Appeals

Two intellectually disabled black teenage brothers are wrongly convicted of raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl and spend nearly 31 years in prison. They sued to get pardons and compensation (in one case securing a $75 mil jury verdict, which was largely upheld by the Fourth Circuit last month.) But then they find themselves as defendants again—this time in a suit filed by one of their former law firms, which says they owe it money. District court: But wait, the N.C.

Oklahoma prison classifies inmate as a member or associate of the Sureños prison gang, which has primarily Hispanic membership. As a result, he's placed with the gang in administrative segregation. Inmate: My name is Ong and I am a member of the Hmong people of Southeast Asia. So, can I be moved back to my normal cell now, because these people are trying to stab me? Prison: Well, no. For now you stay, because we found your name on a list of gang associates that we will not show you.

In September 2002, Yemeni man suspected of assisting al Qaeda "traveled to Cairo, Egypt on business and disappeared. He arrived at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay two years later." He tries to file a writ of habeas corpus. Gov't: Habeas isn't a thing if you're at Guantanamo Bay. Supreme Court (in a different detainee's case, 2008): Oh yes it is. District court (2008-2019): You lose anyway. Man: That took kind of a really long time. Along the way a bunch of stuff violated due process. En banc D.C.

Virginia couple facing trial for drug-related crimes in the fall of 2021 were not vaccinated against COVID-19 due to their sincerely held beliefs. The district court, over the defense's objection, struck all unvaccinated prospective jurors. Did that violate the Sixth Amendment's requirement that a jury be composed of a fair cross section of the community? Fourth Circuit: No. No, it did not.

The cases are U.S. v. Jose Cruz Colon, No. 22-4187, and U.S. v. Nastassja Lopez-Alvarado, No. 22-4192 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).

One power of a magistrate judge is to conduct evidentiary hearings and submit a report to an Article III judge recommending how to rule on a motion to suppress. If a party disagrees with the magistrate's report and recommendation, the district court judge is to conduct de novo review. Does 4½ pages of boilerplate repeated in dozens of cases count as de novo review? Ninth Circuit: Sure does. Dissent: I don't think so.

Jan. 6 rioters challenge their indictment for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to "corruptly . . . obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding." District court: Agreed. Indictment dismissed because 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) is all about destroying evidence, so (c)(2) can't extend to hitting Capitol police officers. D.C. Circuit: Yes, it can. Concurrence: It can, but only if we adopt a narrow interpretation of "corruptly"; otherwise, the law is breathtakingly broad.

Cleveland, Ohio man is sentenced in 1991 for a murder he claims he didn't commit. In 2016, the Ohio Innocence Project takes an interest in his case and files multiple public-records requests for case documents. Assistant prosecutor Barbara Rhodes Marburger turns over a heavily redacted file. Several months later, the city of Cleveland produces the unredacted file. Guess what the prosecutor redacted: a bunch of "significant exculpatory evidence" that was never revealed to the man's defense attorneys! He is released after 27 years in prison and sues the prosecutor.

If you're charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm but you don't know you're a felon, are you really a felon in possession of a firearm? Fourth Circuit: Nope, not according to the Supreme Court. That means our friend the accused should get his day in court—oh, but he still has to show prejudice (or actual innocence) to win if he procedurally defaulted (even if the gov't forgot to bring up that little detail). Concurrence: Eh, mostly agree.

After his indictment on drug conspiracy charges, man's arrest warrant mysteriously vanishes from the FBI's database. Human error? A technical glitch? Divine intervention? Eighth Circuit: Shrugs. We'll never know. But what we do know is his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated by the eight-month delay that resulted because man did not show any particularized prejudice. Conviction affirmed.

Via the Seventh Circuit: In which the defendant's connection to Jared Fogle isn't even close to the fascinating part of the story, which for now results in a remand to determine whether Indiana State Police altered a search warrant to add "bestiality" before or after the judge signed it.