Appeals

Avery County, N.C. man registers as a sex offender and communicates regularly with the sheriff to make sure he's complying with registration requirements. Yet, a deputy swears out a warrant and has him arrested—including for the totally made-up crime of leaving the state for 30 days—even though he was following the sheriff's instructions. Yikes! Charges are dropped, and man sues for Fourth Amendment violations. Officers: We got a warrant though. Fourth Circuit: Whatever.

"For those who worry that qualified immunity can be invoked under absurd circumstances: Buckle up." From that opening line, you can correctly predict the Fifth Circuit is disgusted by these Houston police officers who arrested a Good Samaritan while letting a dangerous drunk driver go, and then "[p]iling insanity on irrationality," submitted a wildly misleading affidavit to kick off a baseless prosecution. Seriously!

If you lend your car to a family member or friend who is stopped and arrested for drug charges while driving your car in Alabama, state law permits seizure of a car “incident to an arrest” so long as the state then “promptly” initiates a forfeiture case.

Yesterday, in United States v. Duarte, No. 22-50048 (9th Cir. May 9, 2024), a split panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that  under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. The opinion, written by Judge Bea and joined by Judge VanDyke, begins:

Wisconsin man is convicted of murder in 1996 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Contrary to his instructions, his lawyer fails to file his appeal. Yikes! He spends the next two decades trying to get the state courts to let him get his appeal. In 2016, they finally give him the thumbs-up. Huzzah! To appeal, he needs a transcript of his trial. Which he tried to get in 1997 but couldn't because he lacked the money. And the court reporter's notes have since been destroyed. Yikes again! State trial court: Given the absence of a transcript, it's only fair he gets a new trial. Huzzah!

Is a South Carolina law that prohibits conducting oneself "in a disorderly or boisterous manner" unconstitutionally vague as applied to school children? Given that the state refers hundreds of them for prosecution each year, it sure seems to matter.

Florida man: requiring registration and reporting after completing my sentence of probation on a charge of lewd or lascivious conduct constitutes illegal custody. Files habeas. To seek a writ of habeas corpus, one must be "in custody," and that doesn't necessarily mean "physical custody" (per SCOTUS in 1963). Eleventh Circuit: Nevertheless, individuals subject to Florida's lifetime registration and reporting requirements for sex offenders are not in custody.

Seventeen-and-a-half-year-old girl, a member of the Choctaw nation, allegedly plans the murder of her abusive and neglectful parents by two underage friends. The government charges her with two counts of first-degree murder, crimes for which the mandated punishments—death or life without parole—are unconstitutional as applied to minors. Girl: the transfer of her case from juvenile court is unconstitutional. Tenth Circuit: Maybe.

Alleged gang member is convicted of witness retaliation and sentenced to three years in prison after attacking a former member of his gang on the street in the Bronx. At trial, man asks court to explore potential gang bias during jury selection. Trial court: no, it would be “improper,” and will only ask general questions, never mentioning gangs. Second Circuit: no. New trial. The defense was not allowed to sufficiently screen for anti-gang bias among the jurors. "[D]istrict judges are afforded broad discretion in conducting voir dire.

One of the macabre facet of Eighth Amendment death penalty litigation is that a person on death row challenging their method of execution must propose an alternative.