Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 5)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 5)
Appellate decisions from the week of April 19-24, 2021
“When the English Crown sentenced Sir Walter Raleigh to death for treason without allowing him to cross-examine the key witness against him, Lord Cobham, it sparked a public outcry. … This case presents a wrinkle on Raleigh’s trial. What if Raleigh had, in fact, been allowed to cross examine Cobham and uncover his motive to lie but—and here’s the catch—Raleigh was not allowed to reveal to the jury the portion of Cobham’s testimony disclosing that motive? Would that have been any less offensive to principles of justice than an outright denial of Raleigh’s right to cross-examine Cobham? To ask these questions is to answer them.” ~ Judge Bush, Miller v. Genovese
Below is a summary of last week’s significant federal appellate decisions:
Supreme Court of the United States
Jones v. Mississippi
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that, when sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole, a state trial court is not required to make a factual finding of permanent incorrigibility. The Court held, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan), that it was enough that the trial court had the discretion to impose a lesser sentence.
AMG Capital Management v. FTC
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission act does not permit the agency to seek restitution or disgorgement in an injunctive relief case it brings initially in federal court. If the FTC seeks monetary remedies, the Court held, it must bring the case through an administrative proceeding before an ALJ.
Carr v. Saul
The Court unanimously held that a plaintiff who asserts that an ALJ was appointed in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause need not exhaust her administrative remedies before asserting that claim in a district court.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Mayhew
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a Section 2255 petition, holding that the defendant may have been prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. In rejecting a plea offer, Mayhew had relied on his lawyer’s (incorrect) advice that, if he went to trial, he would only face two to five years imprisonment. He was sentenced to more than 26 years in prison.
Fifth Circuit
Estate of Jesse Aguirre v. City of San Antonio
In a case reminiscent of the recent George Floyd trial, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to officers who held Aguirre in a “hog tie” position (including by kneeling on his neck and back) until he stopped breathing. The Court noted the presence of guidance from multiple sources warning of the risks associated with such “maximal-restraint” techniques.
Sixth Circuit
Miller v. Genovese
The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of habeas corpus, holding that Tennessee state courts had unreasonably applied the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause cases. The state court had allowed the state prosecutor to read into evidence earlier testimony from a key witness, but excluded that witness’s admission that a key motivation for her testimony was a desire not to go back to jail.
Nian v. Warden
The Sixth Circuit again reversed a district court’s denial of habeas corpus, holding that Ohio courts violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by requiring that he provide bolstering evidence (beyond a juror’s testimony) that extrinsic evidence infected jury deliberations. Here, a juror claimed that another juror had introduced evidence of Nian’s national origin and criminal history into the deliberations.
United States v. Jackson
The First Step Act, which reduces the sentence associated with certain crimes, applies only to defendants on whom “a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of” December 21, 2018. The Sixth Circuit held that the Act doesn’t apply to defendants whose pre-December 2018 sentences are vacated (either on appeal or otherwise) after that date.
United States v. Stampe
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s refusal to (1) allow Stampe to withdraw her guilty plea or (2) conduct an ex parte review of the government’s file after the government was forced to dismiss charges against her co-defendant because of informant misconduct. Although Stampe had raised a non-speculative Brady claim, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court was entitled to rely on the government’s representation that the reason for dismissing the co-defendant charges would not have applied to Stampe.
Eighth Circuit
Ahumada v. United States
The Eighth Circuit rejected the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on appellate counsel’s failure to inform him of the deadline for applying for rehearing en banc. The Court explained that, because en banc rehearing (like a petition for certiorari) is discretionary, there is no constitutional right to counsel in pursuing rehearing — even though the Criminal Justice Act and court procedures would have provided counsel for the petition.
Ninth Circuit
United States v. Dat Quoc Do
The Assimilative Crimes Act allows the DOJ to “assimilate” certain state crimes into federal law in order to punish criminal acts in federal enclaves (e.g., Indian territory). But, the Ninth Circuit held, the government could not assimilate Oregon’s unlawful use of a weapon charge because there was already a federal crime covering the defendant’s conduct, namely the federal assault statute.
United States v. Olsen
The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss charges against Olsen under the Speedy Trial Act after Olsen’s case was continued due to COVID-19. The Court rejected the district court’s holding that an “ends of justice” continuance is only available where it is physically impossible to hold a trial.
Eleventh Circuit
Moore v. Intuitive Surgical
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a medical instrument product liability case. The Court held that the district court had erred in excluding Plaintiff’s expert because, even though the expert had not used the particular surgical instrument at issue, he had performed the procedure over four thousand times with other tools.
Of Interest
Interesting notes from last week’s decisions:
In United States v. Pendergrass (No. 19-13681), Judge Rosenbaum used an interesting chart to compare various eye witness descriptions, a strategy that might prove effective in trial or appellate briefs:
In an Advisory Opinion issued Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court struck a recreational marijuana initiative from the ballot, denying Florida residents the opportunity to vote on it. The majority held that the summary of the measure was misleading because, by saying marijuana use would be “permitted,” the description failed to make clear that marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law.
Any opinions expressed here are my own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.
If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email me at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
