirmed but remanded. Fieste’s pretrial detention is insufficient to overcome the government’s interest in prosecution although Fieste’s anticipated Guidelines range is 12-18 months and she will “likely face a sentence of time served” if convicted. The district court properly conducted a holistic assessment to conclude that the proposed treatment plan is substantially likely to render Fieste competent and that the side effects are substantially unlikely to significantly interfere with her ability to participate in the proceedings. The order permitted Fieste to be medicated with “long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication, along with other medications” suggesting impermissible flexibility to administer unspecified medications. The district court must provide a dosage range based on the expert’s recommendation or some other appropriate evidence, whether directly in its order or by incorporating a sufficiently detailed treatment plan. View "United States v. Fieste" on Justia Law