In en banc news, the Ninth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause prevents Grants Pass, Oregon officials from ticketing people experiencing homelessness for, among other things, sleeping in public parks or in their cars.
Grants Pass, Ore. has more homeless residents than shelter beds, forcing some homeless to sleep in public spaces. Easy fix, says the town, we'll just make that illegal. Ninth Circuit: You can't ticket the involuntarily homeless just for being homeless.
Connecticut prisoner has an "intolerable" scalp condition consisting of painful scabs and oozing sores. Prison officials allegedly deny treatment for years. District court: there are no binding cases holding that a scalp condition is a serious medical need requiring treatment. Second Circuit: Qualified immunity is specific, but it's not that specific. The guy said his head felt like it was on fire. Reversed and remanded.
The case is Collymore v. Myers, Collymore v. Comm’r of D.O.C., No. 21-02292 (2d Cir. July 14, 2023).
If prosecutors don't turn over potentially exculpatory evidence and a person on death row finds out about it (by accident) years later, does that mean he gets a new trial? Well, explains the Fourth Circuit over the course of 102 pages, it depends.
The case is Juniper v. Davis, No. 21-00009 (4th Cir. July 19, 2023).
Kannapolis, N.C. police officer Jeremy Page catches drug dealer/informant selling crack but says he won't arrest drug dealer if he hands over any other drugs he has and does more to help the police. He agrees, hands over more drugs, and helps police find a fugitive. Officer then decides that's not enough, swears out arrest warrants, and more drugs are found during arrest. Is cop's non-arrest-for-cooperation deal enforceable?
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.