Remember that "it depends" about prosecutors not turning over potentially exculpatory evidence from the Fourth Circuit? Well, that also applies for evidence useful for impeaching government witnesses.
After Illinois man withdraws a plea that exposed him to a likely 35-year sentence for, among other things, distributing heroin, the government returns a superseding indictment including additional charges that expose him to a likely 60-year sentence. He goes to trial, is convicted, and is sentenced to 65 years' imprisonment. But wait! Three weeks after the trial, it comes to light that the man's defense lawyer is addicted to heroin and has struggled with substance abuse for quite some time.
A black man charged in a drug case appears before a white Detroit federal judge. Judge, frustrated with the many delays in the case, declared: “This guy looks like a criminal to me.” Black man: not cool. White judge two years later: I was mad at the time, “I regret it,” and "just because I got mad does not mean I'm biased." Imposes 10 ½ years imprisonment. Prosecutor: Judge's remark was a reference to the crime, not the man's appearance. Sixth Circuit: Whatever.
Delaware physician is convicted on 13 counts of unlawfully dispensing opioids. At sentencing, the gov't puts forward a medical expert who reviewed files for 24 of the 1,142 patients to whom the good doctor had prescribed controlled substances in the last two years, concluding that prescriptions for 18 of the patients were illegal. Extrapolating from the sample, prosecutors argued he should be sentenced based on a drug weight of 106,000 kilos. The doctor argues for 7,500 kilos and the court settles on 30,000 kilos, sentencing the doctor to 20 years in prison. Yikes!
Two brothers are convicted of Metairie, La. murder—one (Jarrell) is sentenced to death, and one (Zannie) gets life in prison. Their convictions are primarily based on their uncle's testimony, who said that he remained in a car while his two nephews went into a house, Jarrell fired a rifle, and then they both returned to the car. Meanwhile, an eyewitness testified that the shooter looked like the uncle, not Jarrell.
In en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will reconsider its decision that hitching a ride across the border in a car with 283 pounds of marijuana is not necessarily possessing marijuana.
The case is United States v. Campos-Ayala, No. 21-50642.
Fifth Circuit: A quarter of all Louisiana inmates are held past their release dates—"for a collective total of 3,000-plus years." Yikes! And it's "[c]lear as day" that the gov't can't keep someone in prison without legal authority, so no qualified immunity for the prison supervisors who were deliberately indifferent to this plaintiff's wrongful 60-day overdetention.
The case is Ellis Ray Hicks v. James LeBlanc, No. 22-30184 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2023).
Missouri man is stopped by police officer for walking on the wrong side of the road, gets into an argument with cop after he refuses to give his name, and is arrested. Cop knowing this is totally wrong then scrambles to find a reason to justify the arrest, telling colleagues that the man "ran his mouth off," fabricating new allegations, and asking, "What can I charge him with?" Man sues, alleging arrest was retaliation for First Amendment-protected speech.
Woman is a spectator in back row of Tiffin, Ohio municipal courtroom to watch a proceeding involving her boyfriend. Out of the blue, the judge orders her to take a drug test; when she politely refuses, the judge throws her in jail for 10 days or until she takes the drug test. The judge is later disbarred and removed from the bench for a year because of this misconduct. (Rest assured, Mark Repp runs for the same seat!
Pro-tip to the defense bar, courtesy of the Third Circuit: If a witness to a gun fight suggests that your client shot in self-defense, and then the judge pressures the witness to testify that your client shot first, you really, really need to object and cross-examine the witness about the changed testimony. Especially when the remaining evidence against him was “negligible.” This is ineffective assistance of counsel. Reversed.