Motions

A woman convicted of murder in Maryland won a new trial after showing her lawyer was ineffective. But it proved a Pyrrhic victory: during her motion for a new trial, the court made her hand over privileged files and let the same prosecutors "scour" them. At the retrial, the state leaned heavily on information and new evidence revealed in those attorney-client privileged files, and she declined to testify because the court left open whether her prior testimony could be used to impeach her.

Lawyers and law enforcement experts have been warning about the potential for overreach since the federal government muscled its way into policing decisions in the nation's capital nearly three weeks ago. See full NPR article. 

Inside the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Monday, those tensions broke into open court.

In Indiana, a "buffer" law makes it illegal to approach within 25 feet of a police officer who has ordered you to stop approaching. District court: preliminarily enjoined as vague. Seventh Circuit: Totally agree. The law gives officers unfettered discretion to arbitrarily issue do-not-approach orders and then start making arrests.

Prosecutorial immunity is notoriously hard to overcome—so we're ecstatic to report that a Michigan appeals court ruled that Wayne County prosecutor Dennis M. Doherty is not entitled to immunity and must face a lawsuit for filing baseless felony charges against Robert Reeves—all because Reeves had the nerve to challenge the county’s civil forfeiture practices.

Oklahoma City police detain driver whose passenger is wanted for failing to appear in court. The passenger is arrested—but then officers hang around for another ten minutes, until a drug-sniffing dog finally shows up, takes a lap around the car, and alerts. Driver: Sniff happens but this delay was unjustified. Suppress the evidence? District court: No (and sentences him to 84 months in prison). Tenth Circuit: Yes (and vacates the sentence and conviction).

New Orleans judge Paul Bonin tells pretrial criminal defendants to pay up to $300/month to a private, for-profit ankle-monitoring company or stay in jail. Judge does not tell defendants that the company is owned by his former law partner, who regularly donated to the judge's judicial campaigns (including an unpaid loan). Judge also does not tell defendants that other companies are available. Judge does, however, threaten jailing at the company's behest solely for failure to pay.

A man freely chats with cops about his involvement in a riverside gunfight, admitting that he fired shots during the attack. Two years later, at trial, he claims that his participation was under duress; the prosecutor reminds the jury that this defense is a "brand-new story" told for the first time at trial. The man is convicted. Tenth Circuit: And that's a Doyle violation.

A Schrödinger’s motion that has vexed habeas practitioners: How long must a case gather dust in state court before I can seek federal habeas? Well, an Indiana man convicted of murder files a petition for post-conviction relief in state court, which proceeds to do absolutely nothing with the case for six years. Yikes! Indiana: Apologize for case languishing? No. It was the man's fault! And it was the pandemic! And it was a complicated case!

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Case v. Montana, No. 24-625 (June 2, 2025) (cert. granted), to decide “whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.”  

Navy investigators get a warrant to seize—and only seize—a sailor's phone. They search it anyway and find the bad things, but the district court suppresses the evidence. On appeal, the prosecution pleads "good faith" reliance on a defective warrant. Fourth Circuit: The warrant wasn't defective. You just didn't follow it. The good faith exception "is not a panacea that can save the Government when all remaining facts and law fail." Bugger off. Dismissal affirmed.